Category: Opinion

  • David Cameron has confirmed the UK government will not suspend arms exports to Israel, despite its targeted killing of seven international humanitarian aid workers in Gaza last week.

    The Zionist Cameron claims that he has “reviewed” the legal advice and arms export licenses to the violent and oppressive apartheid state of Israel remain “unchanged”, in line with other “like-minded countries”.

    These like-minded allies of Britain include Germany, who claim to have learned the lessons of the 20th century, by enabling a genocide against Palestinian children in the 21st century. In reality, Germany, you have learned less than fuck all.

    Deutsche bomben töten Palästinensische Kinder. Fordern Sie, dass Ihre Regierung aufhört, kinder zu töten.

    And of course, this also includes our like-minded friends the United States of America – a country that has invaded 68 other nations in its history – under the leadership of Genocide Joe.

    If Germany, Britain, and the US are supposed to be the world’s moral compasses, is it any surprise to see that we are completely and utterly lost, somewhere between catastrophe and despair?

    “Let me clear”, says Cameron; as transparent as Israel’s apartheid wall

    Cameron has been around long enough to know that the public will expect their elected representatives to be able to access this remarkably questionable legal advice. However, unsurprisingly Lord Cameron of Tel Aviv – a man that made a career out of avoiding purposeful scrutiny – is refusing to allow its publication.

    When David Cameron steps up the podium and says the words “let me be clear”, you can guarantee whatever nonsensical bullshit that follows will have a similar degree of transparency to the apartheid wall that runs through the West Bank.

    “Let me be clear, though, we continue to have grave concerns around the humanitarian access issue in Gaza, both for the period that was assessed and subsequently”, said Cameron, prior to stopping off for dinner with Donald Trump at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

    Six long months of utterly brutal Western carnage, heaped upon some of the poorest people on the planet that only have their holy Quran to recite in defiance of the Zionist occupiers and their state-of-the-art weaponry, and all Cameron has to offer is “grave concerns”?

    “Grave concerns” is the understatement of the century

    I have grave concerns that the engine management light on my fourteen-year-old car is going to come on whenever I get in the smelly old thing.

    I have grave concerns when I’m trying to work out how to pay x, y, and z and the budget only stretches to x and a bit of y on a good week.

    In case you haven’t noticed, Dave, there is a genocide happening right now, and possibly the first genocide in history that was announced before it had even been implemented, and eventually live-streamed to a horrified global audience.

    Grave concerns? The ham-faced bastard Cameron doesn’t care about Gaza. Ask him about sending further arms to Ukraine and his eyes light up, but if you ask him to apply the same standards of acceptable and legal resistance against an occupying force in Palestine, he is unable to do so because the Zionists have also occupied Westminster.

    The BBC steps in to prop up the colonialism

    I will be the first to admit, I had no idea who the sons and grandchildren of the head of Hamas’ political bureau, Ismail Haniyyah are, or in their case were, following their killings in an Israeli strike on the first day of Eid, this past week.

    The BBC, the enduring voice of British colonialism around the globe, even put the story at the top of its news agenda because it gave the broadcaster another opportunity to portray legitimate resistance as Islamic terrorism.

    The BBC wilfully fuels most Israeli narratives as standard. Any semblance of balance is lost when Britain’s biggest and oldest broadcaster propagates the flawed and often laughable evidence Israel and its narcissistic, pathological liars put forward.

    However, let’s turn this around for a moment.

    If the shoe was on the other foot

    What if Benjamin Netanyahu’s children and grandchildren were killed by Al Qassam fighters? The West – morally playing second fiddle to an organised and effective Global South – would absolutely lose its collective shit.

    Netanyahu’s coward of a son – described as the “lazy bum son” by Haaretz journalist Uri Misgav – is living an opulent lifestyle in Miami, some 7,000 miles from Daddy’s genocide.

    Yair Netanyahu, 32, lounges around in a $5,000-a-month Florida high-rise protected by Israeli Shin Bet bodyguards, despite being eligible to serve as an IDF reservist until he is 40.

    But what if the little red triangle caught up with Netanyahu Junior? How would our corrupt, bought and paid for politicians react? And will somebody please think of the Daily Mail?

    The myth of superior Western humanity has been utterly destroyed. The double standards of Western hypocrisy have been well and truly exposed. A genocide has happened on our watch, approved and aided by your government and their loyal opposition.

    Israel’s genocide is a war on humanity

    Some 85% of Hamas fighters are believed to be orphans. Israel will not “destroy” Hamas because Israel cannot defeat an ideology.

    This perpetual cycle of violence cannot and will not end until Israel is forced to stop killing children for fun. Then the occupation must come to an end because this is the only means of achieving a just and lasting peace.

    Each time I see a new video clip appear from the very little that is left of Khan Younis, or the devastated Al-Shifa medical complex where Palestinian rescuers are still recovering the body parts of their loved ones, it is impossible not to sense Israel’s palpable desire to wreak havoc against an entire population.

    This isn’t just a war on Gaza, or just a war on the children of Gaza. This is a war on humanity. And your government – as well as the would-be prime minister and his pro-Israel lobby funded shadow cabinet – must never be forgiven for its reprehensible complicity.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • This week the two biggest TV broadcasters in Aotearoa New Zealand confirmed plans to cut news programmes by midyear – and the jobs of a significant proportion of this country’s journalists.

    Many observers said this had been coming but few seemed to have a plan for it, including the government. 

    Mediawatch looks at what viewers will lose, efforts to resist the cuts and talks to the news chief at Newshub which is set to close completely.

    By Colin Peacock, RNZ Mediawatch presenter

    On the AM show last Wednesday, newsreader Nicky Styris suffered a frog in the throat at the wrong time.

    Host Melissa Chan Green took over her bulletin while Styris quickly recovered. Minutes later Styris had to take the place of no-show panel guest Paula Bennett.

    Just before that, viewers saw co-host Lloyd Burr on his knees fixing the studio flat-pack furniture with a drill.

    Three hours later they were at an all-staff meeting at which executives from offshore owner Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) confirmed the complete closure of Newshub by midyear.

    On TVNZ’s Midday news soon after, reporter Kim Baker-Wilson was live from the scene of the announcement of Newshub’s demise.

    The previous day the roles were reversed, with Newshub’s Simon Shepherd outside TVNZ’s building reporting TVNZ’s Midday had been scrapped, along with the late news Tonight and Fair Go. 

    On Wednesday TVNZ also confirmed flagship current affairs show Sunday will cease next month.

    So as things stand, it’s the end of the line for all news bulletins on TVNZ other than 1 News at 6, though the news-like shows Breakfast and Seven Sharp survive because they accommodate lucrative sponsored content (“activations” in the ad business) as well as ads.

    And TV channel Three will be entirely news-free for the first time in its 35-year history.

    Senior journalists led by investigations editor Michael Morrah presented a proposal for a stripped-back and shortened news bulletin to keep the Newshub name alive (and some jobs) but while WBD took it seriously, it eventually turned the idea down.

    Another media player to fill the Newshub void?
    There have been rumours and reports that other media companies were talking to WBD about filling the Newshub at 6 news void.

    Initially light-on-detail reports of lifelines suggested a possible sale of Newshub to another media company. Then there were reports of other media companies pitching to make news for WBD on a much-reduced budget.

    Among the names mentioned in media despatches was NZME, which has radio and video studios and journalists around the country, though most of them are north of Taupo.

    NZME told Stuff “it was not currently part of the process”.

    The Herald’s Media Insider column reported on Tuesday that Newshub was “set to receive a lifeline” and understood Stuff was “among the leading contenders.”

    However when Stuff itself reported on Wednesday that Stuff was “understood to be a likely contender,” a spokesperson for Stuff declined to comment to Stuff’s reporter on whether Stuff had been in talks with WBD — or not.

    RNZ said it wasn’t in the frame for this. (It recently killed off the video version of its only daily news show with pictures, Checkpoint).

    Sky TV has production facilities galore and its free-to-air TV channel Sky Open currently runs a Newshub-made news bulletin at 5:30 each weekday. Sky has only said it was an “interesting idea” — or words to that effect.

    “At this point there is no deal,” WBD local boss Glen Kyne told reporters after confirming the closure of Newshub on Wednesday.

    Kyne also said the company’s “door has been open to all internal and external feedback and ideas, and we will continue to be”.

    But anyone opening that door clearly isn’t willing to do it in daylight — or  tell the rest of the media about it.

    Lifelines likely?

    Investigations editor Michael Morrah
    Senior journalists led by investigations editor Michael Morrah presented a proposal for a stripped-back and shortened news bulletin to keep the Newshub name alive. Image: RNZ/Marika Khabazi

    If there is to be any kind of “Newshub-lite” lifeline, a key question is: what is WBD prepared to pay for the programme?

    Presumably not much, given that they said they had no choice but to carve the cost of Newshub — amounting to tens of millions a year — from its bottom line in line with its reducing revenue.

    So is it worth any major media company’s while to commit to making news in video for another outlet? And it would have to be done in a hurry because the last Newshub bulletins screen on July 5.

    When Newshub’s owners first announced they wanted to get rid of it in late February, its former chief editor Hal Crawford told Mediawatch the problem with finding a buyer was that minimum viable cost for a credible TV news operation was greater than anyone here was prepared to spend.

    Longtime TV3 news boss Mark Jennings (now co-editor of Newsroom) said any substitute service on the fraction of the current budget would have another problem — TVNZ’s 1 News.

    “You’re up against a sophisticated TVNZ product so viewers will have an immediate comparison. Probably that won’t be favorable for Warner Brothers,” he told RNZ.

    TVNZ has its own news production problems after the cuts they confirmed this week.

    “We’re proposing to establish a new long-form team within our news operation, which would continue to bring important current affairs and consumer affairs stories to Aotearoa in a different way on our digital platforms.”

    TVNZ declined Mediawatch‘s request to speak to TVNZ’s news chief Phil O’Sullivan about that at this time.

    Newshub’s news boss responds

    Newshub interim senior director of news Richard Sutherland & Newshub strategic projects director Darryn Fouhy leaving the Auckland Newshub office.
    Newshub news boss Richard Sutherland . . . “The so-called legacy news operations have almost done too good a job of keeping the lights on and papering over the cracks.” Image: RNZ/Marika Khabazi

    One who did though is Newshub news boss Richard Sutherland — appointed as interim senior director of news at Newshub in January.

    It was his second spell at Newshub, during a career in broadcast news spanning four decades at almost every significant national news outlet in the country, including RNZ, where he stepped down as head of news a year ago.

    In that time he’s experienced many a financial crisis in the business — but did he see this one coming?

    “The last couple of weeks has been coming for quite some time. I think that the so-called legacy news operations have almost done too good a job of keeping the lights on and papering over the cracks. And we just got to a point [the industry] couldn’t paper over the cracks any longer.

    “But when you look at audience behaviour and the fall off and revenue, particularly in the advertising market, then that doesn’t surprise me that we’ve got to where we’ve got to.”

    But if the audience was big, the ad revenue would be too?

    “It’s certainly by no means as big as it once was simply because people have other options available to them. The cliche is that you’re not in a war with the other media, but in a war for people’s attention.”

    “It’s not so much the audience has changed so much as the dynamics of the advertising market that has really changed over the last sort of 10 to 15 years. The digital advertising — and the big two main players in that space, Facebook and Google — are eating everybody’s lunch.”

    TV ad income on the slide
    Annual advertising stats that came out this very week show media in 2023 attracted $3.36 billion across the whole of the media industry — about the same as in 2022.

    But TV advertising revenue of $517 million in 2022 slumped to $443 million last year.

    “That’s why what the TV industry has found is that can’t cut its costs fast enough to meet the falloff in the advertising income,” Sutherland told Mediawatch. 

    Digital-only ad revenue rose by $88 million in 2023 — but it’s Google and Facebook which secures the vast bulk of that.

    But if this has been coming for a number of years, as Sutherland says, has there been enough planning for it?

    After the closure of Newshub was mooted by its owner last month, seven of Sutherland’s colleagues led by investigations editor Michael Morrah put together a transition plan to keep Newshub on air in a few days.

    Shouldn’t this sort of transition planning have been done at high levels over recent years right across the television business?

    “Every media company that I’ve worked for or have observed over the last few years has been trying to innovate and get to a more sustainable level. The revenue was just collapsing far faster than anyone ever anticipated.”

    “It annoys me when I hear people say older media haven’t innovated enough. We’ve done a lot of innovation. That’s pretty lazy politics to just say: ‘You need to innovate.’

    “It’s also lazy politics to say, the government should just come in and bail everyone out. New Zealand Incorporated needs to have a big conversation about what it wants to do with the media and how it wants to fund it.

    “For the past few years the industry has been like so many rats in a sack, fighting with each chasing a smaller and smaller amount of ad dollars. We need to get together and work out how we get ourselves collectively out of the sack,” Sutherland told Mediawatch.

    Shortly before TVNZ and Newshub announced their cuts, there was a meeting of chief executives including Newshub’s owners Warner Bros Discovery to discuss a shared new service. TVNZ rejected the idea.

    “But a lot has changed in the last couple of months. And I would like to think that eventually we’ll get to a point where we can actually have honest and productive conversations about what we can do to help each other as well as maintaining a degree of competition, but also realising that if we just keep fighting with each other, we’re not going to have a sustainable industry,” Sutherland said.

    Would Sutherland want to work for a low-budget alternative to Newshub stave off the complete closure? And would Kiwis want such a service?

    “There is a segment of the audience that appreciates a very highly produced, well-curated news bulletin every night. And there’s large numbers of people who no longer see that as part of their media diet.

    “The trick is to provide options so that people can get what they want when they want it.

    “It’s not really for me to say what a possible replacement for Newshub might look like. I’m well away from those negotiations.

    “If we reach a stage where the media scene here withers away to nothing, there’ll be no-one to tell the stories. The media uncovers a lot of shady stuff in this country.

    “And the fear of media coverage prevents people in positions of power and authority at all levels doing a lot of shady stuff. So it is important to document the ructions of the New Zealand media scene just like we do in other parts of the country.”

    Minister in a corner

    National MP Melissa Lee
    Broadcasting and Media Minister Melissa Lee . . . “If only I was a magician, if I could actually just snap up a solution, that would be fantastic.” Image: RNZ / Angus Dreaver

    The day the axe fell at Newshub and at TVNZ, New Zealand’s screen producers’ guild Spada said “while the newsroom cuts have dominated media coverage to date, it is actually the whole production sector being impacted”.

    “While TVNZ and Three aren’t giving definitive numbers at this time, Spada has calculated that we are looking at around $50 million coming out of our sector,” said president Irene Gardiner.

    Spada is also asking the government to exempt screen funding agencies from the percent public spending cuts and to force the international streaming platform to support local production.

    Spada called for” swift and decisive action” from the government on this.

    Should they be holding their breath?

    When confronted by reporters for a response to the current TV news crisis, Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee said: “If only I was a magician, if I could actually just snap up a solution, that would be fantastic.

    “But I’m not a magician, and I’m trying to find a solution to modernise the industry . . .  there is a process happening.”

    But the media are not expecting magic — just a plan rather than assertions of a process with no timeline.

    She has repeatedly said she’s preparing policy in a paper to take to cabinet, but refused to give any details.

    On RNZ’s Checkpoint, persistent and pointed questions from Lisa Owen yielded few further clues.

    Newstalk ZB Drive host Heather du Plessis-Allan told Melissa Lee she was being “weird and shady” and the next morning ZB’s Mike Hosking told her she was using “buzzwords that don’t mean anything” and was doomed to fail.

    Stuff’s Tova O’Brien reported that the need to consult coalition allies on policy means it can’t be progressed until after Winston Peters returns from overseas at the end of the month.

    The under-wraps media policy is also not in the government’s recently-released quarterly action plan.

    Meanwhile this week, our two biggest TV news broadcasters ran out of time.

    Ex-minister leading resistance to cuts

    E tū union negotiator Michael Wood
    E tū union negotiator Michael Wood . . . “There is a bit of a delicate dance which has to happen when media companies themselves are making these decisions. And media need to report on that.” Image: RNZ

    After his unenlightening on-air interview with minister Melissa Lee on Thursday morning, Mike Hosking’s ZB listeners told him she reminded them of ministers in the last government.

    Coincidentally, one of them was also one of few people who did speak out about the crisis while it was unfolding.

    Michael Wood represented TVNZ journalists from the E tū union as its negotiations specialist.

    E tū  is now taking legal action against TVNZ, claiming it failed to abide by the conditions of their employment agreement.

    Could that reverse or wind back any of the cuts TVNZ has announced?

    “That does remain to be seen. The collective agreement has very clear processes around what should happen if TVNZ wants to move forward and make changes. It requires [staff members] to be involved throughout the process, and for the company to try and reach agreement with them. Our very strong view is that that hasn’t happened.”

    “Staff have said: ‘Look, five years ago, we came to you and said we want to do these things with our shows to make sure they have a sustainable future to make sure that they have a strong online platform.’ And [TVNZ] frankly has not demonstrated strategy and leadership around those things.”

    “These are still shows that are very, very popular. Canceling them will reduce costs, but based on TVNZ’s own information that they’ve provided, it will reduce revenue by more.”

    It’s been difficult to get any media company executives or even journalists at the two companies affected by these cuts to talk about them, even off-the-record.

    Wood is one of the few people who has spoken frankly to broadcasters’ executives, albeit confidentially behind closed doors.

    “There is a bit of a delicate dance which has to happen when media companies themselves are making these decisions. And media need to report on that.

    “So I have some sympathy, but these aren’t just individual employment issues. This is a public policy issue . . .  about whether we have a functioning and vibrant Fourth Estate.”

    Wood was until last year a minister in the Labour government which could have averted the TVNZ cuts.

    It spent more than $16 million planning a new public media entity to replace TVNZ and RNZ with a not-for-profit public media entity — but then scrapped it weeks before it was due to begin.

    “You’ve just identified one of the core things that we’ve got to deal with. TVNZ, in terms of its statutory form, is neither one thing nor the other. It has a commercial imperative and it also has some other obligations in terms of public good.

    “News and current affairs should be at the heart of that — and that is something that we should be much clearer about.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    This rejected “heartfelt” letter sent to The Press this week criticising its April 6 editorial about a “turning point” in the deadly war on Gaza by Earthwise co-presenter Lois Griffiths is republished here in the public interest.

    Dear editor,

    Historian Howard Zinn stressed the importance of historical background if one wants to understand today’s world. The past cannot be changed. But learning about the past makes it easier to understand the present and how to strive for a better future.

    Every Gaza war article, including the [6 April 2024] Press editorial “A turning Point in Gaza”, begins with Hamas attacking Israel last October and then Israel retaliating. No historical background is needed.

    Yet UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that “October 07 did not happen in a vacuum”.

    Maybe, just maybe, he reads history. Maybe he is thinking of the Nakba of 1948, the regular Israel bombing campaigns with names like “Operation Cast Lead”.

    If Israel has the right to retaliate, maybe Palestinians do too?

    The same Press article refers to “Western media and its consumers” not being able to identify with “faceless, nameless Palestinians” .

    Palestinians aren’t “faceless or nameless”. I’ve read about and seen pictures of some of the Palestinian journalists targeted. Refaat Alareer, a well-loved Gazan academic, writer, and story-teller, was targeted.

    Our commitment to humanity challenges us to follow Howard Zinn’s advice and believe that another, kinder, world is possible.

    Quoting Bethlehem Lutheran Pastor Munther Isaac, “Gaza today has become the moral compass of the world.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A Washington Post columnist, Catherine Rampell, headlined on April 5, “The Great Medicaid Purge was even worse than expected” and reported:

    It’s a tale of two countries: In some states, public officials are trying to make government work for their constituents. In others, they aren’t.

    This week marks one year since the Great Medicaid Purge (a.k.a. the “unwinding”) began. Early during the pandemic, in exchange for additional funds, Congress temporarily prohibited states from kicking anyone off Medicaid. But as of April 1, 2023, states were allowed to start disenrolling people.

    Some did so immediately. So far, at least 19.6 million people have lost Medicaid coverage. That’s higher than the initial forecast, 15 million, even though the process hasn’t yet finished.

    Some enrollees were kicked off because they were evaluated and found to be no longer eligible for the public health insurance program — maybe because (happily!) their incomes rose, or because they aged out of a program. But as data from KFF shows, the vast majority, nearly 70 percent, lost coverage because of paperwork issues. …

    These “paperwork issues” were added by self-alleged conservatives, or Republicans, in order to reduce the number of beneficiaries, supposedly in order to protect taxpayers against “waste, fraud or abuse,” by poor people, against taxpayers. Wikipedia’s article on Medicaid says:

    Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with low income in the United States, providing free health insurance to 85 million low-income and disabled people as of 2022;[3] in 2019, the program paid for half of all U.S. births.[4] As of 2017, the total annual cost of Medicaid was just over $600 billion, of which the federal government contributed $375 billion and states an additional $230 billion.[4] States are not required to participate in the program, although all have since 1982. In general, Medicaid recipients must be U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens, and may include low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities.[5] As of 2022 45% of those receiving Medicaid or CHIP were children.[3]

    Medicaid also covers long-term services and supports, including both nursing home care and home- and community-based services, for those with low incomes and minimal assets; the exact qualifications vary by state. Medicaid spent $215 billion on such care in 2020, over half of the total $402 billion spent on such services.[6] Of the 7.7 million Americans who used long-term services and supports in 2020, about 5.6 million were covered by Medicaid, including 1.6 million of the 1.9 million in institutional settings.[7]

    Medicaid covers healthcare costs for people with low incomes, while Medicare is a universal program providing health coverage for the elderly.

    Medicaid is means-tested (it’s for only poor people), whereas Medicare is not. President Lyndon Baines Johnson introduced Medicaid in 1965, and Medicare in 1966. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had introduced the federal taxation-based trust-funded Social Security retirement program in 1935; and both of those Presidents were Democrats, which used to be the Party that had some ideological commitment to workers, whereas the Republican Party, ever since a Confederate’s (pro-slavery) bullet assassinated the first (and the only progressive, or pro-democratic) Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, in 1865, has been, and is, committed only to investors, which is to say, only to the class of only rich individuals, the owners of businesses — managers instead of workers and consumers.

    There are just two basic philosophies of government: either it is democratic, meaning one-person-one-vote rule (rule equally by all residents), or else it is aristocratic (rule unequally by residents on the basis of each person’s wealth), meaning one-dollar-one-vote rule (which is the way that a corporation is run: the more shares a person owns, the more of a say in managing it the individual willl have). The Democratic Party used to believe in democracy (government rule as being a right that each resident has equally), and the Republican Party after Lincoln was shot has always believed in aristocracy (government rule as a privilege that only certain residents have, they generally being the rich ones, but also sometimes only Christians). Consequently, the Democratic Party was “populist,” and the Republican Party was “elitist.” (Republicans — after Lincoln — were the Party of “business,” meaning of the owners of corporations.)

    In America, as in all countries, there is also race as a political factor, and it’s traditionally categorized as being based upon either nationality or else religion of a person’s ancestors, or else (for instantaneous categorization) the individual’s appearance marks one’s ‘race’. But, whatever a ‘race’ is, racism or support for race being considered as a qualification for receiving a benefit from government or else as being a qualification for exclusion from receiving that benefit, can be supported both by populists and by elitists.

    However, whereas racism is intrinsic to aristocracy, it is not intrinsic to democracy. Aristocracy believes in hereditary right, such as to pass wealth on to one’s children, whereas democracy rejects that and can survive only where intergenerational transmission of privately acquired wealth is by law either severely limited or else totally prohibited. And that exclusionary right for an aristocrat, to pass on to the next generation the person’s private wealth, is what produces, after many successive generations, increasingly concentrated wealth, and increasingly widespread poverty, which then institutionalizes aristocratic government and rule by privilege, instead of rule by individuals’ work and merit. Consequently, any democrat (or populist) who tolerates aristocracy, is tolerating the end of democracy.

    For example, many of America’s Confederates considered themselves to be democrats but supported slavery of Blacks. Not only the Confederate aristocracy did. But — just as in Israel, there is no democracy, because only the Jews can vote there — the Confederacy was no democracy, because only the ‘Whites’ could vote there.

    Similarly, Germany’s Nazis weren’t only the aristocracy, but also many Germans who considered themselves to be populists, and Hitler exploited this widespread illogicality among the public, in order to create his extremely elitist-racist-imperialist (or ideologically nazi) nation.

    The theory behind the cutbacks in Medicaid is that the poor are to blame for their poverty. Any aristocrat believes it to at least some extent, despite its being stupid. It is stupid because any aristocrat knows that money is power: the power to hire people to do your will, and to fire ones who won’t or can’t. Any aristocrat experiences that reality all the time. The most-powerless individuals in any society are the poorest. Obviously, something causes a person to be poor, but heredity — being born poor and surrounded by only poor people — will always be the biggest portion of that cause. The people with the power are the aristocrats, the super-rich few who own the vast majority of the nation’s private wealth. They create — and, by means of their lobbyists and media and politicians, constantly impose — the system that produces, the ever-increasing concentration of wealth and so of power. The poor don’t, and can’t. And won’t. Consequently, any theory that the poor ought to be blamed for their poverty is an obvious lie, which benefits the richest. Of course, an individual also has some effect on his or her getting and staying out of poverty, but, in an aristocracy, the system itself has a much bigger effect on that.

    By contrast against the aristocratic view, an intelligent democrat acknowledges (not merely to oneself but also publicly) that money is power, and consequently blames the super-rich — the very few who possess most of it — for society’s problems. Not the poor. And not any ‘race’. This isn’t to say that there aren’t intergenerational factors that help to explain how wealthy a given individual is — of course, there are (and that is the problem). But whereas a democrat tries to reduce them, an aristocrat tries to enlarge them. And that’s the ideological difference between an aristocrat and a democrat.

    If America’s supposed effort to increase economic opportunity for poor people is to rely upon the poor ‘raising themselves up by their own bootstraps’, then it isn’t relying upon the billionaires to have the responsibility for solving this problem. But they, the super-rich, are the ones who actually caused the problem by their controlling not only their corporations but the press, and the lobbyists, and the politicians, who have so deceived and so controlled the public, as to have instituted this widely oppressive system, which the poorest suffer the most. It would not exist in an authentically one-person-one-vote government and nation and culture. It can exist only in an aristocracy (which is what post-WW2 America is).

    The most efficient way to minimize social inequality is to replace aristocracy with democracy. It’s that simple, and that difficult. Only the super-rich possess the means to do it, but none of them actually wants to. Are all of them psychopaths? They benefit from the system that they have imposed. They benefit not only in wealth but in their corporate protective immunity from having to go to prison for any corporate crimes they require their subordinates to do in order to generate their wealth. For example, on April 10, Good Jobs First headlined “The Trillion-Dollar Mark: Corporate Misconduct Cases Reach a Dubious Milestone,” and reported:

    Regulatory fines, criminal penalties, and class-action settlements paid by corporations in the United States since 2000 have now surpassed $1 trillion. Total payouts for corporate misconduct grew from around $7 billion per year in the early 2000s to more than $50 billion annually in recent years, according to a new report by Good Jobs First.

    This amounts to a seven-fold increase in current dollars — a 300% increase in constant dollars.

    These figures are derived from Violation Tracker, a wide-ranging database containing information on more than 600,000 cases from about 500 federal, state and local regulatory agencies and prosecutors as well as court data on major private lawsuits.

    The database shows that 127 large parent companies have each paid more than $1 billion in fines and settlements over the past quarter-century. The most penalized industries are financial services and pharmaceuticals, followed by oil and gas, motor vehicles, and utilities. …

    Among the findings:

    • Bank of America has by far the largest penalty total at $87 billion. It and other banks, both domestic and foreign, account for six of the 10 most penalized parent companies.

    • Other bad actors include BP (mainly because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill), Volkswagen (because of its emissions software cheating scandal), Johnson & Johnson (largely because of big settlements in cases alleging its talcum powder causes cancer), and PG&E (due to cases accusing it of causing or contributing to wildfires in the West).

    • Recidivism is a major issue. Half a dozen parent companies—all banks—have each paid $1 million or more in over 100 different cases, led by Bank of America with 225. Two dozen parents have at least 50 of these cases on their record.

    • All of the top 10 and 95 of the 100 most penalized parent companies are publicly traded. The most penalized privately held company is Purdue Pharma, which is going out of business for its role in causing the opioid crisis.

    • In more than 500 of the cases involving criminal charges, the U.S. Justice Department offered the defendant a deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreement. …

    That’s $1T during the reported 23-year period, and these fines are mere wrist-slaps to those stockholders’ annual profits. But the victims lost vastly more than that, and this report made no mention of anyone having gone to prison for any of these corporate crimes, though at least two of them did — Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried, both of whom had robbed their fellow-investors. But, for example, the Purdue Pharma case had killed at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, and yet none of the Sackler family that owned it, and that drove their employees to perpetrate it, had even a possibility of going to prison for any of those deaths, nor for the vast other harms that their personal wealth-building had driven.

    In an aristocracy, the only super-rich who ever get imprisoned are ones who have harmed other corporate investors — never ones who have harmed or even killed vast multitudes of the middle and bottom economic classes.

    Remarkably, the corrupt Democratic Party President of the United States has taken to the hustings in his fake-‘populist’ re-election campaign by citing a 2021 White House economic study, which calculated that America’s billionaires are taxed at far lower rates of income than regular Americans are. It found that if the 400 richest (highest-wealth) Americans (all of whom were multi-billionaires, and not merely billionaires, and who donate collectively around 30% of all of the money that is expended in U.S. political campaigns) had been taxed including their “income” from the corporate stock that they own (which now and always has essentially never been taxed because there are so many ways to avoid ever being taxed on it), then they were collectively being taxed at only an 8.2% rate on all of their income. It was a sound study. However, the billionaires-controlled think tanks and media slammed it by deceiving their public about it. For example, PolitiFact rated Biden’s statement “False” because (and this displays its contempt for the intelligence of its readers): “Under the current tax code, the top 1% of taxpayers pay an effective tax rate of 25% on the income the government counts.” But that’s exactly what the White House economists had been criticizing! They were criticizing the current tax-laws in the U.S., which DON’T include as reported income those stock profits.  For once (while campaigning for re-election), Biden told the truth, even though it’s a truth that his billionaire backers want the public NOT to know. (And PolitiFact is funded by numerous billionaires, both Democratic Party ones such a Soros’s Open Society, and Republican ones such as the Charles Koch Institute.) Is it any wonder, then, why the U.S. wealth-distribution is becoming increasingly skewed to the billionaires, even though so much of their wealth is being hidden and not even reported to the Government?

    The post The Most Efficient Way to Minimize Social Inequality first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Guardian journalist George Monbiot has been calling out the continued appalling abuse of people living with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as ME/CFS). However, there’s one prominent, powerful psychiatrist standing in the way of justice via an ‘ME inquiry’ over the “biggest medical scandal of the 21st century”: Simon Wessely.

    Calls for an ME inquiry

    Right now, the NHS is abusing – and killing – (at least) two women living with severe ME. Meanwhile, the spin-doctor-to-corporate media shill machine has continued to churn out the junk science that manufactured this unconscionable situation for people living with the devastating disease.

    So, Guardian journalist George Monbiot is the latest to join people living with ME, their carers, and campaigners in calling for the UK government to conduct an inquiry:

    Given this, it’s fair to ask why exactly the government hasn’t instigated an inquiry? Some people from the ME community on X had a good suspicion as to why this might be. Specifically, they pointed out that a chief scientist who promoted the quack PACE study has a convenient position over the levers of power.

    Psychiatrist Simon Wessely started on the JAC in September 2017, and the JAC reappointed him again in 2020. Crucially, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) decides who would head up inquiries. In other words, Wessely – a instrumental actor in the medical scandal – would get to choose who would oversee an inquiry on it.

    However, when it comes to Wessely weaseling into all the worst places to influence the discourse surrounding ME, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Wessely – psychologiser-in-chief

    Firstly, of course, Simon Wessely played a central role in the sham PACE trial itself.

    As the Canary’s Steve Topple has previously explained:

    It was a study, part-funded by the UK government, into treatment for ME. It found that people could recover from the disease by having cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). In other words, people living with a very-real, viral-based illness should just ‘think themselves better’. Essentially, the trial pushed the notion that the disease was part-psychosomatic or ‘made up’ by patients.

    While Wessely wasn’t among the principal investigators, he supported and shaped the study in a number of critical ways. For one, his previous research on ME influenced the way in which the scientists carried out the study. On top of this, he was also directly involved. In particular, he sat as a centre manager for one of the trial centres, and was on the PACE Trial Management Group. The trial credited the group as one of the authors of the study.

    Perhaps most significantly, Wessely was central to pushing out the PACE trial through the media.

    However, psychologising physical illnesses has been Wessely’s modus operandi writ large. In short, he has long hawked in this type of psychosomatic junk science.

    For one, Wessely started his glittering career peddling junk psychosomatic science studies on hysteria. Ostensibly, this notion has long dismissed women’s health conditions and cemented a pervasive misogyny throughout medical science.

    Unsurprisingly then, it was also Wessely and his band of biopsychosocial science chums who first started tarring ME as something psychological. Specifically, in the 1980s, he and his colleagues began pumping out articles that promulgated the cognitive behavioural model of ME.

    This entrenched its psychosomatic origin and pushed cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) as the dominant treatment methods.

    Moreover, as the Canary’s Steve Topple previously pointed out for example, Wessely gave Gulf War syndrome the psychologisation treatment in the 1990s too. As he explained:

    Wessely is of course the person who (with Chalder, no less) perpetuated the myth that Gulf War syndrome was somehow psychosomatic – in the same way the pair helped ME to become ‘all in people’s heads’.

    Punching down for a living

    Of course, the medical establishment and state have lapped this up. Notably, elite medical bodies have lavished Wessely with multiple awards and memberships. Naturally, the prolific pillar of the psychosomatic bent was also knighted for his “services to military healthcare and psychological medicine”.

    Alongside this, he has a stupefying number of influential roles in the medical establishment itself. He was president of the Royal College of Psychiatry, as well as the Royal College of Medicine. On top of this, the Queen and King’s College London (KCL) awarded Simon Wessely the first regius professor in psychiatry. Essentially, this is a special title bestowed by a monarch.

    So, how did a psychiatrist with a history of pushing contentious studies and dubious science get these glamorous accolades on lofty titles?

    Well, it probably can’t hurt when you rub shoulders with all the right people.

    In Wessely’s case, he’s been a trustee and now sits as a vice-president to non-profit Combat Stress. It is the “UK’s leading veterans’ mental health charity”. As psychologiser-in-chief of a serious physical war-related condition, Wessely is of course right at home in a non-profit focused solely on the psychosomatic impacts of war. But significantly, King Charles has been the charity’s long-time patron.

    More to the point however, Wessely has worked wonders for successive neoliberal government agendas. In short, stripping people of social security is a hell of a lot easier when the science (purportedly) is behind you.

    Of course, this has been precisely the impact of his many years seeding the biopsychosocial model of ME. Therefore, if you want acclaim in medical and political circles – it helps if you push out studies to abet the neoliberal capitalist state in painting millions of people as so-called ‘malingerers’ and benefit ‘scroungers’.

    Cosying up in the halls of power

    So, Simon Wessely has moved in all the right circles to cosy up to the organ grinders in the halls of power.

    Therefore, it was not surprising in 2017 when Theresa May’s Tory government asked him to review the Mental Health Act.

    A coalition of Disabled People’s Organisations railed against this. They raised their significant concerns about his role, stating in a letter at the time:

    A review is needed to address mental health injustice, yet Wessely’s body of work on ME (or “chronic fatigue syndrome”) demonstrates his lack of honesty, care and compassion for patients. His unsubstantiated claim that ME is driven by “false illness beliefs” has led to patients being labelled as hypochondriacs, treated with contempt by some in the medical profession and stigmatised by society. His recommended treatment regime of Graded Exercise Therapy caused deterioration in function for nearly 50% of ME patients surveyed, yet he dismisses their evidence as unreliable and labels all critics of this work as irrational and extremist.

    Predictably then, Wessely punched down on mental health patients in this too. As Topple explained:

    In it, he pushed the emphasis on the patient leading what treatment they had; ‘self-management’ if you like. This seems good on paper. But in reality, it could leave patients vulnerable. Because if treatments don’t work, then the blame for this can be pushed onto the patient for ‘not trying hard enough’. This absolves medical professionals, and ultimately the system, of responsibility.

    So, to make matters worse, this hasn’t been the end of Wessely’s rise to alarming positions of prominent influence. In January 2023, the NHS appointed him to its board. As the NHS website explains, the board is:

    the senior decision-making structure for NHS England. It has reserved key decisions and matters for their own decision, including strategic direction, overseeing delivery of the agreed strategy, the approach to risk, and establishing the culture and values of the organisation.

    In other words, Wessely has a central role in dictating the direction of NHS services – which will of course include how the NHS treats people with ME. Additionally, the Canary previously noted that Wessely’s appointment coincided with the NHS deprioritising services for long Covid.

    Crucially, it could signal the trajectory of treatment for ME, long Covid and other chronic illnesses under Wessely’s direction.

    Wessely mingling with the media

    Ultimately, people living with ME, scientists, some independent media, campaigners, and others have been meticulously researching and documenting this sordid medical scandal for many years. Yet the corporate and mainstream press has offered a cesspool of mockery, maligning, and gaslighting these same people at every turn.

    So why hasn’t the corporate and mainstream media – including Monbiot’s own outlet – kicked up a fuss about this?

    It’s the usual story. As the Canary’s Steve Topple has consistently reported, this is largely thanks to the ostensible “corporate industry spin doctor” the Science Media Centre (SMC)

    Of course, one of its founders was none other than, you guessed it, professor Simon Wessely. He was also a director of the SMC between 2015 and 2019. In addition, the Maudsley Charity, under the NHS trust where Wessely works, has funded the SMC to boot.

    Given this, it’s little wonder the SMC has littered his quotes and views across press releases on ME research. Invariably, it shows that Wessely is comfortably well-connected with the corporate media too.

    Justice for people living with ME

    In light of all this, Simon Wessely’s grip on the science and future for people living with ME seems almost unassailable.

    What we have is a high-profile medical professional and biopsychosocial proponent poised in all the right places to obstruct scrutiny of the “biggest medical scandal of the 21st century”. In other words, cronyism has obfuscated the truth and scapegoated a whole group of people. Sound familiar?

    The Chronic Collaboration – a group fighting for people living with ME and other chronic illnesses – highlighted the uncanny parallels to the recent Post Office Scandal. Crucially, it ran a campaign to call for ITV to expose the post-viral scandal of ME. Of course, one outcome could be to force the government’s to set up an inquiry, as Monbiot said.

    However, while an inquiry would be a good start – it must end with all those who’ve delayed and hampered action on ME being held accountable.

    Most important of all, it needs to pave the way for justice, and nothing short of a revolution in medical care for all those living with ME, long Covid, and other chronic illnesses the psychologising lobby has long harmed.

    Featured image via Kings College London – YouTube

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • I’m often asked what needs to change to make the world a better place for disabled people. It used to be a complex answer for me. It depended on the context I was being asked, who was asking, or what had been happening recently. 

    But now it’s simple: the world needs to stop hating disabled people and being so fucking ableist.

    Ableism has always been rife in society, media, and politics. It feels like it’s been ramped up in recent years, but especially in the last few months. A big reason for this is that the government are intent on demonising us to cover for the fact they and their rich mates are stealing from taxpayers. 

    How the poison of ableism trickles down

    This feeding of hate from the government and media to the common man is easily done when 75% of the British media is owned by the same two, rich, Tory-supporting men. The click-driven nature of news now means government ministers can call disabled people anything they want without the press challenging it. 

    After all, “languishing on benefits” is a much punchier vox pop than ‘minister claims people don’t want to work but they’re actually just trying to survive’.

    These views are then repeated as fact by right-wing pundits on chat shows. Eventually, it becomes the public opinion that people on sickness and disability unemployment benefits are lazy and taking the taxpayer for a ride. 

    What the hatred manifests into

    This awful rhetoric contributes to the centuries-old stereotype that disability is something to be ashamed of. Except now, they’ve made our lives so miserable that if you dare to attempt to live a happy disabled existence you MUST be faking it to rinse those hard-working taxpayers. 

    It means photography companies think it’s perfectly acceptable to leave disabled kids out of school photos. Young lads feel comfortable sitting on their shit podcasts and laughing about how they wouldn’t date a “mangled” woman in a wheelchair cos they’d be worried their equally shit mates would laugh at them. Heaven forbid they consider getting better friends.

    It means cunts like Matthew Parris can week in and week out call disabled people lazy fakers who drain the taxpayer and when you, for example, co-ordinate 400 complaints against him the press regulator can come back with ‘Well that’s just his opinion as a journalist‘. Well isn’t it a good job that I get to have my opinion too?

    And so The Week in Ableist Bullshit was born

    If the last few weeks have proven anything, it’s that there’s simply too much ableism to keep track of and the media can’t be trusted to hold all of it to account – especially when they create a great chunk of it. 

    One thing I have always striven to do in my work is hold those making life harder for disabled people accountable. That’s why I’m delighted to be writing this new weekly column here at the Canary. In it I will collate and dissect the barrage of crap disabled people are facing from the government, media, social media, organisations, and society. 

    But I also want to celebrate the great things disabled people do too, so at the end of each column will be my disabled joy of the week. Come for the ableists bashing – but stay for the hidden pockets of joy.

    This week’s is a much more condensed version but from next week expect no stone to go unturned. So, shall we?

    Shakespeare’s Globe doesn’t give a fuck if disabled people hate them

    A few months ago it was announced that in the Globe’s latest incarnation of the ableist classic, Richard III will be played by a non-disabled performer. In my opinion, the play and role have always been an awfully over-exaggerated portrayal of the disabled villain trope. 

    However, the Globe lost me when it released a statement following pushback from disabled people in which they almost claimed that there was an abundance of roles for disabled people to play. The artistic director Michelle Terry, who is taking up the role, stated “it will come around again”. 

    Many hoped that our voices would be heard and the Globe would change its mind, but today the full cast was announced and Terry remains in the role. When I visited a couple of years ago I found their access to be exceptional.

    But access doesn’t matter when the historic theatre refuse to cast us in stories about us.

    The government is trying to fuck over disabled students even more

    Being a disabled student is already hard, but now the Department for Education (DfE) is proposing to abolish a huge chunk of disabled students’ allowance funding.

    The cuts would apply to “specialist non-medical help” which could mean students lose funding for interpreters, note-takers, and more. It will mean disabled students will be put at an even bigger disadvantage. 

    The consultation closes on 3 July and is open to disabled students, providers, and higher education staff. You can have your say here.

    Daily Mail is back on its ‘ADHD is fake’ bullshit

    There are so many stories about different ways in which ADHD doesn’t exist that I fear ‘ADHD lies of the week’ may become a permanent feature here. I swear at times it feels like the Daily Mail and the Times are having a competition to see who can whip up the most hate about people with ADHD.

    This time they’re aided by exercise bore Joe Wicks who is blaming processed food for the increase in ADHD diagnosis. The fact this has been disproven many times didn’t bother the rag though. 

    I know the realities of being neurodivergent all too well. Swapping my safe food – chicken nuggets – for some veggies won’t make my life any easier. But these ignorant fools not speaking on issues they have no idea about will.

    Disabled Joy of the Week – Keedie

    In amongst all the hatred towards neurodivergent women and girls, Elle McNicoll is a constant force for good. The author’s latest offering Keedie is a prequel to her behemoth A Kind of Spark.

    The book is about standing up to those who try to make you feel small and celebrating the brilliance of autistic and neurodivergent people. Attending the Autistic Girls Network online event celebrating Elle felt like a balm for my soul that had been destroyed by all the abuse we’ve endured these last few weeks.

    Neurodivergent women and girls loudly being ourselves and refusing to be made small in a world that wants to make us ashamed of who we are. You can buy Keedie here.

    And finally…

    I wanted to leave you with something my pal told me when I was feeling guilty about treating myself. As someone who comes from poverty, the idea of frivolously spending money on myself feels wrong. 

    Enter T with some excellent wisdom:

    When you don’t treat yourself the Tories win a little bit.

    In this terrible world it’s important that, when we can, we celebrate who we are – even if that’s by buying the cute boiler suit.

    Until next week, fuck the Tories and don’t believe all you read. 

    Featured image via Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Martyn Bradbury, editor of The Daily Blog

    The day the news axe fell: Presenters, insiders fear ‘huge blow for democracy’

    The future of New Zealand’s media landscape is becoming clearer by the day, with confirmation that it will no longer feature one of the country’s big two TV news networks.

    Warner Bros. Discovery has revealed that all of Newshub’s operations will be shut down, effective July 5. That includes the flagship 6pm bulletin, The AM Show, and the Newshub website.

    294 staff are set to lose their jobs.

    It’s also been confirmed that TVNZ’s programme Sunday will be cancelled, following yesterday’s announcement that Fair Go, as well as both 1News at Midday and 1News Tonight, are being canned in their current format.

    "The day the news axe fell"
    “The day the news axe fell” – a huge blow to New Zealand’s democracy. Image: Stuff screenshot APR

    New Zealand’s media industry has been rocked by the bleeding obvious which is that their failed ratings system for legacy media was always more art than science.

    The NZ radio ratings system is a diary that you fill in every 15 minutes — which no one ever fills in properly.

    The NZ newspaper ratings are opinion polls and the NZ TV ratings system is a magical 180 boxes that limits choice to whoever had the TV remote.

    When the sales rep told the advertiser that 300,000 people would read, see, hear their advert, it was based on ratings systems that were flattering but not real.

    With the ruthlessness of online audience measurement, advertisers could see exactly how many people were actually seeing their adverts, and the legacy media never adapted to this new reality.

    What we see now is hollowed out journalism competing against social media hate algorithms designed to generate emotional responses rather than Fourth Estate accountability.

    New Zealand has NEVER had the audience size to make advertising based broadcasting feasible, that’s why it’s always required a state broadcaster — with no Fourth Estate who will hold this hard right racist climate denying beneficiary bashing government to account?

    Minister missing in action
    Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee has refused to support the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill that Labour’s former minister Willie Jackson put forward that would at least force Google and Facebook to pay for the journalism they take for free.

    Lee has been utterly hopeless and missing in action here — if “Democracy dies in darkness”, National are pulling the plug.

    This government doesn’t want accountability, does it?

    Instagram this year switched on a new filter to smother political debate and we know actual journalism has been smothered by the social media algorithms.

    I don’t think that most people who get their information from their social media feeds understand they aren’t seeing the most important journalism but are in fact seeing the most inflammatory rhetoric to keep people outraged and addicted to doom scrolling.

    When Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters does his big lie that the entire mainstream media were bribed because of a funding note by NZ on Air in regards to coverage of Māori issues for the Public Interest Journalism fund — which by the way was quickly clarified by NZ on Air as not an editorial demand — he conflates and maliciously spins and NZ’s democracy suffers.

    Muddled TVNZ
    Television New Zealand has always come across like a muddle. It aspires to be BBC public broadcasting yet has the commercial imperatives of any Crown Owned Enterprise. If Labour had merged TVNZ and RNZ and made TVNZ 1 commercial free so that the advertising revenue could cross over to Newshub, it would have rebuilt the importance of public broadcasting while actually regulating the broken free market.

    When will we get a Labour Party that actually gives a damn about public broadcasting rather than pay lip service to it?

    Ultimately Newshub’s demise is a story of ruthless transnational interests and geopolitical cultural hegemony.

    Corporate Hollywood soft power wants to continue its cultural dominance as the South Pacific friction continues between the United States and China.

    New Zealand is an important plank for American hegemony in the South Pacific and as China and American competition heats up, Warners Bros Discovery suddenly buying a large stake in our media was always a geopolitical calculation over a commercial one.

    Cultural dominance doesn’t require nor want an active journalism, so they will keep the channel open purely as a means of dominating domestic culture without any of the Fourth Estate obligations.

    That bitter angry feeling you have watching Warner Bros Discovery destroy our Fourth Estate is righteous.

    Social licence trashed
    They bought a media outlet that has had a 35-year history of being a structural part of our media environment and dumping it trashes their social licence in this country.

    That feeling of rage you have watching a multibillion transnational vandalise our environment is going to be repeated the millisecond you see the American mining interests lining up to mine conservation land with all their promises to repair anything they break.

    Remember — the transnational ain’t your friend regardless of its pronouns.

    That person they rolled in with the soft-glazed CEO face to do the sad, sad crying is disingenuous and condescending.

    Now Warner Bros has killed Newshub off, we have no option as Kiwis but to boycott whatever is left of TV3 and water down Warner Bros remaining interests altogether.

    They’ve burnt their bridges with us in New Zealand by walking away from their social contract, we should have no troubles returning the favour!

    The only winners here are rightwing politicians who don’t want their counterproductive and corrupt decisions to be scrutinised.

    We are a poorer and weaker democracy after these news cuts.

    Why bother having a Minister of Broadcasting if all they do is fiddle while the industry burns?

    Welcome to your new media future in Aotearoa New Zealand . . .

    Republished with permission from The Daily Blog.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • It took a genocide for Torontonians to commit themselves to the goal of defeating Israel. It turns out Iranian President Akhmedinejad was right after all. ‘Israel’ must be wiped off the map. It is an ugly cancer that could kill its Earthly host. But it will disappear only by the will of the people, Palestinian, Canadian, Jewish-Christian-Muslim united.

    The Palestinians have been at it from 1917, the year British Lord Balfour (arch anti-Semite) wrote his poison pen letter offering a Jewish state in the soon-to-be British colony Palestine (to rid Britain of Jews, but tastefully, not like Richard I in 1190 or Edward I in 1290). We fellow colonials are late off the mark, only recently acknowledging our own guilt for our genocide against Canada’s natives, but our efforts to stop funding genocide are equally vital. Better late than never.

    My Jewish friend warned me that police seem to have a directive to intimidate, beat up, arrest, so ‘Watch out!’ When I arrived across from the US Consulate, it looked low key. No hate-filled Zionists trying to drown us out, like at previous demos. No police in sight beyond the ones blocking University Avenue.

    The crowd was festive, joining in chants till the speakers came. As if on cue, the Revolutionary Communist Party made a stylish march past, shouting about revolution through class war, waving their bright red flags with hammer and sickle, like a voice from the past.

    That nostalgia continued with a battle-scarred aging Jewish feminist recalling her earlier militancy in 1970s Toronto (abortion and Vietnam). The police on horseback trampled them, this before Canada had a constitution which protects the right to protest. Thank you Trudeau Sr, though I heard a ‘genocide Justin’ crack, and recent police brutality suggests that for them, we are ‘on notice’.

    The protest spokesman recounted the litany of police nastiness at recent demos, the last where they choked off the demo and then started beating up protesters, seizing the truck with loudspeakers. Then, issued a press release claiming they, the police, were the victims and the protesters were terrorists. Ha! They tried the same tactics this time but orgganizers were prepared and the confiscated truck was replaced. But it seems the police were on their best behavior after that.

    As we marched, I mingled to check out slogans. From the river to the sea, Palestine is almost free morphed into From the sea to the river, Palestine will live forever. Lots of Jews, looking thoughtful and subdued. Jews against genocide, Jews against ethnostates.

    An intriguing I condemn أمك

    Your mothers?! I asked the protester. ‘Mothers of the soldiers killing Palestinians.’ Ahh, he was thinking of all the Palestinian mothers (especially pregnant) and children that have been the main targets of Israeli soldiers (female soldiers too brag on social media about killing Palestinians).

    And a sad looking Einstein: It is with great sadness that I see Zionists doing to Palestinians what Germans did to Jews. And Move Israel to Florida. Another, a clever cartoon of Justin Trudeau and Mayor Olivia Chow with comic bubbles Next election? I’ll air drop my vote.

     The star attraction was the Grim Reapess (feminine of reaper?) with a wagon of baby dolls covered in blood, her hubbie in top hat ringing the bell of the Apocalypse. And an outsize Palestinian flag which an agile volunteer weaved among the marchers, fluttering in the breeze (and in our faces), like we were a flotilla come to rescue the Palestinians from starvation.

    Old codgers like yours truly were a tiny minority of the 2,000 celebrating the last Friday prayer day of Ramadan. Lots of baby carriages and teens, a wonderful cross-section of Canadians, as many whites as browns. And a feeling of celebration. The crowd knew: we are going to win this one. And it will change the world. For the better. Unless Israel unleashes its arsenal of nukes as their ship sinks. ‘They are loony. They will take us all with them,’ my Christian Palestinian friend said with a shudder.

    Almost forgot: Free Palestine! Free Pakistan! Yes. Imran Khan is right up there with Hamas’ Yahya Sinwar and IRGC’s Qasem Soleimani as heroes in the struggle to free, free, free Palestine!

    My heroes this al-Quds Day - Sinwar, Soleimani, Khan

    I feel elated too, after weeks of feeling the battle is lost. No. Muslims are in this for the long haul. The Crusaders managed to occupy Jerusalem for a century, massacring any Jews or Muslims who were there to greet them. Richard I fought there (and was treated nobly by Salah al-Din, who defeated the Crusaders).

    We are in the right. Israel’s genocide in Gaza has put it on notice. The Grim Reapess’s death knell tolls. I may not live to see the happy day, but I will die assured that as long as there are Palestinians alive, the battle is not lost.

    The post 2024: Historic al-Quds Day first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Last week the Canary ran my story A disabled man is being PROSECUTED for blocking parliament with his MOBILITY SCOOTER just before my trial at Westminster Magistrate’s Court. Here’s the full story.

    The climate crisis: very real, and very now

    On July 19 2023, exactly a year on from the hottest day on record, and the devastating Wennington wild fire in East London which completely destroyed four houses, I had travelled up to parliament to raise the alarm about the effects a climate catastrophe will have on the disabled community and vulnerable groups, the old, and the frail.

    I have multiple sclerosis (MS) and the hottest day in 2022 really drained what little energy I usually have. I felt like the plants in my garden, completely wilted, my leaves turning brown. It was the first time that I’d had to be pushed into my garden in a wheelchair. We rescued an exhausted robin, unable to even fly up to the bird bath, cooling off in a tub of rancid water. It was truly horrifying.

    In early July 2023, I attended a talk at the Southbank Centre with Greta Thunberg and was shocked to learn that the government was preparing to sign new, and very significant, oil and gas licenses.

    I learnt that the Rosebank project, the UK’s biggest untapped oilfield 80 miles off the Shetland coast in the North Atlantic, would have the potential if it were burned to produce as much carbon dioxide as running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year.

    So, at a time when the UN Chief António Guterres started using the term ‘Global Boiling’, to describe the acceleration of terrifying climate impacts, Rishi Sunak was preparing to effectively tear up our commitment to Net Zero and the Paris Agreement and block our only escape route from global catastrophe.

    Warnings from the 1990s

    I am a documentary film maker.

    In the late 90’s, when ‘Global Warming’ was very much considered to be junk science, I made a film called ‘Turned out Nice Again – Britain under climate change’, which set out to show what life would be like in the-near-future, about 2060, if we failed to curb our use of fossil fuels. Stuff I thought I’d never have a front row seat to witness:

    It was during that time that I learnt that CO2 emissions take a while to affect the climate. Estimates range from between 10 to 30 years. So, the impacts we are experiencing today relate to past emissions, say the invasion of Iraq, and present emissions will affect the atmosphere roughly 10 to 30 years from now.

    So, I knew that with CO2 it wasn’t simply a case of just turning off the tap. Phasing out needed to happen gradually and consistently, allowing the economy and society the time to adjust. It couldn’t be business as usual right up to the 2050 deadline, the deadline stipulated in the Paris Agreement, and then bother. It most certainly couldn’t involve utilising new oil and gas fields.

    Disabled people taking a stand

    So, extremely angry, I had travelled up to Westminster on a Wednesday, as I say, exactly one year on from the hottest day and the Wennington wild-fire, and at around the time PMQ’s would have been winding up and parked my mobility scooter right outside the Carriage Entrance to parliament.

    I had dressed up the basket on the front to look like it was on fire, with a warning sign showing a wheelchair bound person caught between a fire and a flood; referencing the Wennington wildfire:

    A wheelchair covered in pretend flames

    Also, the danger from flash flooding, which was tragically emphasised in the run up to my plea hearing by the death of an 83-year-old Chesterfield woman called Maureen Gilbert, who drowned in her home during Storm Babet, as she was unable to escape the rapidly rising water inside her terrace home owing to mobility problems.

    ‘I cannot run from a climate emergency’

    I had carried a placard with fake flames coming out of the top that said, ‘I cannot run from a Climate Emergency’. Neither run literally, because of my disability, nor run from what I felt was my social responsibility to try and spotlight the implications of a climate emergency, not just for the disabled community, but for all vulnerable people – the old and the frail.

    I had asked the first police officer who approached me, I believe my arresting officer, to turn on his body cam and record a safety announcement. Me detailing my various disabilities. I also have ankylosing spondylitis (AS), an arthritic like condition that fuses your joints, that has left me with a completely fused neck, and completely fused lower spine, called a bamboo spine.

    I explained exactly why I was there, and I was told that I was liable to be arrested:

    Neil Goodwin outside parliament holding up a sign that reads 'i cannot run from the climate emergency'

    I remember asking him to see it not as an arrest, but a demonstration in how difficult it would be to save someone like me from a fire at a moment’s notice and to carry me to the safety of a police cell.  To see it as an exercise in preparedness. To which, I remember him saying, ‘If you were in a burning building, I’d throw you over my shoulder and carry you out.’

    And I remember thinking, if you threw me over your shoulder, it would be like throwing a 13 stone ironing board over your shoulder, as my back and neck are almost entirely fused, and you’d probably drop me and/or break my neck in the process.  It certainly wouldn’t be that quick and easy.

    Surrounded by cops

    My plan was to attract a swarm of cops around me, then use them as bait to attract the press, thereby elevating my protest into newsworthiness, then get nicked.

    No D locks, no superglue, no seriously pissed off commuters, just a very uncooperative seriously disabled man on a ‘burning’ mobility scooter, a potential public relations nightmare, saying, ‘come and have a go if you think you’re strong enough’. Or indeed, only if you’ve got suitably accessible police infrastructure.  Which I had hoped to find out.

    I was given every opportunity to leave, invited on numerous occasions to carry out my protest along the pavement, away from the entrance. But it felt right to remain just where I was. Right in the middle of what they like to call, ominously, The Sterile Zone:

    Neil Goodwin surrounded by cops

    It’s strange, but I felt both my strongest and weakest at the same time. Surrounded by cops, one of whom apparently had a best friend with MS. None of whom could lay a finger on me, through fear of breaking something.

    Who knew that fragility could become a super-power? Through-out, the burning issue of climate change held aloft, perhaps barring the way of the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, who’s motorcade would have usually swept past right about then.

    One of the police mentioned a secret tunnel right through to Downing Street and a short journey by golf cart.

    Finally nicked

    I was arrested under the 143 Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which I thought was quite apt, as I sincerely believed that I was acting socially responsibly raising these urgent issues, especially for the disabled, the vulnerable and the frail. Those who would be shoved onto the front line of the government’s war against the weather.

    I later found out that that particular law had made it illegal to carry a sleeping bag in Parliament Square, in answer to Brian Haw’s more than a decade of dissent and Occupy.

    Unfortunately, I wasn’t plucked to safety from my flaming mobility scooter. So, no dodgy optic of me being carried away.

    I waited eight months for my day in court. With countless sleepless nights, abject terror and righteousness slugging it out all through the winter, fretting over fines, and legal costs, and the bailiffs seizing my stuff. You can take the tele, but don’t take my Penny Black!

    Preparing for court

    So, I had done myself a favour and talked to Andy at Green & Black Cross, who straightened me out on quite a few things.

    Stuff like, the district judge that I would be getting at my trial last week, having a better understanding of the law than your ordinary magistrate, preferring to be addressed as ‘sir’ or just plain ‘Judge’ to ‘Your Honour’, and that he doesn’t wear the silly Les Misérables head gear. Unlike my nightmares, where he’s also wearing a black hankie.

    The good news was that I wouldn’t be getting the dodgy hanging judge Silas Reid, the one who is trying to take away jury trials, basically redact that last little bit of the Magna Carta, and does you for contempt for even mentioning the word ‘climate’. He’s terrorising Just Stop Oil in the Crown Court.

    I’d decided to represent myself, as, even though legal stuff just goes right over the top of my head, I’d learn on my feet and try and blag my way through the proceedings. Apparently, you get more leeway. Plus, I’d have a great McKenzie friend, called Josh, courtesy Green & Black, to whisper advice.

    Climate change and the impact on disabled people

    On the day, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) got off to a very bad start by disclosing crucial documents a quarter of an hour before the hearing. Very shoddy, I must say. But understandable, considering the mountain of paperwork Just Stop Oil is generating. No wonder the guy looked depressed. This apparently pissed-off the judge big time.

    Before we got underway, there was just time to take the plea of a Met police officer accused of groping a colleague.

    Right from the off, the judge began by making it clear that the existence of a climate emergency was not in question. So, all that evidence I’d gathered, and helpfully stuffed into a ‘bundle’ for the judge and CPS, couldn’t be heard.

    I’d spent a lot of time looking at the government’s National Adaptation Programme (NAP,) particularly an outlook from Stephen Belcher, the Chief Scientist at the Met Office:

    Climate change is happening now… Heavy rainfall events that can lead to flash flooding are expected to become more frequent and intense across the country.  Summer temperatures above 40oC, seen for the first time in July 2022, will become more commonplace by the end of the 21st century.

    Also the ‘UK Climate Change Risk Assessment’ (CCRA), the latest one published in January 2022, six months before the Wennington wild fire. Its Executive Summary sounding like an Extinction Rebellion leaflet:

    Climate change is happening now. It is one of the biggest challenges of our generation and has already begun to cause irreversible damage to our planet and way of life. We have clear evidence demonstrating the pace of warming in recent decades and the impacts we will face should this continue. As we redouble our efforts to achieve net zero, we must also continue to raise ambitions on adaptation to ensure the UK is resilient to the challenges of a warming world.

    CCRA3 landed on cabinet desks in January 2022, six months before the Wennington wild fire, giving us a snapshot of what the government knew about the seriousness and challenges of climate change at that point in time.

    So the case would almost entirely revolve around Article Ten of the Human Rights Act 1998, and The Freedom of Expression, and how reasonable I was acting in pursuing this right.

    Eight hours of cops bleeding their hearts

    The prosecution set out the issues. I was arrested blah blah blah…  and showed the body cam footage of my arrest. Me looking almost sullen. Even rude. Not saying a word, as my arresting officer cautioned me.

    By that time, I had had two hours of eight cops worth of near constant questions and pleading and befriending and guilt trips. ‘My best friend has got MS.’ ‘I’m a lesbian.’ ‘My dad is dying of cancer and I was planning on visiting him.’ That kind of thing. So, I looked exhausted:Neil Goodwin in his wheelchair surrounded by cops

    My arresting officer took the stand. I counted five mentions of Just Stop Oil, who were being mass arrested on Parliament Square at the time of my action. Sorry JSO, but I was keen to distance myself from you.

    The judge asked me what if there was any campaign group that I was connected to. I told him I was loosely affiliated with DPAC, Disabled People Against the Cuts, although my placard had said DPACC, Disabled People Against Climate Change.

    It turned out that the Met had just the one suitably modified van to transport disabled people to the nick, codenamed Pixie1 (my old road protestor mates will appreciate the name). And that had been on its way to Croydon that day with part of the latest Just Stop Oil mass arrest. JSO had been having their last big bash before the summer recess and had pretty much used up every available van and cell inside the M25, including Pixie1.

    I’d heard of the arrest of a disabled JSO protestor called Ari, who had been arrested, and witnessed the police practically begging a black cab to take her to the station, and had often wondered whether the cops could possibly handle a group action.

    CPS trying their best to smear a disabled man

    The CPS and the judge went to great lengths to try and ascertain the size of the gap I had left at the entrance, which they agreed was a double gate.

    Did I block anyone? No.

    Would I block anyone? Perhaps.

    Slowly they scrolled through the grainy, partly obscured Body Cam footage looking for the right angle. Looking to see if I had completely blocked the highway, or whether a vehicle could still get by. Once I realised what they were doing I couldn’t help but give a little chuckle. I had the perfect photo taken by my mate Gareth Morris, where you could clearly see the gap.

    When I showed them Gareth’s pic, and that there was plenty of space, the prosecution argued that a vehicle still wouldn’t be able to pass by safely. Whereupon the judge gave me my second spontaneous chuckle of the day, pointing out there were plenty of policeman there to stand between me and a vehicle, to make sure it was safe. He really had it in for the CPS that day.

    ‘Doing my bit’

    I trundled my wheelchair up to the stand, where I dropped my notes, and made a futile attempt to pick them up. I told the court that according to the MS society’s website:

    excessive heat can often make MS worse.  Which when you consider that we already suffer greatly from fatigue, often mentioned as one of the worst symptoms of MS, the promise of more days, perhaps entire weeks, of 40-degree heat, would make life impossible and intolerable.

    I broke down twice on the stand.  Once when I spoke of my devastated garden on 19 July 2022, and once when I spoke of the tragic and terrifying drowning of Maureen Gilbert, during Storm Babet, one of the people I said the government had thrown onto the front line of their war against the weather.

    I told the judge that I saw this as doing my bit as a 58-year-old man and decried the 20 somethings who were being imprisoned for demanding a future. A future that I felt that I could at least now look in the eye.

    A judge sees sense

    We waited for the verdict for about half an hour. Me convinced that, whilst the judge might say nice things about my convictions, his hands would be tied legally.

    When he came back, after the usher had demanded ‘All Stand’, and according to my friend Saskia’s excellent notes, he mentioned ‘reasonable excuse.’ That ‘The defendant was there to protest under Article 10’. That it had been about ‘Government failure and the granting of new fossil fuel leases.’ About ‘How this would affect people with disabilities. How high temperatures directly affect people with MS.’ The risk of fires, and ‘on the anniversary of the Wennington fire.’

    I was so made up that I’d been successful in linking all these elements together on my day in court.

    I was, ‘peaceful and dignified.’ And, crucially, there were doubts that it I ‘can be properly said to have been blocking the gates.’ That, ‘Not one vehicle entered or left’ whilst I was demonstrating, so there was ‘no evidence of obstruction.’  I was ‘fully cooperative’ and moved once I had secured my day in court. I was “passionate, articulate and honest in everything that [I] said’. I was proper blushing by this stage, but still expecting the words, ‘but’ or ‘unfortunately’.

    He went on. Exploring ‘the balance of rights under Article 10’, and ‘reasonable excuse’, about ‘Zeigler’, which gets mentioned a lot. To be honest, there were loads of legals that just went over the top of my head, including the classic what the hell does that mean? line ‘The occupation was more than minor but less than major.’

    I fought the law…

    Whereupon, he suddenly blurted out ‘Not guilty. You are free to go.’ Leaving me to just stare into space, until the usher finally chucked me out.

    So yes, I can now say that I fought the law, and the law… lost. No guesses as to what tune I first played when I finally got home.

    Featured images and additional images via Gareth Morris

    By Neil Goodwin

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The NHS killed Sophia Mirza on 15 November 2005. Sophia lived with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS). In July 2003, psychiatrists got cops to smash the door into Sophia’s home down and forcibly take her to a secure psychiatric unit, where she was imprisoned against her wishes for two weeks before a tribunal ordered her release. This ultimately led to her death.

    In January 2024, Olivia Jane Mott travelled from the UK to Dignitas in Switzerland to end her own life. She lived with ME. On 27 March 2024, Lucy Mayhew died. She lived with ME.

    Right now, Millie McAinsh is dying in an NHS hospital because doctors don’t believe her illness is real. They previously sectioned her under the Mental Health Act, enforced Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) measures on her, and are forcing her to have treatment she doesn’t want. Millie lives with ME. So does Karen Gordon – in an almost identical situation to Millie.

    So, nearly 20 years after the NHS killed Sophia, people living with ME are still dying while the state either lets them or actively brings it about. The obvious question is why? Well, the Canary has extensively documented the answer to that.

    However, the less obvious but perhaps more necessary question is why are we allowing this to happen?

    ME/CFS: inaction, inaction, inaction

    The answer to that is a complex melting pot of issues, including (but not limited to):

    • ME/CFS is still poorly misunderstood – or rather, made out by the medical profession, the state, and media to be.
    • The ME community exists in the most part of people online who are a) clued-up on the issues, and b) have a diagnosis in the first place. Read this about fibromyalgia and ME diagnoses.
    • People have their own political views which play into how they respond to situations of injustice, abuse, and discrimination. We’re a mixed bag of left, right, and no wing.
    • The full force of the media and state has been consistently putting its boot on the neck of the ME community.
    • Charities and Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) within the community tend to work to their own agendas – not collectively.

    But one of the most pressing one is the community’s inability, and in some cases unwillingness, to protest.

    Where are the protests? Where are the occupations?

    Campaigning, protesting, and taking direct action have throughout history been the way ordinary people have brought about change. Be under no illusions: it is NOT politicians, charities, or the state who do – and even when they have, it’s because people like you and me have forced them to.

    However, this has always been the circle that (until this point) cannot be squared: severely chronically ill and disabled people cannot easily protest. They’re bodies often won’t let them. So, they need allies and advocates to do it for them.

    Yet where are the protests from non-chronically ill allies?

    I seem to recall some shoes being placed outside the Department of Health and the BBC a few years ago (I’m being wry – I was there). Otherwise, the ME community doesn’t protest – unlike nearly every other marginalised group in the UK.

    For example, me and my partner Nicola were literally blocking one of the main arterial roads into Westminster with other disabled people a few weeks ago. It was over benefit-related deaths. Cops kettled disabled wheelchair users and threatened people with arrest.

    Yet that pales in comparison to the tens of thousands of people who have died under the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) regime; one the UN said caused “grave” and “systematic” violations of chronically ill and disabled people’s human rights.

    ME/CFS: we literally have nothing to lose

    So, why has the ME community not embraced direct action and protest as part of its strategy?

    I can’t safely answer that. That’s for all of us to reflect on. I think there’s elements of class within this. Many marginalised communities are also socioeconomically marginalised by the state. That is, they’re poor in every sense. Specifically, not only does the state marginalise you for, say, your ethnicity or disability, it also marginalises you economically.

    As American writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin summed up:

    The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.

    Black people, disabled people, refugees, non-working people all have the least to lose – therefore, civil disobedience isn’t as daunting.

    The ME community needs to fully recognise its own marginalisation and take that to its very core. Millie is a case in point for us all: she has little to lose, now – and things can’t get much worse.

    Shut up and sit down

    There’s another element to this lack of protest and direct action.

    Regarding Millie, I keep seeing comments, and am also being told privately by quite well-known figures in the ME community, that:

    Things are going on behind the scenes.

    But:

    You shouldn’t really do ‘x, y, z’ as it will make the situation worse for Millie.

    And:

    The ME/CFS charities are working with Millie’s family.

    If I hear another comment along these lines I’ll scream.

    Whatever the ME charities and those in the self-appointed (which they are, unless people with ME took a vote on it that I missed) upper echelons of the community have been doing since the NHS killed Sophia on 15 November 2005 HAS NOT WORKED. If it had, Millie and Karen would not be in the situation they’re in.

    Olivia would still be alive.

    Lucy would still be alive.

    And Merryn, Maeve, and Kara Jane would still be alive.

    Nothing has worked in 20 years.

    Labour MP Debbie Abrahams once said in parliament regarding the tens of thousands of disabled people that have died on the DWP’s watch:

    Does the minister think that it is unacceptable that any government policy should cause their citizens to take their own life or to die? If he does, should there not be a moratorium on this policy until it is got right? Surely one death is one too many.

    Why has the ME community for decades accepted so many deaths of its own?

    It is past time that the ME community realised that we are perpetually going round in circles, doing the same things over and over again – and that they are not working.

    It is also past time that the ME community stopped allowing certain gatekeepers to govern how it conducts itself and how it responds to the abuse medical professionals and the state inflicts on its members; abuse that is not inflicted on those same gatekeepers.

    And it is past time that the ME community stopped putting its faith in charities who take hundreds of thousands – sometimes millions – of pounds every year in donations and yet demonstrably achieve absolutely nothing with it.

    That is, the ME community and its allies in other chronic illness communities like long Covid need to take matters into their own hands. Enough really is enough this time.

    Get our acts together, or we are as good as dead

    Larry Kramer was the founder of direct action group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP). Him and his supporters advocated for disruptive civil disobedience in the face of the HIV/AIDS crisis that was sweeping the US in the 1980s.

    ACT UP members repeatedly got arrested for actions like blocking roads. However, Kramer and his group changed the course of HIV/AIDS: how it was viewed by the public, how it was represented by the media, and ultimately how it was treated by medical professionals.

    He once said:

    I was trying to make people united and angry. I was known as the angriest man in the world, mainly because I discovered that anger got you further than being nice. And when we started to break through in the media, I was better TV than someone who was nice.

    The ME community has been “nice” for far too long. It’s not like we’re complaining about potholes, tree-felling, or London’s ULEZ scheme. We’re fighting against the state-run health service literally killing members of our community. Yet, all those three other examples I gave have seen bigger – and often more civilly-disobedient – protests than the ME community has ever engaged in.

    Crucially, though, Kramer famously screamed in the middle of a meeting of AIDS activists who were arguing among themselves and utterly disorganised:

    Plague! We are in the middle of a plague! And you behave like this! Plague! 40 million infected people is a plague! Until we get our acts together, all of us, we are as good as dead.

    So, get their act together they did.

    The ME/CFS community needs it’s own ‘plague’ moment

    The ME community’s “plague” moment should have been Sophia’s killing in 2005.

    But it wasn’t.

    It should have happened at the start of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

    But it didn’t.

    It should have been Merryn’s, Maeve’s, Kara Jane’s, and every other person with ME’s deaths because of how the system has treated them.

    But it wasn’t.

    So, I ask you this: is it going to take the NHS killing Millie for the ME community to have its “plague” moment and finally ‘get its act together’? Because that cannot happen.

    Millie’s story – ending with her returning home to safety – must be a watershed moment for all our sakes. It must be a moment where we as a community stare at ourselves in a mirror until our eyes collectively bleed and ask ourselves whether what we are, and have been, doing is right – and if we should continue with it.

    And I can tell you now: the answer to those questions is ‘no’.

    Featured image supplied

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • It’s been two weeks since the UK government was hauled over the coals by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) over their “grave violations” of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. Anyone who watched the hearing live online will know what went down. The government told a pack of lies then told some more to gloss over the deaths of disabled people when questioned.

    It was frustrating for all disabled people to hear that the government – who’ve been not only failing them but actively endangering them – apparently think they’re, to borrow a phrase from Gillian Keegan, “doing a fucking great job”. However, it was even more infuriating for those of us in the room.

    The UNCRPD in Geneva: an unexpected journey

    To explain fully how I ended up at a hearing in the UNCRPD, let me take you back to the beginning of March. I was working on a story about the Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) ‘No More Benefit Deaths’ protests outside the DWP, so contacted one of the founders of DPAC Ellen Clifford for a quote.

    However, I was quite shocked when as well as giving me a quote, Ellen casually asked me if I wanted to go to the UNCRPD with the Deaf and Disabled Peoples’ Organisations (DDPOs) delegation in a couple of weeks to watch the government finally answer for their treatment of us.

    Ellen and I have worked together a couple of times, and I was one of the few reporters who got the story of how the government just plain refused to show up at the UNCRPD last August (when they were originally invited to give evidence at the same time as the DDPOs) into mainstream media.

    At the time the government told me they had always intended to give evidence in March in the ultimate “oh no you misunderstood us – silly little disableds” gaslighting we’re all used to by now.

    That sort of abject trauma of fighting for disability rights and screaming til our voices break I suppose bonds people. So, despite it being in less than two weeks’ time I instinctively knew I had to be there with the incredible bunch of people Ellen was telling me about.

    A delegation of lived experience

    The delegation included activists from DPAC, Inclusion London, Disability Wales, Disability Rights UK, Reclaiming our Futures Alliance, DPAC NI, and unions such as Unite, the Trades Union Congress (TUC), and Equity. I was quietly anxious to meet the families of deceased benefit claimants, some of whom I’d written or edited pieces about.

    Two flights and later and I was touching down in Geneva on Sunday 17 March. The delegation was split around the city and although the hearing was on Monday 18 March and obviously the main reason we were there, it gave us an excuse to all come together and just be in each other’s company.

    We spent Sunday coming up with our clear messages whilst also eating fondue, chatting on the beach, exploring the city, sharing resources, and finding comfort in other people who had our lived experience.

    Then Monday afternoon came round all of a sudden and there I was walking up to one of the most famous buildings in the world.

    Before the session the DDPO delegation got together to have lunch and discuss what we hoped would come from today. Although we weren’t allowed to speak it was important to the DDPOs that we got the message out there that we were here standing up for rights – even if the government wouldn’t speak to us.

    The government whitewashing its record at the UNCRPD

    I’ve been asked a lot how it felt to be in the room when the government told the UNCRPD that they pretended to be:

    committed to upholding the Convention on the Rights of Disabled People.

    The short answer is frustrating. The long answer is frustratingly exhausting with moments of incredulity that meant I guffawed so loudly I thought I was going to be asked to leave.

    Basically, after refusing to attend a hearing session that DDPOs were at, the government attempted to make it sound like they cared at all about disabled people.

    They bragged about policies that they’d been forced to commit to by campaign groups. They boasted about the Disability Action Plan and National Disability Strategy. This is despite the fact that the strategy was being challenged in the High Court by disabled activists and the action plan had been widely derided for offering no solutions to the real issues affecting us.

    The temptation to scream almost became too much when Alexandra Gowlland (someone who is so obscure in the Disability Unit I had to Google her whilst she was speaking) claimed the government are “Committed to transforming the benefits system”.

    Lie after lie

    I almost definitely muttered “Are you fuck” under my breath when she continued that they are:

    ensuring people can access the right support and have a better overall experience when applying for benefits.

    I felt the bile rise up in my throat as she claimed that “disability hate crime is completely unacceptable” when you consider the disgusting rhetoric that the government ministers are spreading via the press; something I’ve fought hard against.

    I was unsurprised to see that the focus was kept on SEND kids, something the government love to tug on people’s heart strings about. But what happens when we stop being cute disabled kiddies? They’re quick to paint us as burdens then.

    The most “you what mate??” moment was when Gowlland repeated that the government “welcome this dialogue” which was news to all of us who they couldn’t even make eye contact with despite being sat a few rows away.

    ‘Dehumanising disabled people’

    There was a moment of intense validation though when it came time for the UK Rapporteurs to grill the government.

    The outstanding Rosemary Kayess and Laverne Jacobs used evidence the DDPOs had shared with them about our real-life experiences under this government. Kayess said the government had created a “pervasive framework that dehumanises disabled people”.

    Jacobs in her questioning brought up disability benefits deaths that had occurred after benefits had been stopped. The government did not even reference disability deaths in passing in their response. This was especially insulting when incredible campaigners like Alison Turner, daughter in law of Errol Graham, were sat in the room.

    After the hearing I felt drained. Standing outside with Alison whilst she smoked a cigarette, we both sobbed frustrated tears. After many of the DDPOs expressed disbelief at the governments lack of shame, with one member cracking the group up with “well that could’ve been an email!”

    Despite how disappointing and embarrassing the government’s “evidence” was, this wasn’t a loss for disabled people in my opinion.

    The UNCRPD showed the power of community

    The main aim was to make a huge fuss on social media and more than anything ensure the disabled community knew there were people in their corner.

    Being a disabled person can be isolating, even more so when the government and media are constantly belittling our rights and trying to make us scared to live our lives. The DDPO delegation showed disabled people at home that they’re not alone, to be part of that made me feel so empowered, surrounded by people who had mine and so many others backs.

    There was never a single moment that didn’t feel huge and significant all weekend, from sitting on the beach discussing our lives and experiences to catching up over baba ghanoush. The trip felt serious sure, but it also felt joyous; significant to have this many disabled people not only fighting back but existing and thriving and loving our lives despite what the government threw at us.

    The end of the trip was bookended the same way it began, with a big meal, this time also celebrating my birthday, which was on 19 March. When I was shocked, Ellen told me “It’s important we celebrate disabled people, there’s enough shit”.

    The love and joy I felt from these incredible hardworking compassionate souls is something I will hold with me forever.

    It’s this power in community that the government can never take away from us, no matter how hard they try.

    Featured image via the UN

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • If you ever wanted a job bootlicking for Tory big brother Britain, look no further, because the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has you covered. Champing at the bit to snoop into the DWP benefits of the most marginalised members of society?

    Well, it has a role just for you – as per the government’s latest machinations to persecute disabled, chronically ill, poor, and vulnerable people across the UK. Naturally, these new fraud-finder general jobs are part of the department’s suite of new plans to “crack down” on so-called “benefit fraud”.

    DWP’s “benefit fraud” fiction

    On 3 April, journalist Rachel Charlton-Dailey broke the news that the DWP has posted job listings for up to 25 “covert surveillance officers”. As the Big Issue reported:

    The job roles are, according to the advertisement on GOV.UK, part of the DWP’s response to tackling fraud within the welfare system.

    The ad says: “The department utilises covert surveillance to gather evidence to prove/disprove offences” – although it is not clear what these offences are.

    Of course, this wasn’t to tackle the multi-billions in dud covid PPE type of fraud. Instead, these jobs are to wrangle with the criminal masterminds that are, largely, sick and out-of-work people barely surviving on the lowest social security benefits in Northern Europe.

    As the Canary’s Steve Topple has previously pointed out, “benefit fraud” is, of course “a right-wing construct not grounded in reality”. More specifically, he has highlighted that a significant proportion of the DWP’s fraud estimates are not in fact from actual claimants. Instead, Topple has detailed how:

    much of the £8.3bn the DWP promotes as fraud (and that the media dutifully laps up) is just based on assumptions and guesswork.

    But why let the facts get in the way of a good scapegoating? Moreover, Charlton-Dailey noted that:

    This latest recruitment drive comes after the government has upped its commitment to benefit fraud with its Fraud Strategy, which was released last year. According to GOV.UK the plan “sets out bold new measures to fight fraud against the welfare state” and they say it will save the DWP £1.3bn.

    So, let us get this straight. The government spaffed multiple billions of pounds up the wall for rich Tory donors, and this new slick surveillance could help save the DWP – wait for it – a grand sum of £1.3bn.

    Hang up your ballet shoes, as according to the DWP’s latest hiring drive, your next job could be in benefit snooping (you just don’t know it yet.)

    Sweeping new surveillance powers

    Of course, the roles are part and parcel of the Tory government’s sweeping new surveillance plans for the DWP.

    Specifically, it’s currently trying to ram through a series of new powers to enable the department to spy on the bank accounts of benefit claimants. It is doing so through the innocuously titled Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.

    So far, campaigners and media outlets have lambasted a litany of the DWP’s souped-up surveillance schemes for things like:

    • The use of AI to detect fraud (What could possibly go wrong? I’m old enough to remember when faulty AI wrecked the lives of 900 postmasters)
    • Posing a serious risk to disabled people who have set up bank accounts for social care
    • Threatening the dignity and privacy of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and other disability benefits claimants

    Over 40 organisations condemned the bill’s surveillance powers in March in an open letter to work and pensions secretary Mel Stride. In it, groups including Disability Rights UK and Big Brother Watch argued that:

    There are approximately 22.6 million individuals in the welfare system, including those who are disabled, sick, caregivers, job seekers, and pensioners. They should not be treated like criminals by default

    Meanwhile, a petition is calling on the DWP to ditch the new surveillance plans.

    Scapegoated as “scroungers”

    As the Guardian’s Frances Ryan pointed out, the surveillance roll-out is the inevitable end result of the government (and its corporate media lapdogs) painting benefit claimants as “scroungers” and a burden on the taxpayer:

    Invariably, scapegoating is exactly the point. Ostensibly, the Tory government is shirking accountability for fomenting a devastating cost-of-living crisis. No changes there of course – it’s Tory writ large.

    As Topple also recently reported for instance, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) accused the UK government of systematically violating disabled people’s human rights – and for the second time, no less. There too, the government of course denied responsibility.

    But back in morally-bankrupt Tory Britain, the government’s putrid weaponisation of welfare benefits has had devastating consequences. The DWP has presided over tens of thousands of deaths, as claimants waited for benefits, or after the DWP told them they were fit to work. Repeated inquests into the deaths of benefit claimants have revealed the rot at the heart of its routinely punishing and deadly system.

    So, it’s not hard to imagine what these new DWP benefit fraud-busting jobs will mean for the people claiming this social security. What’s more, finding new ways to deny people benefits – in this instance, by criminalising them – sits comfortably alongside the government’s plans to push people into work. Of course, this drive has particularly targeted sick and disabled claimants.

    Naturally, the Tories want you to blame your neighbourhood “scrounger” for all social ills. After all, it has spent years peddling this pernicious rhetoric, demonising disabled, chronically ill, and vulnerable claimants to manufacture consent for stripping back the welfare state.

    Spy on your DWP benefits-claiming neighbours

    So, enter the era of “covert surveillance officers”. The Big Issue explained that the new roles:

    are based in 20 locations across the country with salaries ranging from £29,500 to £33,979.

    Moreover, it highlighted that:

    The job’s description is very vague on detail as to what the job actually entails. It includes “leading in taking forward tasking requests”, sometimes leading “on the activities of the surveillance team” and “actively participating in surveillance operations”, with hours described as “unsociable”, starting early and ending late.

    The ad does however state that hirees will be producing “evidential packages” which include obtaining and writing up witness statements to provide evidence of the activities witnessed. Successful applicants may be required to wear “covert audio equipment” and will also have to present the evidence obtained, which includes compiling and editing video and audio data.

    In other words, for five figures, you can become a dutiful agent of the UK’s fascist, eugenicist state. But hey, be grateful for the opportunity, or the DWP might deny you social security.

    Whilst the bigshot corporate bosses have the government eating out of the palm of their hand, millions in the UK can’t afford to eat at all.

    As ever, in Tory UK, it’s blame your benefit “scrounger” neighbour, not the slimy rich elite that grease the wheels of this despicable government. Now, you can even spy on benefit claimants’ spending too – and get paid to do it.

    Feature image via Hannah Sharland.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The below article is an opinion piece from Neil Goodwin, an activist who was arrested for blocking an entrance to parliament with his mobility scooter

    I’m in Westminster Magistrate’s Court at 10am on Wednesday 3 April, charged with blocking the entrance to parliament in my mobility scooter; I’m disabled, living with multiple sclerosis (MS). This is a bit of what I am hoping to tell the judge.

    Protesting the climate crisis as a disabled person

    On 19 July 2023, exactly a year on from the hottest day on record and the devastating Wennington wild fire, I travelled up to parliament to protest. It was a Wednesday, and Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) was on – the busiest day of the week for parliament and for the media who cover it.

    I positioned myself in front of the carriage entrance, facing towards the road:

    Neil Goodwin, a disabled man, protesting outside parliament in his mobility scooter

    I had dressed up the basket on the front of my mobility scooter to look like it was on fire, with a warning sign on the from showing a disabled wheelchair user caught between a fire and a flood – referencing the Wennington wildfire exactly a year previously.

    It also referenced the danger from flash flooding, which was tragically emphasised in the run up to my plea hearing by the death of an 83-year-old Chesterfield woman called Maureen Gilbert, who drowned in her home during Storm Babet, as she was unable to escape the rapidly rising water inside her terrace home owing to mobility problems.

    I carried a placard with fake flames coming out of the top, that said, ‘I cannot run from a Climate Emergency’. Neither run literally, because of my disability, nor run from what I feel is my social responsibility to try and spotlight the implications of a climate emergency, not just for disabled communities, but for all vulnerable people – the old and the frail.

    Cops provide a concerning response

    I asked the first police officer who approached me, I believe my arresting officer, to turn on his body cam and record a safety announcement – me detailing my various disabilities.

    I explained exactly why I was there, and I was told that I was liable to be arrested.

    I remember asking one officer, I think my arresting officer, to see it not as an arrest, but a demonstration in how difficult it would be to save someone like me from a fire at a moment’s notice and carry me to the safety of a police cell. To see it as an exercise in preparedness, as it were – to which, I remember him saying:

    If you were in a burning building, I’d throw you over my shoulder and carry you out.

    I remember thinking, if you threw me over your shoulder, it would be like throwing a 13-stone ironing board over your shoulder, as my back and neck are almost entirely fused, and you’d probably drop me and/or break my neck in the process. It certainly wouldn’t be that quick and easy.

    I was given every opportunity to leave, invited on numerous occasions to carry out my protest along the pavement, away from the entrance. But it felt right to remain just where I was: right in the middle of what they like to call the Sterile Zone.

    Now prosecuting disabled people to acting ‘socially responsibly’

    It’s strange, but I felt both my strongest and weakest at the same time. Surrounded by cops, one of whom apparently had a best friend with MS, yet none of whom could lay a finger on me, through fear of breaking something.

    Who knew that fragility could become a super-power; the burning issue of climate change held aloft, perhaps barring the way of prime minister Rishi Sunak who’s motorcade would have usually swept past by then.

    So, I was arrested under section 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 which I thought was quite apt, as I sincerely believe that I was acting socially responsibly raising these urgent issues, especially for disabled, vulnerable and frail people; those who will be shoved onto the front line of this Tory government’s war against the weather.

    I pleaded ‘not guilty’ because I don’t think that I did anything wrong. My mum told me to tell the judge that I had seen the error of my ways – when in fact some of us were beginning to feel a real terror in our days:

    Featured image and additional images via Gareth Morris, via via Jamie Lowe

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report

    On my office wall hangs a framed portrait of Shireen Abu Akleh, the inspiring and celebrated American-Palestinian journalist known across the Middle East to watchers of Al Jazeera Arabic, who was assassinated by an Israeli military sniper with impunity.

    State murder.

    She was gunned down in full blue “press” kit almost two years ago while reporting on a raid in the occupied West Bank’s Jenin refugee camp, clearly targeted for her influence as a media witness to Israeli atrocities.

    As in the case of all 22 journalists who had been killed by Israeli military until that day, 11 May 2022, nobody was charged.

    Now, six months into the catastrophic and genocidal Israeli War on Gaza, some 137 Palestinian journalists have been killed — murdered – by Israeli snipers, or targeted bombs demolishing their homes, and even their families.

    Also in my office is pasted a red poster with a bird-of-paradise shaped pen in chains and the legend “Open access for journalists – Free press in West Papua.”

    The poster was from a 2017 World Media Freedom Day conference in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, which I attended as a speaker and wrote about. Until this day, there is still no open door for international journalists

    Harassed, beaten
    Although only one killing of a Papuan journalist is recorded, there have been many instances when local news reporters have been harassed, beaten and threatened – beyond the reach of international media.

    Ardiansyah Matra was savagely beaten and his body dumped in the Maro River, Merauke. A spokesperson for the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), Victor Mambor, said at the time: “‘It’s highly likely that his murder is connected with the terror situation for journalists which was occurring at the time of Ardiansyah’s death.”

    Dr David Robie . . . author and advocate.
    Dr David Robie . . . author and advocate. Image: Café Pacific

    Frequently harassed himself, Mambor, founder and publisher of Jubi Media, was apparently the target of a suspected bomb attack, or warning, on 23 January 2023, when Jayapura police investigated a blast outside his home in Angkasapura Village.

    At first glance, it may seem strange that comparisons are being made between the War on Gaza in the Middle East and the long-smouldering West Papuan human rights crisis in the Asia-Pacific region almost 11,000 km away. But there are several factors at play.

    Melanesian and Pacific activists frequently mention both the Palestinian and West Papuan struggles in the same breath. A figure of up to 500,000 deaths among Papuans is often cited as the toll from 1969 when Indonesia annexed the formerly Dutch colony in controversial circumstances under the flawed Act of Free Choice, characterised by critics as the Act of “No” Choice.

    The death toll in Gaza after the six-month war on the besieged enclave by Israel is already almost 33,000 (in reality far higher if the unknown number of casualties buried under the rubble is added). Most of the deaths are women and children.

    At least 27 children have died of malnutrition so far with numbers expected to rise sharply.

    The Palestinian and West Papuan flags flying high
    The Palestinian and West Papuan flags flying high at a New Zealand protest against the Gaza genocide in central Auckland. Image: David Robie/APR

    Ethnic cleansing
    But there are mounting fears that Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Gazans has no end in sight and the lives of 2.3 million people are at stake.

    Both Palestinians and West Papuans see themselves as the victims of violent settler colonial projects that have been stealing their land and destroying their culture under the world’s noses — in the case of Palestine since the Nakba of 1948, and in West Papua since Indonesian paratroopers landed in a botched invasion in 1963.

    They see themselves as both confronting genocidal leaders; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose popularity at home sinks by the day with growing protests, and Indonesia’s new President-elect Prabowo Subianto who has an atrocious human rights reputation in both Timor-Leste and West Papua.

    And both peoples feel betrayed by a world that has stood by as genocides have been taking place — in the case of Palestine in real time on social media and television screens, and in the case of West Papua slowly over six decades.

    Last November, outgoing Indonesian President Joko Widodo confronted US President Joe Biden on his policies over Gaza, and appealed for Washington to do more to prevent atrocities in Palestine.

    Indonesian politicians such as Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi have been quick to condemn Israel, including at the International Court of Justice, but Papuan independence leaders find this hypocritical.

    “We have full sympathy for the struggle for justice in Palestine and call for the restoration of peace,” said United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) president Benny Wenda.

    Pacific protesters for Palestine
    Pacific protesters for a Free Palestine in New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland. Image: David Robie/APR

    ‘Where’s Indonesian outrage?’
    “But what about West Papua? Where was Indonesia’s outrage after Bloody Paniai [2014], or the Wamena massacre in February?

    “Indonesia is claiming to oppose genocide in Gaza while committing their own genocide in West Papua.”

    “Over 60 years of genocidal colonial rule, over 500,000 West Papuans have been killed by Indonesian forces.”

    Wenda said genocide in West Papua was implemented slowly and steadily through a series of massacres, assassinations and policies, such as the killings of the chair of the Papuan Council Theys Eluay in 2001; Mako Tabuni (2012); and cultural curator and artist Arnold Ap (1984).

    He cited many independent international and legal expert reports for his “considered position”, such as Yale University Law School, University of Wollongong, and the Asian Human Rights CommissionThe Neglected Genocide.

    In the South Pacific, Indonesia is widely seen among civil society, university and community groups as a ruthless aggressor with little or no respect for the Papuan culture.

    Jakarta is engaged in an intensive diplomacy campaign in an attempt to counter this perception.


    Unarmed Palestinians killed in Gaza – revealing Israel’s “kill zones”.  Video: Al Jazeera

    Israel’s ‘rogue’ status

    But if Indonesia is unpopular in the Pacific over its brutal colonial policies, it is nothing compared to the global “rogue” status of Israel.

    In the past few weeks, as atrocity after atrocity pile up and the country’s disregard for international law and United Nations resolutions increasingly shock, supporters appear to be shrinking to its long-term ally the United States and its Five Eyes partners with New Zealand’s coalition government failing to condemn Israel’s war crimes.

    On Good Friday — Day 174 of the war – Israel bombed Gaza, Syria and Lebanon on the same day, killing civilians in all three countries.

    In the past week, the Israeli military racheted up its attacks on the Gaza Strip in defiance of the UN Security Council’s order for an immediate ceasefire, expanded its savage attacks on neighbouring states, and finally withdrew from Al-Shifa Hospital after a bloody two-week siege, leaving it totally destroyed with at least 350 patients, staff and displaced people dead.

    Fourteen votes against the lone US abstention after Washington had earlier vetoed three previous resolutions produced the decisive ceasefire vote, but the Israeli objective is clearly to raze Gaza and make it uninhabitable.

    As The Guardian described the vote, “When Gilad Erdan, the Israeli envoy to the UN, sat before the Security Council to rail against the ceasefire resolution it had just passed, he cut a lonelier figure than ever in the cavernous chamber.”

    The newspaper added that the message was clear.

    ‘Time was up’
    “Time was up on the Israeli offensive, and the Biden administration was no longer prepared to let the US’s credibility on the world stage bleed away by defending an Israeli government which paid little, if any, heed to its appeals to stop the bombing of civilian areas and open the gates to substantial food deliveries.”

    Al Jazeera interviewed Norwegian physician Dr Mads Gilbert, who has spent long periods working in Gaza, including at al-Shifa Hospital. He was visibly distressed in his reaction, lamenting that the Israeli attack had “destroyed” the 78-year legacy of the Strip’s largest and flagship hospital.

    Speaking from Tromso, Norway, he said: “This is such a sad day, I’ve been weeping all morning.”

    Dr Gilbert said he did not know the fate of the 107 critical patients who had been moved two days earlier to an older building in the complex.

    “The maggots that are creeping out of the corpses in al-Shifa Hospital now,” he said, “are really maggots coming out of the eyes of President Biden and the European Union leaders doing nothing to stop this horrible, horrible genocide.”

    Australia-based Antony Loewenstein, the author of The Palestine Laboratory, who has been reporting on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories for two decades, described Israel’s attack on the hospital as the “actions of a rogue state”.

    Gaza health officials said Israel was targeting all the hospitals and systematically destroying the medical infrastructure. Only five out of a total of 37 hospitals still had some limited services operating.

    Indonesian soldiers gag journalists in West Papua
    Indonesian soldiers gag journalists in West Papua – the cartoon could easily be referring to Gaza where attacks on Palestinian journalists have been systemic with 137 killed so far, by far the biggest journalist death toll in any conflict. Image: David Robie/APR

    Strike on journalists’ tent
    Yesterday, four people were killed and journalists were wounded in an Israeli air strike on a tent in the courtyard of al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir el-Balah in central Gaza.

    The Israeli military claimed the strike was aimed at a “command centre” operated by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad armed group, but footage screened by Al Jazeera reporter Hind Khoudary clearly showed it was a tent where displaced people were sheltering and journalists and photographers were working.

    The Israeli military have killed another photojournalist and editor, Abdel Wahab Awni, when they bombed his home in the Maghazi refugee camp. This took the number of journalists killed since the start of the war to 137, according to Gaza’s Government Media Office.

    Al Jazeera has revealed that Israel was using “kill zones” for certain combat areas in Gaza. Anybody crossing the “invisible” lines into these zones was shot on sight as a “terrorist”, even if they were unarmed civilians.

    The chilling practice was exposed when footage was screened of two unarmed civilians carrying white flags being apparently gunned down and then buried by bulldozer under rubble. A US-based civil rights group described the killings as a “heinous crime”.

    The kill zones were confirmed at the weekend by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which said the military had claimed to have killed 9000 “terrorists”, but officials admitted that many of the dead were often civilians who had “crossed the line” of fire.

    Call for sanctions
    The Israeli peace advocacy group Gush Shalom sent an open letter to all the embassies credited to Israel calling for immediate sanctions against the Israeli government, saying Netanyahu was “flagrantly refusing” to comply with the ceasefire resolution.

    “We, citizens of Israel,” said the letter, “are calling on your government to initiate a further meeting of the Security Council, aiming to pass a resolution which would set effective sanctions on Israel — in order to bring about an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip until the end of Ramadan and beyond it.”

    A Palestinian-American professor of law Dr Noura Erakat, of Rutgers University, recently told a BBC interviewer that Israel had made its end game very clear from the beginning of the war.

    “Israel has made its intent clear. Its war cabinet had made its intent clear. From the very beginning, in the first week of October 7, it told us its goal was to depopulate Gaza.

    “They have equated the decimation of Hamas, which they cannot achieve militarily, with the depopulation of the entire Gaza strip.”

    A parallel with Indonesia’s fundamentally flawed policies in West Papua. Failing violent settler colonialism.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • EDITORIAL: By Pip Hinman and Susan Price

    Meta, the giant social media corporation, has “unpublished” Green Left’s longstanding Facebook page, which had tens of thousands of followers.

    We had been regularly posting stories, videos and photographs on the page from our consistent reporting of the news and views that seldom get into the mainstream media.

    But our recent interviews with veteran Palestinian freedom fighter Leila Khaled have resulted in what appears to be a 10-year ban, imposed without warning, nor an avenue of appeal.

    Green Left's Facebook page today
    Green Left’s Facebook page today . . . https://www.facebook.com/GreenLeftOnline/. Image: FB screenshot APR

    Khaled, 79, is a member of the Palestinian Council (Palestine’s parliament) and a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. She lives in political exile in Jordan.

    She is recognised as the Che Guevara of Palestine; she has enormous respect from Palestinians and millions of progressive people around the world.

    The Facebook banning came shortly after Zionist organisations combined with right-wing media (SkyNews and the Murdoch media) to pressure Labor to say it would prevent Khaled from addressing Ecosocialism 2024 — a conference GL is co-hosting in Boorloo/Perth in June — by not only denying her a visa, but even banning her from speaking by video link.

    Multiple visits
    As GL reported, the excuse for such political censorship is, as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry alleged in its letter to Labor, that allowing Khaled to speak “would be likely to have the effect of inciting, promoting or advocating terrorism”.

    This is nonsense.

    Khaled has visited Britain on multiple occasions over the past few years. Israel issued her a visa to visit the West Bank in 1996.

    She has visited Sweden and South Africa and, on one of her multiple visits, met Nelson Mandela (once also labelled a “terrorist” by the West), who warmly welcomed her.

    A growing number of human rights activists, academics, journalists and community leaders have protested against this blatant political censorship. Their statements are here and we urge you to join in by sending us a short statement.

    Palestinian freedom fighter Leila Khaled
    Palestinian freedom fighter Leila Khaled . . . “Kurds have a national identity just as we have our identity as Palestinians.” Image: Green Left/ANF

    Khaled told GL the real reason for this censorship is to “make us shut up about what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank today”.

    Meta has been exposed for carrying out “systematic online censorship”, particularly of Palestinian voices.

    Suppression of content
    In December 2023, Human Rights Watch (HRW) documented “over 1050 takedowns and other suppression of content on Instagram and Facebook that had been posted by Palestinians and their supporters, including about human rights abuses”.

    Meta did not apply the same censorship to pro-Zionist posts that incited hate and violence against Palestinians.

    HRW noted that “of the 1050 cases reviewed for this report, 1049 involved peaceful content in support of Palestine that was censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved removal of content in support of Israel”.

    Other studies have described the systematic “shadow banning” of pro-Palestinian posts on Facebook and Instagram.

    AccessNow, which defends the “digital rights of people and communities at risk” reports that Meta is “systematically silencing the voices of both Palestinians and those advocating for Palestinians’ rights” through arbitrary content removals, suspension of prominent Palestinian and Palestine-related accounts, restrictions on pro-Palestinian users and content, shadow-banning, discriminatory content moderation policies, inconsistent and discriminatory rule enforcement.

    Social media corporations, such as Meta and Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), exercise a lot of power to manipulate people’s social and political views. This power has grown exponentially as more people access their news, views and information online.

    Break this power
    The search for ways to break this power will go on.

    In the meantime there is one way readers can break the social media bans and restrictions on GL’s voice-for-the-resistance journalism: become a supporter and get GL delivered to you.

    It has always been a struggle to keep people-power media projects alive. But GL has been going since 1991 and, with your help, we will not let the giant social media corporations silence us.

    Republished with permission from Green Left.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Haroon Siddiqui’s 2023 memoir, My Name is Not Harry, is a dazzling journey through Indian Sufism, pre-partition Muslim-Hindu harmony, the horrors of partition, a leap across the ocean to the middle of nowhere (sorry, Brandon Manitoba), finally finding his home at the Toronto Star, from whence, back to central Asia (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India during the tumultuous 1979+), hobnobbing with media and political stars, stopping for heart surgery, all the time building and defending his new multicultural faith, adding his own distinct, Muslim flavour to what it means to be a Canadian. A whirlwind tour of the 20th-21st centuries, as if by a latter day Muslim Christopher Columbus, one meant to try to undo the five centuries of imperialist horror that Columbus unleashed.

    He relishes slaying the dragons of bigotry he encounters, starting with

    *Winston Churchill, the racist. He who had labelled Indians ‘a barbarous people’, ‘a beastly people with a beastly religion’, ‘the beastliest people in the world next to Germans’. Who exacerbated the 1943 Bengal famine that had killed millions by insisting that Indian rice exports for the allied war effort not be interrupted. He who had called Gandhi ‘a naked fakir’ whom he wanted ‘bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi and then trampled by an enormous elephant with a new viceroy seated on its back.’

    *Even the Toronto Star‘s iconic Gordon Sinclair, who won fame in the 1930s with his dispatches form India – ‘the pagan peninsula’ with its ‘wild and woolly Hindus’, Brahmins, the supreme high hooper-doopers of this impossible land’, ‘scrawny, underfed untouchables’, impossible-looking beggars’ and ‘yowling idiots’. In tune with those times, [the Star] still going ga-ga over Sinclair well into my own time.

    *On Iran, the only Muslim ‘experts’ and commentators on TV and in print were anti-revolution or anti-Khomeini, authenticating the worst of western prejudices. Anything different, such as mine, must have been a welcome novelty, brought to them by Canada’s largest newspaper.

    *On 9//11, Rushdie see below.

    One of those should-haves of his life as dragonslayer was at the annual press gallery dinner in Ottawa, where he hosted Solicitor General Robert Kaplan. When they were walking to dinner, Kaplan started waxing eloquently about his love for India and yoga but his dislike of Muslims! He assumed that being from India I could only be a Hindu. What a testament to power the Zionist Jewish mindset had/has over even a proud Muslim like Siddiqui. But bravo, Harry (sorry, Haroon) for owning up. That’s the great thing about him. He lives his multiculturalism, which means meeting the other on his/her grounds, looking for the middle ground, not stoking enmity.

    Iranian Ayatollahs, Afghan communists

    He shines on the thorniest issue, one of which confronted him soon after arriving at the Star, when he was sent off to Iran in 1979. Speaking Urdu (close to Persian) and fully versed in Sunni and Shia Islam, he was able to make sense of the chaos, making his way to Qom to visit Ayatollah Madari, Khomeini’s rival, who lived just down the maze of alleys from Khomeini, who was already commanding the revolution from his modest home there, rather than Tehran.

    He was told it was impossible to meet with Madari, even for a Canadian Muslim, but when he revealed that he’d just come from Tabriz, where Madari’s People’s Republican Party followers had risen up against Khomeini, rejecting the Islamic state constitution, Madari relented. Madari wanted a secular state and ‘the sovereignty of the people’ not a person. He answered every question patiently for nearly two hours. That was his only interview in the wake of the revolt. It would be his last. He was placed under house arrest until his death six years later.

    He also met with Morteza Pasandideh, 82, Khomeini’s older brother, who was quite jovial. Siddiqui admired them all for their stress-free lives, their inner peace all, living productive lives into their 80s or 90s. Qom is famous for sohan halwa (sweet sweet) made with pistachios, almonds and butter. Back in Toronto, he asked John Ralston Saul to taste and guess which enemy country it was from. Whatever it is, it could only have been made by a great civilization.

    He toured the now-occupied US embassy and chatted amiably (sympathetically?) with the students about how they had pulled off the siege, overpowering the bulky Marines. They said their resolve got strengthened after seeing a large-size picture of Khomeini on a dartboard and several crude cartoons of Khomeini from American and British newspapers in the embassy. At Christmas they made cookies for their captives. An American priest who had come to perform the Christmas Mass said: We should be grateful that we are in a Muslim country and there are not drunk guards. Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor told him: There are no anti-Canadian feelings here. No one has indicated any inclination to leave Tehran. There’s no panic. When he met Taylor later, he said: Mr Taylor, you’re a great liar. Taylor: That’s what I got paid for.

    After an exhausting year in Tehran, the Soviets invaded (came to the assistance of) secular revolutionary Kabul and he was ordered to get there asap. But first he flew to the Iranian border and crossed into Afghanistan to meet a local tribal chieftain, who told him, ‘We’ll kick the bastards out.’ How to get there legitimately? Pakistan? Better India, which had good relations with the communists in Moscow and Kabul, so off to New Delhi and the Afghan embassy. Indira Gandhi never condemned the Soviet invasion. (How wise in retrospect.) In Kabul he was told not to go anywhere and only communicate through an official guide. Ha, ha! He snuck out the back door of his hotel, spoke to a soldier in Urdu, said ‘Canada’ and quickly found a local driver.

    He credits Canada’s reputation for peaceful relations, a well-known eye clinic in Kabul. Off to (Shia) Herat where he heard Long live Islam, Long live Iran! He bought a Russian fur cap but was told never to wear it in public or he might be shot. He left via Pushtunistan to Jalalabad, Pakistan, where he met the legendary 91-year-old frontier Gandhi Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who like the Siddiquis had protested the division of India. He was ailing but contemptuous of Soviet attempts to appease religious Afghans. Everything in Afghanistan is done in the name of religion. But this is a political religion, not the religion of Islam and Allah and Muhammad. Communism has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the stomach. The Russians knew this and tried to convince the Afghans that they could keep their religion, but it was too little, too late. The Russians refused to try to treat their Gandhi, fearing if he died, they would be accused of killing him.

    He pressed on to the Khyber Pass, the route for a stream of invaders – Cyrus, Darius, Genghis Khan, Alexander, the Mughals. Tribal chief Mohammed Gul told him: if the Iranians can knock off the Shah and the Americans, we certainly can kick out the Russians. He saw that resistance was beginning to jell within weeks of the Soviet occupation. It took a decade for the Soviets to depart, the US and allies, including Canada, taking double the time to conclude that Afghans have both the courage and patience to bleed any occupier dry.

    This being the days before internet, getting copy out required ingenuity. Siddiqui would go to the airport on the days Indian Airlines came to Kabul, meet the crew and cajole/tip them into taking copy and dropping it off at the Reuters news agency in Delhi for forwarding to Toronto. He also went on the day Pakistan International Airlines came just in case. Later he was told everything came, sometimes twice. He met Brzezinski in Peshawar (!) but he wouldn’t give Siddiqui the time of day.

    Following the Iraq-Iran war, he was disgusted that western media ignored the poison gas supplied to Iraq by American, German, French, Dutch, Swiss and Belgian companies. On the Iranian front line he hid from Iraqi snipers and marveled at how soldiers dying from gassing were rushed from the front to Tehran hospitals. He was appalled by Khomeini’s hitman, a sadistic prosecutor Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali, the hanging judge. Later in Paris, he met Bani Sadr, the first president, who had been impeached and fled the country disguised as a woman in a chador, in an Iran Air Force jet piloted by a sympathizer. He laments that US hostility prompted Khomeini to restart the nuclear program begun under the Shah, after ending it as unIslamic.

    Siddiqui’s credo

    I must admit, I’ve become jaded about multiculturalism. Toronto is now mostly first or second generation immigrants. Our culture feels shallow and American now. I find the turban-wearing Uber electric scooters grazing me unawares on bike paths frightening, and pointless, as they ferry onion rings to lazy people with too much money. I bemoan the lack of interest in Canadian history, our struggle to define an identity that’s not American. Most immigrants really would prefer big, rich, warm America to Canada and would have no problem if the US decided to invade. What has happened to Canadian culture?

    But then I’ve become equally jaded about our heroic history. We are all immigrants, in the case of the paleface, mostly riff-raff, having decimated our poor brown natives. The post-WWII immigrants from brown countries like Siddiqui’s India/ Pakistan are mostly university-educated, the elites of their countries, so they really are a step up from my Irish-English-Swedish peasant ancestors.

    But then, I find that equally disturbing. We stole the land from the real Canadians. Now we steal the intellectual wealth from poor countries. Sure we’re richer; the imperialist ‘centre’ is always richer. Our Canadianism was and is still a fraud. So, white flag, hello multiculturalism, for better or worse. But one that should give first place to our natives as the real owners, spiritually, of the land. And no more stealing, whether it be minds from ‘over there’, or land here or ‘over there’. That means Israel, our ‘best friend’, according to PM Harper in 2013 and PM Trudeau in 2015.

    Siddiqui is unapologetically for mass immigration and has no time for the ecological problems that mass migration entails. He boasts having visited India 50 times in 40 years, not to mention his other peregrinations. That grates. Yes, brown/black is just as good as white, but what’s holding us together anymore? I don’t know, but I’m happy for Siddiqui, who at least has helped Canada transform from a country of bigotry and chauvinism to … a nice, tame, bland cosmopolis.

    His journey through the swinging ’60s into the terrible ’20s is an upbeat panorama of not only Canada at its peak of popularity and feel-goodness, but, reading between the lines, also the decline of Canada, its loss of feel-good innocence transformation into an unapologetic toady of US empire. He took pride in being Canadian when Ambassador Taylor helped US hostages escape Tehran in 1980, when Chretien refused to go along with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but it’s been downhill since then, with Harper’s disastrous commitment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan, his open Islamo- and Russophobia, his worship of Israel. While Trudeau has welcomed Syrian refugees (and now Afghans, fall out from Harper’s war), he did not fulfill his pledge to renew relations with Iran, despite the Iranian exile community’s pleas. His Russophobia is pathetic. Multiculturalism is looking mighty threadbare.

    Yes, following Trudeau senior, Siddiqui’s credo is that all cultural communities have ‘the right to preserve and develop their own cultures within Canadian society’, which he notes is the ethos of India, best articulated by Indian novelist Shivaram Karanth: There’s no such thing as Indian culture. Indian culture is so varied as to be called cultures. But what has happened to India’s multiculturalism under arch-Hindu nationalist Modi?


    Star Foreign Editor Jimmy Atkins (R) with Star chair John Honderich, South African President Nelson Mandela & first lady Graca Machel, Star editorial board editor Haroon Siddiqui.

    Free trade, Sikhs, Laïcité

    Siddiqui gets along with everyone, doesn’t drink or smoke (anymore), a model Muslim in the House of War.1 He traces his ancestors to the first caliph Abu-bakr Siddiq, and second caliph Umar al-Khattab al-Faruq. A worthy disciple of the Prophet Muhammad, the multiculturalist par excellence.2 The fearsome Bee (Star editor-in-chief Beland Honderich) famously got along with Haroon. Siddiqui started from scratch in Brandon (no halal, no yogurt in 1968), then the Star, rising quickly through the ranks to foreign correspondent, front page editor, editorial page editor, and finally columnist, all the time the only Muslim in mainstream Canadian media.

    He and the Star were against Mulroney’s ‘free’ trade pact with the yankee devil, realizing it was only good for fat cats. He has acted as a public spokesman explaining the problems of all immigrants and BIPOC,3 an acronym he promotes. He highlights the racism which feeds on the changing demographics from white to nonwhite, recountiing a Tanzanian immigrant pushed onto Toronto’s subway tracks, crippling him, and the existence of a KKK chapter operating openly in Toronto.

    The case of Sikhs is thorny. Sikh Canadians were mostly quietist, but when Sikh separatists were ejected from the Golden Temple by Indira Gandhi in 1984, she was assassinated, and Sikh separatists blew up an Indian Airlines plane full of Hindu Canadians in 1985. This still ranks as Canada’s worst such tragedy, but was downplayed by the Canadian government with the investigation bungled by the RCMP, as anti-Sikh/ Hindu racism grew. And it continues, the latest being a hit job on a (Sikh separatist) Canadian, openly, by India’s militant Hindu nationalist government. Multiculturalism is easily abused and hard to defend.

    To their credit, the Sikhs in Canada have bounced back, entering politics (Justin Trudeau boasted more Sikhs in his cabinet than Modi), joining the RCMP, police, army, working hard, being good citizens. The bad apples didn’t spoil the whole barrel, though Sikhs have no use for India, and they really did capture the lackluster leadership convention of the NDP out of nowhere in 2017. The unlikely NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has been earnest, if not inspiring.

    How does this multiculturalism pan out? Quebec separatists don’t like immigrants much, as they are not interested in living in a parochial, xenophobic province, and have enough trouble learning passable English, let alone Quebecois. They voted en masse against independence, and the pesky Muslim women want to wear hijab or worse, niqab. Vive la laïcité. Quebec has chosen to copy France’s punitive banning hijab and other restrictions. Still, English and French get along.

    Tribalism, French vs English, Sikhs vs Hindus, Buddhists remains strong. That contrasts with Muslims, who quickly drop their ethnic identity for universal Islam and Canadianism (84% cite being Muslim and 81% cite being Canadian as their primary identity),4 as I’ve noticed at Muslim conferences, where a truly united nations reigns. That brings us to Jewish Canadians vs Muslim Canadians, the most tragic stand-off of the past century. Siddiqui doesn’t go to this forbidding territory. On the contrary, (wisely) he has spoken to Bnai Brith and Canadian Jewish Congress gatherings and kept a low profile as a Muslim Canadian. As the sole prominent Muslim journalist here, he was operating in enemy territory, as his encounter with Kaplan confirmed.

    Enlightening Canadians on things Islamic

    More important, he wrote engagingly about Muslims in Toronto, which hosts the largest Iranian emigre community after the US, mostly in ‘Tehronto’, a mix of pro- and anti-Khomeini, but able to live peacefully, all agreeing that the Canadian government nonrecognition of Iran and boycott is bad politics for everyone. His appreciation for this ‘great civilization’ contrasts with the negative press that Iran uniformly gets here.

    Siddiqui realized quickly that Canadian media coverage and commentary ‘smelled of American propaganda’ and the US and allies were inflicting too many horrors on Muslims and Muslims lands. In 1988, the US warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing 290, prompting Bush I to boast: I will never apologize for the US. I don’t care what the facts are. Instead, Washington awarded medals to the captain and crew of the Vincennes. Did any other mainstream journalist note this then or now? He refused to blacken Islam after 9/11. Now a columnist he wrote his third post-9/11 column ‘It’s the US foreign policy, stupid,’ causing a storm of letters to the editor, a majority ‘thank you for saying it’.

    Ismailis came in 1972, expelled by Idi Amin of Uganda, joined later by Ismailis from Kenya and Tanzania. Self-reliant, educated, entrepreneurial, they inspired the Aga Khan to build a museum of Islamic culture in Toronto in 2014, the only such museum in the West. Ironically it was officially opened by arch-Islamophobe PM Harper. We celebrate today not only the harmonious meeting of green gardens and glass galleries. We rejoice above all in the special spirit which fills this place and gives it its soul. But then, to Islamophobe Harper, Ismailis are Islam-lite, not considered real Muslims by most.

    There are two chapters dealing with the ummah: Cultural Warfare on Muslims, and Harper and Muslims (In his ugliness, he was well ahead of Trump – and more effective). Some particularly painful episodes he covered:

    *Harper invited (till then terrorist) Modi to Canada in 2014 when first elected, accompanying him to Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver,

    *He established an office of religious freedom, which he unveiled at a Mississauga Coptic church. He announced the position of a new ambassador of religious freedom at the Ahmadiyya mosque in Vaughan, defending Christian and other minorities in Muslim nations, doing nothing for Uighurs, Rohingyas, Shia in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    I could go on – I haven’t even got to the Rushdie circus – but I urge all Muslim Canadians, no, all Canadians, to read for yourselves. Siddiqui provides an excellent survey of all the post-9/11 Islamophobic nonsense, especially in Euroland.

    The West has discredited democracy by allowing anti-Islam and anti-Muslim discourse to be one of our last acceptable forms of racism and bigotry. It’s in this milieu that Rushdie and the Rushdie affair have thrived. Has Rushdie been exploiting western prejudices or has the West been using him as a shield for its own prejudices? Or is this a case of mutual convenience?

    Having rid ourselves of Harper, how quickly we forget the pain when it stops. As it has under Trudeau Jr. For all his silliness and US-Israel fawning, Justin Trudeau is true to his father’s legacy, and undid much of Harper’s bigotry, especially relating to Muslims.

    We should be wary of letting the unrepentant Conservatives take back Parliament Hill. However, I don’t think it’s possible to relaunch the Harper take-no-hostages Crusade. 9/11 (whoever did it) is what motivated me and many more to become a Muslim, and October 7 is now rapidly expanding the Muslim ummah, especially in the West, the heart of the beast. The trouble for the Harpers is that the more Islam and Muslims are reviled, the more Muslims (re)turn to their religion. But then that’s the way of imperialism, creating its enemies, stoking them, as Israel did with Hamas, thinking they can then pick off the ‘terrorists’, ‘mow the grass’.

    Siddiqui draws from his experience surviving partition in India, adhering to Shaykh Madani’s view that ‘there is too much diversity within Islam for democracy to work, that an Islamic state would inevitably be authoritarian.’ Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran are the leading examples. The best protection for peoples of faith was a democratic state that stayed neutral between faiths and advanced mutual respect.5

    The Harpers accuse Muslims of being unwilling to integrate. Canada, Britain and the US are shining examples of the opposite.

    *In the 2021 federal election 12 Muslims won seats. Two hold senior Cabinet portfolios: Omar Alghabra and Ahmed Hussen.

    *In Britain, in 2019, 19 were elected. Sadiq Khan has been mayor of London since 2016.

    *Humza Yousaf became first minister in Scotland in 2023, the first Muslim to lead a western nation. When Khan was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council at Bukhingham Palace in 2009, it was discovered there was no Quran in the palace, so he brought his own and left it as a present to the Queen.

    *In the US 57 Muslims were elected in 2020. Keith Ellison, the first member of the House was sworn in on a copy of the Quran owned by President Jefferson, who had bought an English translation out of the ‘desire to understand Islam on its own terms.’

    *Arab and Muslim entertainers, stand-up comedians, writers, actors, Little Mosque on the Prairie …

    *To welcome Syrian refugees arriving in Canada, Ottawa French public schools joined to sing Talaʽ al-Badru ʽAlaynā,6 which went viral on YouTube.

    Siddiqui’s openmindedness and lack of prejudice are his not-so-secret weapon, able to find common humanity where western propaganda serves up bile. To no small degree, thanks to Haroon and other new (brown) Canadians, Marshall McLuhan’s global village is a reality at home, the most successful heterogeneous experiment in human history.

    ENDNOTES

    The post Haroon Siddiqui’s My Name is NOT Harry first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    Dar al-harb vs Dar al-Salam, House of Peace, referring to the Muslim world.
    2    Quran16:13 And all the [beauty of] many hues-which He has created for you on earth: in this, behold, there is a message for people who [are willing to] take it to heart.
    3    Black, indigenous, people of colour.
    4    Half of Muslim Canadians consider their ethnic identity as very important. Statistics Canada, ‘The Canadian Census: A rich portrait of the country’s religious and ethnocultural diversity,’ 2022.
    5    Siddiqui, My name is not Harry: A memoir, 392.
    6    (طلع البدر) nasheed that the Ansar sang for the Islamic prophet Muhammad upon his arrival at Medina from the (non)battle of Tabuk.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • EDITORIAL: The Jakarta Post

    It happens again and again; indigenous Papuans fall victim to Indonesian soldiers.

    This time, we have photographic evidence for the brutality, with videos on social media showing a Papuan man being tortured by a group of plainclothes men alleged to be the Indonesian Military (TNI) members. One clip shows the man’s head being beaten with a rod, while another has his back slashed by a blade that looks like a combat knife.

    After initially denying the assailants in the footage were military personnel, the TNI issued on Monday a rare apology and said that 13 soldiers had been arrested following the viral video.

    THE JAKARTA POST

    “I apologise to all Papuans, and we will work to ensure this is never repeated,” said Cenderawasih Military Commander in Papua Major General Izak Pangemanan.

    That rare apology is a positive sign, but it is not enough. We have had enough pledges from the military about not inflicting more violence on Papuans, but time and again blood is spilled in the name of the military and police campaign against armed separatist [pro-independence] groups.

    The resource-rich Papua region has seen escalating violence since 2018, when the military increased its presence there in response to deadlier and more frequent attacks, allegedly committed by armed rebels.

    Throughout 2023 alone, there were 49 acts of violence by security forces against civilians recorded by the rights group Commission for Missing Person and Victims of Violence (Kontras) in the form of, among others, forceful arrest, torture and shooting. At least 67 people were injured and 41 others lost their lives in the violence.

    Also according to Kontras, some of the arrested civilians could not be proven to have ties to the armed rebel groups, particularly the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB).

    In regard to this week’s viral videos, the TNI claimed that the man beaten in the video was identified as Defianus Kogoya, a separatist [pro-independence activist] who planned to burn down a health center in Central Papua.

    Whether Defianus was a rebel or civilian, what the soldiers did to him is unjustified, because no national or international law allows the torture of members of hostile forces.

    The Geneva Conventions and its additional protocols have at least seven articles banning torture. There are also other sets of regulations banning cruel or inhuman treatment of captured enemies.

    National regulations also prohibit security forces personnel from committing unnecessary violent acts. Article 351 of the Criminal Code mandates two years and eight months’ imprisonment for any individuals committing torture, a provision that also applies to military personnel.

    For soldiers, the punishment can be heavier as they face the possibility of getting an additional one third of the punishment if they are found guilty of torture by a military court.

    The TNI also announced on Monday that it had arrested 13 soldiers allegedly involved in the incidents in the video. The investigations are still ongoing, but the military promised to name them as suspects soon.

    These might be good first steps, but they may mean nothing if their superiors are not prosecuted alongside the foot soldiers. At the very least, the TNI must ensure that the 13 suspects are prosecuted thoroughly in a military court of justice.

    The TNI should also work harder to prevent systemic issues that allow such violence to occur. A TNI spokesperson acknowledged on Monday that the military was far from perfect. That is good, but it would be better if the TNI actually worked in a transparent manner on how it addresses that imperfection.

    Overall, the government and especially the incoming administration of President-elect Prabowo Subianto must make more serious efforts at achieving a long-lasting peace in Papua.

    Sending more troops has proven to merely lead to escalation. The incoming government should consider the possibility that fighting fire with fire, only leads to a bigger fire.

    This editorial in The Jakarta Post was published yesterday, 27 March 2024, under the title “Stop fighting fire with fire”.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: Jewish Voice for Peace

    The UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza on Monday — and for the first time since the beginning of the Israeli military’s genocide of Palestinians, the United States abstained rather than vetoing it.

    Security Council resolutions are legally binding, despite the Biden administration claiming that they are not.

    But it is up to the Palestine solidarity movement to ensure the US government enforces it.

    The resolution demands an immediate ceasefire that leads to a “lasting” and “sustainable” ceasefire, demands the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages,” and emphasises “expand[ing] the flow of humanitarian assistance.”

    The resolution also contains several weaknesses, reflected in its intentionally vague, watered-down language, which obscures member states’ responsibilities to enforce the ceasefire.

    Concerningly, the resolution only demands a ceasefire “for the month of Ramadan,” which ends in two weeks. US diplomats also lobbied for concessions until the last minute, leading to replacing the call for a“permanent ceasefire” with the much weaker “lasting ceasefire.”

    The resolution demands the release of all hostages, but it fails to explicitly name the tens of thousands of Palestinians held illegally in Israeli detention and subject to systematic abuse, instead referring ambiguously to both parties complying with “their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain.”

    Essential clause ‘buried’
    And although the resolution does “reiterate its demand for the lifting of all barriers to provision of humanitarian aid at scale” — in a clear message to the Israeli government — this essential clause is buried at the end of a longer sentence that merely emphasises the need to expand the flow of humanitarian aid.

    As JVP international advisor Phyllis Bennis puts it, “in UN diplo-speak… ‘emphasising’ something ain’t even close to ‘demanding’ that it happen.”

    Nevertheless, the US’s decision to abstain on the vote has inflamed tensions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who immediately announced that he had cancelled a high-level Israeli delegation bound for Washington.

    President Biden had explicitly requested the meeting to raise concerns about Israel’s potential ground invasion of Rafah, Gaza’s southernmost city where nearly 1.5 million Palestinians are currently sheltering.

    Biden has insisted on a plan to evacuate civilians, however impossible that may be, and has called the planned ground invasion a “red line.”

    That a ceasefire resolution was finally achieved is in large part due to the massive pressure being exerted by the Palestine solidarity movement. It is a reminder that pressure works, and that now is not the time to let up.

    That it took this long, however, shows us how far we have to go.

    US vetoed four times
    The US vetoed four previous UNSC ceasefire resolutions while the Israeli military slaughtered tens of thousands of Palestinian men, women, and children, even after the World Court found South Africa’s claim that Israel was committing genocide to be “plausible.”

    Gaza is now a shell of its former self, its entire landscape rendered unrecognisable by the Israeli military’s months-long genocidal onslaught.

    Over 32,000 Palestinians have been killed. Full-blown famine is imminent, and half of Gaza’s entire population — 1.1 million people — are facing starvation.

    Yet the Biden administration remains intent on continuing to arm the Israeli military.

    Immediately following the passage of the resolution, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield was already undermining it by claiming that UN Security Council resolutions are not legally binding.

    This is patently false — and it tells us that the Biden administration is fully prepared to skirt any and all responsibility to enforce this resolution, which would necessitate cutting off the flow of US weapons to the Israeli military.

    $3.8 billion for Israeli military
    Last week, Biden signed off on a spending bill that would provide $3.8 billion in funding to the Israeli military.

    The bill will also ban funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) through March 2025.

    Meanwhile, the US military continues to conduct aid airdrops in Gaza — a public relations manoeuvre intended to diffuse pressure on the US government.

    These aid drops will not prevent a famine, and they do not absolve the United States government of its complicity in this genocide. They are also dangerous, expensive, and inefficient.

    Republished from JVP

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • BBC director-general Tim Davie has been in the news a lot this week – or rather, his corporate media colleagues have been reporting on him a lot. However, they generally skipped over a crucial admission by arch-Tory Davie – one that exposed the broadcaster’s real agenda, and also exposed himself. Because Davie effectively admitted the BBC works as an arm of government.

    BBC‘s Tim Davie: licence fee blah, blah, blah…

    Davie told the Royal Television Society (RTS) on Tuesday 26 March that the BBC is looking at reforming its main source of funding in the light of a government freeze and inflationary pressures.

    Davie said that high inflation, increased costs, and the latest below-inflation licence fee settlement had “chipped away” at the BBC‘s income. “Significant pressure” had been put on its finances, leading to more than 1,800 job losses in the last three years, and cuts to more than 1,000 hours of content, he added.

    At the same time, he said wider changes in media consumption such as streaming and on-demand services were reshaping the broadcasting market. Davie said:

    This is particularly problematic as a strong balance sheet and the ability to deploy capital strategically is essential if we are to navigate digital transition. To strip money from the BBC during this period has been particularly short-sighted.

    So, the BBC is planning to shake up how it does things. Davie noted:

    Given the rapid changes we have seen in audience behaviour and in the media market, it is right that we look at how we are funded in the future. We will need to work more strategically with the best tech companies to cocreate solutions and form business partnerships that save money, inject capital and create better products.

    Advertising and public-private partnerships, essentially. However, there was one key part of Davie’s speech which the media missed – and predictably so.

    Don’t mention the ‘soft power’

    He mentioned BBC World Service, which operates in 42 languages including English. It is mostly funded from the licence fee, and also receives a Foreign Office grant. Davie said of the current situation for the BBC World Service:

    Not properly funding one of the UK’s most valuable soft power assets makes no sense economically or culturally.

    So, Davie admits BBC World Service is a ‘soft power asset’ for the UK. But what exactly does that mean?

    Joseph S. Nye, Jr coined the term “soft power” in the 1980s. In that instance he was referring to, as Foreign Affairs wrote:

    the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion

    That is – you ‘persuade’ people to come round to your way of thinking about, or doing, things. Now, proponents of soft power would argue that it’s not primarily a tool of government, but of society more broadly.

    That’s demonstrable nonsense, for starters – because if soft power was at all our disposals then the UK would have told Israel to stop bombing Gaza months ago, as per public opinion polling. So, we’re back to the reality being that it is the government and civil service that drives the soft power agenda.

    Ergo – the BBC falls into line with this.

    BBC causing dissent in North Korea?

    For example, in November 2016 the BBC announced that it was launching radio services in North Korea. According to then-BBC director general Tony Hall, the secretive state would receive “independent, impartial journalism and world-class entertainment”.

    But the money for the BBC expansion into North Korea didn’t come from the licence fee. It came from direct funding from the UK government itself; which gave the broadcaster an additional £289m after a BBC report warned that:

    If the UK wants the BBC to remain valued and respected, an ambassador of Britain’s values and an agent of soft power in the world, then the BBC is going to have to commit to growing the World Service and the government will have to recognise this.

    Let’s be clear: the UK government gave the BBC money to push Western propaganda in North Korea (probably with the goal of attempting to destabilise the country). This core point can be manipulated with semantics around ‘soft power’ and ‘impartiality’ as much as the BBC wants – but it IS the core point, here.

    Anti-Russia propaganda dressed up as the ‘truth’

    Of course, the UK government has done this with Russia as well. As PRWeek reported, in 2017 the Foreign Office spent £14m on “supporting public service and independent media operating in the Russian language, including projects in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia”. It said that:

    the FCO is working with the EU and the international community to restrict the Kremlin’s ability to use disinformation and propaganda, as it has done during its occupation of Crimea and destabilisation of Ukraine.

    Yup, so instead of Russia pushing its disinformation and propaganda – the UK will push its. But only by using ‘soft power’, right? Oddly, this was of course all before Russia invaded Ukraine.

    So, Davie bleating that the BBC needs more cash because it’s a “soft power asset” is like catnip for the government. As per North Korea in 2016, it’s likely the government will fill the BBC World Service‘s coffers once more.

    BBC: once a government agent, always a government agent

    Of course, the BBC more broadly being an arm of the state is also glaringly obvious to anyone with half an eye open. For example, during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, the BBC was essentially on a wartime footing. It was pumping out pro-government narratives without question; at times even questioning the facts from a Tory perspective. This was not much different to the BBC‘s role in WWII.

    It’s also the same agenda that led it to it being directly involved in espionage during the 1953 Iranian coup. It’s the same MO that led Andrew Marr to stand outside Downing Street at the end of the Iraq invasion in 2003 and say:

    it would be entirely ungracious, even for [Tony Blair’s] critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result.

    Damningly, it’s the same agenda that has seen the BBC repeatedly whitewash Israel’s war crimes and genocide since 7 October – while treating Palestinians as underclass citizens.

    And so here we are, in 2024 – and still the BBC is begging the government for money because it knows it’s a soft power asset for it and Western, capitalist agendas more broadly. Hey, at least Davie had the mettle to half-say it with his chest.

    Never mind how the BBC should fund itself – it’s high time we all stopped funding the BBC.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via the RTS – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Commentator Paul Mason, who is trying to become a Labour MP, slandered an audience member as antisemitic during a Q&A discussion at an event entitled ‘Is it worth voting Labour in 2024?’

    The audience member said:

    I can’t believe that there hasn’t been any mention here of the Labour Files, like you know the way that Jeremy Corbyn was outed and obliterated through the media because of Keir Starmer and his Israeli sponsors and the fact that so many in the Labour Party are supported and funded by Israel. How can anyone even consider voting Labour, they don’t stand for the people.

    Israeli lobby – close ties with Starmer’s Labour

    The audience member’s comment is grounded in evidence.

    The Labour Files – an investigation by Al Jazeera – documented Israel putting up a £1m bounty for insiders to sabotage former anti-imperialist and left-wing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

    The undercover work also revealed that Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) works “really closely” with the Israeli embassy. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves is an LFI vice chair.

    Pro-Israel lobbyists, meanwhile, have funded two fifths of Keir Starmer’s shadow cabinet, including Starmer himself.

    On top of this, the mainstream media has been complicit in the smear campaign that democratic movements are antisemitic. A Media Reform Coalition case study found coverage of Corbyn’s Labour and antisemitism to be a “disinformation paradigm”.

    In addition, Starmer helped secure Corbyn’s 2019 electoral defeat through pushing a re-run of the Brexit referendum, a policy elites used to guarantee Corbyn’s Labour lost.

    In response at the event in Kilburn, Paul Mason said:

    See, why didn’t you just say Jew? Why didn’t you just say Jew? Because…why didn’t you just say “He’s a Jewish agent”? Why didn’t you just say it because that’s what you mean isn’t it. And I’ll say to you, anybody in this room who wants to be part of a left where you go around saying ‘Starmer’s an Israeli agent’ if you want to do that, fine

    Mason’s credibility was brought into question in 2022 when leaked emails revealed him plotting with an intelligence contractor to take down independent media sites.

    Paul Mason’s “unhinged response”

    After the event, Paul Mason misrepresented what the audience member said to hundreds of thousands of followers. And on social media, people called him out:

    Others pointed out that Mason equating pro-Israel with ‘Jewish’ is itself antisemitic, because it is holding Jewish people collectively responsible for Israel’s actions:

    Mason went on to claim that Starmer’s Labour is “anti-racist”, despite its support for Israel’s genocidal and colonial assault against Palestinian people. Israel has now killed over 32,000 Palestinians including 13,000 children in under six months. The state has displaced 85% of the population of Gaza.

    Moreover, his claims of Starmer’s party being “anti-racist” are at odds with Martin Forde KC. The author of the notorious Forde Report claimed in 2023 that:

    Anti-black racism and Islamophobia is not taken as seriously as antisemitism within the Labour party, that’s the perception that has come through [from his report]… My slight anxiety is that in terms of hierarchy, and genuine underlying concerns about wider racial issues, it’s not in my view a sufficient response to say that was then, this is now.

    Mason has been caught trying to suppress discussion that exposes the UK political establishment through bogus antisemitism allegations. The commentator becoming an MP is the opposite of what we need.

    Featured image via Penguin Books UK- YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • From 1939 to 1978, Spain had a fascist dictatorship which was not defeated as in the case of Germany and Italy. The transition to democracy was not by conviction but because the world demanded it and it was very deficient. Since then, two major parties have alternated in power, PP from the right and PSOE from the center. The PP is the direct heir of fascism and the PSOE is also a heir, by the environmental osmosis of the same intolerant nationalism. Now, with an amnesty for Catalan pro-independence politicians and upcoming elections – could things be about to shift again? Possibly – as Puigdemont is standing in the elections.

    Catalan independence

    The ongoing independence attempt is the most powerful in history because now Spain cannot consider killing us in the institutional framework of the EU. In 2017 we held and won a self-determination referendum. The PP fought it using anti-democratic methods: judges, secret services, police; the the PSOE was doing the same: repression and denial of any option towards freedom for Catalonia.

    In the recent electoral campaign, the PSOE ridiculed Catalan independence, assured that it would arrest and lock up in prison Carles Puigdemont (the president of Catalonia who carried out the referendum in 2017 and who is in exile in Belgium), and denied the possibility of an amnesty for pro-independence politicians or any referendum on self-determination for Catalonia.

    The PSOE was showing off its chest by exhibiting the aggressive nationalism that is typical of the Spanish identity.

    But the PP and the extreme right of VOX won the elections of July 23, 2023 without an absolute majority. Then the PSOE, seeing that it does not govern in any large region or city council, wanted to get the government of Spain so that its party has economic viability. And everything has changed. They no longer blaspheme the Catalan independentism, but they made a pact because they need their seven votes to govern.

    An amnesty finally passed

    On 7 March, the amnesty law that the PSOE said it would never approve was passed. And they have approved it with the Catalan pro-independence parties and other parties, in total eight parties (179 seats and 12.3 million votes).

    It is a success for the Catalan independence movement because it has shown that they were falsely accused. Nobody would have been able to approve an amnesty that would pardon real terrorists. Spanish nationalism, in full fury, invented accusations against Catalan independence: rebellion, sedition, terrorism, treason, hate crimes, economic embezzlement.

    But it is quite the opposite. The Catalan independence movement is exemplary in its democratic approach (it does not want to impose independence but has always wanted to hold a referendum of self-determination for the Catalan society to decide democratically) and it is not violent (it has made massive and peaceful mobilisations).

    Aware that there had been “lawfare” (judicial dirty war), the PSOE has now accepted an amnesty.

    Threats from the right

    But the right and the extreme right do not want to accept it, because they see it as a defeat. They have always imposed themselves by force and now they do not want to accept the law passed by the Spanish parliament.

    Judges threaten to sabotage the law and not to apply it. And the fact is that, there being no crimes, an amnesty law is needed because the judges accept the invented accusations and condemn the pro-independence supporters to destroy this political movement. With that motivation, the judges will look for subterfuges not to apply it and to continue condemning.

    And all this is because now the PSOE needs the seven pro-independence votes. But what will it do when it does not need them? What will it do when the Catalan pro-independence movement, remade from this chapter of repression, mobilises again to free itself from Spain?

    We know: both PP and PSOE will go back to repression. But for the moment, the independence movement has managed to demonstrate that it is not guilty of any crime and that it only wants freedom from a country that only increases the desire of the Catalans to free themselves from it.

    Puigdemont returns?

    A week ago, early Catalan elections were called for 12 May. Three or four pro-independence parties will run. However, on 21 March, in the town hall of Elna (in Northern Catalonia, now part of France), Puigdemont gave a conference in front of 1,400 people to make an announcement that will revolutionise Catalonia: Puigdemont is standing in the elections:

    Conferència Carles Puigdemont

    He will campaign online from Brussels because, if he were to set foot on Spanish soil, he would be arrested immediately. However, he has pledged that, if he wins and can be sworn in as president, he will return to Catalonia after seven years in exile:

    He is expected to be covered by the amnesty law, although the Spanish courts will surely find a way to arrest him anyway and this will generate a head-on clash between the judiciary and the people of Catalonia:

    The announcement has excited enthusiasm in Catalonia as, in the possibility of his victory, it is not only recognised as a very brave attitude on his part, but it would also be a restitution of the president illegally deposed in 2017 by the Spanish government, which would have a collective reparation effect for the Catalan society that is fed up with Spanish repression and authoritarianism.

    Accept the result and move on

    This foreseeable conflict has set off all the alarm bells in Spain, which is in a state of shock and the Madrid press is talking about nothing else. They are afraid that Catalonia’s desire to decide its political future will return to the forefront of the news and that they will end up having to accept their right to exercise self-determination.

    The EU cannot continue tolerating these abuses and will have to intervene sooner or later, because the European Justice is about to issue judgments against Spain (this imminence has also motivated the PSOE to approve the amnesty).

    In order not to waste time, or energy, or increase the Spanish institutional crisis, it would be better for the EU to force Spain to accept the result of the 2017 referendum or hold a new one in which the Catalans can decide their future free of impositions and authoritarianism.

    Featured image via Albert Salamé, www.vilaweb

    By Jordi Oriola Folch

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Ronny Kareni

    Recent videos depicting the barbaric torture of an indigenous Papuan man by Indonesian soldiers have opened the wounds of West Papua’s suffering, laying bare the horrifying reality faced by its people.

    We must confront this grim truth — what we witness is not an isolated incident but a glaring demonstation of the deep-seated racism and systematic persecution ravaging West Papuans every single day.

    Human rights defenders that the videos were taken during a local military raid in the districts of Omukia and Gome on 3-4 February 2024, Puncak Regency, Pegunungan Tengah Province.

    Deeply proud of their rich ethnic and cultural heritage, West Papuans have often found themselves marginalised and stereotyped, while their lands are exploited and ravaged by foreign interests, further exacerbating their suffering.

    Indonesia’s discriminatory policies and the heavy-handed approach of its security forces have consistently employed brutal tactics to quash any aspirations for a genuine self-autonomy among indigenous Papuans.

    In the chilling footage of the torture videos, we witness the agony of this young indigenous Papuan man, bound and submerged in a drum of his own blood-stained water, while soldiers clad in military attire inflict unspeakable acts of violence on him.

    The state security forces, speaking with a cruel disregard for human life, exemplify the toxic blend of racism and brutality that festers within the Indonesian military.

    Racial prejudice
    What makes this brutality even more sickening is the unmistakable presence of racial prejudice.

    The insignia of a soldier, proudly displaying affiliation with the III/Siliwangi, Yonif Raider 300/Brajawijaya Unit, serves as a stark reminder of the institutionalised discrimination faced by Papuans within the very forces meant to protect civilians.

    This vile display of racism underscores the broader pattern of oppression endured by West Papuans at the hands of the state and its security forces.

    These videos are just the latest chapter in a long history of atrocities inflicted upon Papuans in the name of suppressing their cries for freedom.

    Regencies like Nduga, Pegunungan Bintang, Intan Jaya, the Maybrat, and Yahukimo have become notorious hotspots for state-sanctioned operations, where Indonesian security forces operate with impunity, crushing any form of dissent through arbitrary arrests.

    They often target peaceful demonstrators and activists advocating for Papuan rights in major towns along the coast.

    These arrests are often accompanied by extrajudicial killings, further instilling intimidation and silence among indigenous Papuans.

    Prabowo leadership casts shadow
    In light of the ongoing failure of Indonesian authorities to address the racism and structural discrimination in West Papua, the prospect of Prabowo’s presidential leadership casts a shadow of uncertainty over the future of human rights and justice in the region.

    Given his controversial track record, there is legitimate concern that his leadership may further entrench the culture of impunity. We must closely monitor his administration’s response to the cries for justice from West Papua.

    It is time to break the silence and take decisive action. The demand for the UN Human Rights Commissioner to visit West Papua is urgent.

    This is where the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), with its influential members Fiji and Papua New Guinea, who were appointed as special envoys to Indonesia can play a pivotal role.

    Their status within the region paves the opportunity to champion the cause and exert diplomatic pressure on Indonesia, as the situation continues to deteriorate despite the 2019 Pacific Leaders’ communique highlighting the urgent need for international attention and action in West Papua.

    While the UN Commissioner’s visit would provide a credible and unbiased platform to thoroughly investigate and document these violations, it also would compel Indonesian authorities to address these abuses decisively.

    I can also ensure that the voices of the Papuan people are heard and their rights protected.

    Let us stand unyielding with the Papuan people in their tireless struggle for freedom, dignity, and sovereignty. Anything less would be a betrayal of our shared humanity.

    Filed as a special article for Asia Pacific Report.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • When I was an undergraduate eons ago in my zoology lab class, I examined varmints under a microscope and then dissected them with my scapple back at my dorm room with a bag of toxic formaldehyde hanging out the window. I nicknamed the varmints after the U.S. politicians at the time. Are you wondering what on earth comes next in this article? Please stay with me.

    The idea for this article occurred to me after my e-mail encounters a few days ago with two candidates for the next U.S. Presidency, first Dr. Jill Stein and next former President Donald J. Trump. I proposed to each a way to bring prosperity to America and peace to the world. I told each that by adopting my proposal they would ensure that humanity would be saved by avoiding Doomsday and would be immortalized since many experts predict one form or another of Doomsday later this century. The prediction is hardly preposterous. Nine countries have nuclear arsenals and most of those countries have hostile relations with the U.S.

    Here is my proposal in a nutshell. It has evolved over decades of my research and writing on the subject.

    Either Stein and/or Trump would during their campaign commission two public opinion polls. One would be a random sample of known dissident groups of Americans that I have compiled, such as dissident veterans. The second poll would be a random sample of other Americans. Respondents would be asked if they favored a new President who pressured politicians to become public servants instead of corporate servants. For example, one question would ask if respondents favor turning swords into ploughshares, colloquially speaking. Respondents in the second sample, presumably having been duped by corporations and the corporate controlled body of politicians, would be given brief backgrounders such as the millions of deaths and incalculable destruction by the totally unnecessary U.S. Vietnam War.

    The underlying rationale of my proposal is that while the corporate power elite tell the subordinate political elite what to do and say, the latter could always rebel and become genuine public servants, especially if pressured by a newly informed and alerted public.

    Conclusion

    Here is the response from Dr. Stein’s campaign staff:
    “Hi Gary, thanks for the suggestion and the good wishes!” And here is my reply: “You are giving me a brush off I hope you come to regret. Imagine this announcement: “The Green Party Gives the Red Stop Sign to Helping to Save Humanity from Eventual Doomsday.”

    And here is the response so far from Ex-President Trump’s staff: “Thank you for writing to President Donald J. Trump. We are carefully reviewing your message.”

    In Closing

    I did much better in my zoology class!

    The post Dissecting Politicians first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Houston, we have a problem – and it’s the fossil fuels industry. Between Monday 18 to Friday 22 March, big oil and gas gathered in Houston, Texas for CERAweek. It’s one of the industry’s largest annual conferences.

    A polluter’s paradise, over 8,000 delegates from energy, finance, and the technology sectors, rubbed elbows with government officials from across the globe.

    So, the Canary caught up with the greenwashing galore and climate-wrecking shenanigans that took place throughout the week.

    CERAweek: awash with climate denial and delay

    Off to a strong start, on Monday, big oil and gas bosses began with a predictable display of climate dither and delay. Execs were demonstrating how to recycle – using long-debunked climate denial tropes:

    According to CEO of the $1.8 trillion Saudi Aramco oil and gas corporation Amin Nasser, it’s time to ditch the fossil fuel pledge countries made at COP28. You know, the already weak and watered down bare minimum commitment to phase them out, eventually – agreed barely four months ago. He told the audience:

    We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas, and instead invest in them adequately

    But then, who wouldn’t listen to the head of “the world’s most valuable oil company” for advice on the energy transition?

    Unfortunately, the organ grinders were. Specifically, attendees trash-talked Biden’s pause on approvals for new liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals, and the US administration appeared ready to roll over.

    As Heated reported, the LNG export pause simply applies to new terminals – that is, the US Department of Energy cannot currently rubber-stamp the construction of new facilities. It doesn’t include a freeze on exports from existing facilities.

    As a result, this means that the eight existing export terminals can continue to operate. What’s more, the ten the department approved before the pause will still go ahead. Alarmingly, this could potentially double US exports of LNG by 2028.

    Nonetheless, this didn’t stop industry talking heads from playing the victim:

    Ah yes, the notoriously hard-to-get-approval-for projects like the Alaska LNG “carbon bomb” pipeline the Biden administration greenlit in May 2023. Or the Willow project it approved in March 2023, which campaigners estimate will produce the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent of 70 coal-fired-power plants across its 30 year lifespan.

    So US energy secretary Jennifer Granholm reassured the government’s fossil fuel paymasters:

    Cue rare capture of a fossil fuel exec rubbing his hands with glee:

    Lobbying, PR, and industry greenwashing at CERAweek

    Besides trying to weasel out of international climate commitments, fossil fuel companies discussed how to do-away with pesky environment protections-cum-red-tape. In particular, the kind that prevents them from pumping out unfettered pollution. Don’t look now, but #LobbyingGoals2024 incoming:

    Err, so that would be 401 regulations of the US Clean Water Act that enable states or tribes to protect their water resources.

    What’s more, what fossil fuel conference would be complete without a smorgasbord of false climate solutions? Here we have Chevron peddling the industry’s favourite pet technology project for the clean energy transition:

    And there was plenty more where that came from, like this big polluter vision for “green” energy marital bliss:

    CERAweek also provided the opportune moment to spin some junk PR:

    Didn’t you know, we environmentalists all want to see a throw-back to the energy dark ages. How on earth could we power our electric grids without burning the decomposed remains of dead things chock-full of climate-wrecking carbon? If only there were some other sustainable, renewable resources we could use to power stuff. Oh wait…

    Girl-boss feminism and cutting edge solutions

    However, it wasn’t all fossil-fuel-mongering and fake climate solution gloom. The conference offered the cutting edge of technology for saving the planet. Like this AI barista coming to replace the underpaid and overworked low-wage workforce in a coffee shop near you soon.

    So, if you fancied your mugshot on a latte, replete with logo for maximum brand loyalty brownie points, you could head to ExxonMobil’s zone in the “Innovation Agora” (ooh):

    That’s some nifty product placement right there. Though, noted lack of keep-cup lads.

    Moreover, who said a fossil fuel conference filled to the rafters with a predominantly white, male, cisheteronormative, Global North execs didn’t have something for everyone?

    In fact, at CERAweek, women in energy got a whole dinner panel dedicated to them:

    What a heart-warming display of corporate girl-boss feminism. Hats off to the fossil fuel industry for showing us that capitalism routinely subordinates women’s rights to the cult of individual financial success. Nothing like a slice of weaponised inclusion served with your Exxon-selfie coffee though, right?

    Funny then, that CERAweek’s X account quietly glossed over the part where just 22% of their speakers, and only a third of the attendees were women last year. Unsurprisingly, it’s not exactly looking much better this year. By the Canary’s count, women comprised marginally over 23% of this year’s speakers.

    Of course, the sector that sparked the term “man-camps” at worker sites, where women have reported sexual assault and human trafficking, would want you to believe they’re feminist for placing a few women on a panel.

    Perhaps there’s a reason there are still so few women in energy – because, reality check – the industry is misogynistic as hell.

    Sacrifice zones for profit over people

    Despite everything, big oil was bleating into a (granted, extraordinarily well-connected and financed) echo-chamber. Crucially, the good folks on X and beyond weren’t buying into the industry’s bullshit.

    Environmental Defense Fund’s Mark Brownstein pulled apart the industry’s weasel words on the energy transition:

    Meanwhile, frontline communities from Texas and Louisiana also took their fight to the front door. Specifically, they protested outside the conference over the deadly pollution the industry produces, which is killing their communities:

    So another year, another fossil fuel conference promoting the destruction of the planet. Once again, oil and gas CEOs demonstrated their commitment to sacrificing communities and nature for their killer profits.

    They’ll hide behind the low-hanging fruit of climate solutions they offer, while claiming to lead the world’s green energy transition. Ultimately, tepid tinkering to rampant extractive capitalism will not save the Earth. But it will save their bottom-line.

    Feature image via Fox 26 Houston/Youtube.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • BBC bosses have all but admitted that the BBC News Channel‘s coverage of part of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearings were biased towards Israel. Of course, the BBC would never admit the systemic bias which led to MPs’ questioning the broadcaster about the issue – instead calling it a “mistake”.

    BBC: what was it thinking?

    Independent media outlet the National spotted the admission during a meeting of the Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee on Wednesday 20 March. BBC bosses were giving evidence to MPs over various issues.

    The ICJ admission came after Labour MP Julie Elliott asked the panel about the BBC‘s coverage of the ruling. It found ‘plausible’ evidence that Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza.

    Elliott asked:

    The ICJ hearing, several weeks ago, was a hugely significant news item… the [BBC] News Channel [showed] hardly any of the South African submission on day one, and yet hours and hours of the Israeli submission on day two. Have you looked into the disaster that was in terms of impartiality – because that wasn’t impartial.

    What was also interesting was the different responses.

    ‘Both sides’

    Arch Tory and BBC director general Tim Davie was dismissive of the idea the BBC News Channel made a mistake and cost the broadcaster its impartiality.

    He first said that the BBC gets ‘lots of feedback’ from people on ‘both sides of this’ – at which point Elliott interrupted him saying there’s “not two sides to this – there’s an issue of impartiality and fairness”.

    Davie was dismissive of this saying:

    Overall, I think we’ve been pretty robust in covering the ICJ.

    Elliot threw it back, saying:

    So you think it was fair to have a tiny bit of the South African submission, and then switch to the Post Office [inquiry]… but then have hours and hours the next day of the other side’s submission? You think that was fair and impartial?

    Davie said:

    I think overall, when you look at our coverage on the rulings, we’ve been in a reasonable position.

    A ‘mistake’ – but it was ‘difficult’

    However, director of editorial policy and standards David Jordan had a different take. He said:

    I think you’ve [Elliott] put your finger on something very important about what happened. Because it only happened on our UK outlet…

    They made the editorial decision to go with the Post Office coverage rather than the other coverage… which was a very difficult decision to make… When News looked at it in retrospect, they did think that perhaps they’d made a mistake on not making the two live coverage events similar or the same, but all the coverage was similar or the same…

    He also noted that:

    In this particular conflict, if you don’t have absolutely equivalence… it leads to people suspecting that you’re doing something deliberately to be bias, that isn’t the case – it was genuinely a difficult editorial decision about which hearing they went with…

    To anyone outside of the BBC, it would not seem like a difficult decision.

    Exposing BBC Israel systemic bias

    If the BBC was (rightly) going to cover the Post Office scandal at the expense of live coverage of South Africa’s evidence session to the ICJ, then it should have allotted the same amount of time to Israel’s evidence session the following day.

    However, clearly in the minds of BBC editors this kind of balance wasn’t important – otherwise it would have been an obvious decision. What is obvious is why this is.

    As the Canary‘s James Wright previously wrote, broadcast media has shown systemic bias in favour of Israel since 7 October. The Centre for Media Monitoring analysed coverage from 7 October to 7 November. It found, as Wright wrote:

    the Al Jazeera English channel had more mentions of ‘occupied territories’ than all UK and US news channels combined…

    Most TV news channels repeated Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’, overshadowing Palestinian rights by a five to one ratio.

    The report also analysed language used. When broadcast uses emotive language, it’s 11 times more likely to refer to Israeli deaths as victims of attacks than Palestinians. And in TV clips, the media uses two out of three emotive terms for Israeli deaths, compared to one in 10 for Palestinian deaths.

    It’s this bias which led editors to think it was acceptable to show Israel’s ICJ defence in full – but not South Africa’s testimony.

    The BBC: always an arm of the state

    This is, of course, the same bias which has been present at the BBC throughout its history.

    As the Canary previously wrote, during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic the BBC went onto a war footing. It was a similar MO to the one it had during WWII. It’s also the same one that led it to it being directly involved in espionage during the 1953 Iranian coup. It’s the same MO that led Marr to stand outside Downing Street at the end of the Iraq invasion in 2003 and say:

    it would be entirely ungracious, even for [Tony Blair’s] critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result.

    And it’s the same MO that saw the government fund the BBC to push Western propaganda in North Korea. The point being, the BBC has often worked as a propaganda arm of government; regardless of whether that government is Tory or Labour.

    We’ve now seen it with the BBC‘s coverage of Israel. Even if editors think they’re presenting balance, at the heart of the broadcaster is an inherent bias towards UK and Western capitalist and colonialist interests – often unconscious in the minds of its staff.

    Unconscious bias?

    It’s what Noam Chomsky famously called Andrew Marr out on. Crucially, it’s also what Media Lens highlighted in the ‘five stages of mainstream journalism’:

    American political writer and media critic Michael Parenti… quoted Nicholas Johnson, former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, who said that there are four stages that journalists typically go through in their career:

    ‘In the early stage, you’re a young crusader and you write an exposé story about the powers that be, and you bring it to your editor and the editor says: “No, kill it. We can’t touch that. Too hot.”

    ‘Stage two: You get an idea for the story, but you don’t write it and you check with the editor first and he says: “No, won’t fly. No, I think the old man won’t like it. Don’t do that, he has a lot of friends in there and that might get messy.”

    ‘Stage three: You get an idea for the story and you yourself dismiss it as silly.

    ‘Stage four: You no longer get the idea for that kind of an exposé story.

    ‘And I would add a stage five: You then appear on panels, with media critics like me, and you get very angry and indignant when we say that there are biases in the media and you’re not as free and independent as you think.’

    The BBC working as it’s supposed to

    However, perhaps the crux of the problem was best summed up at the start of the session. When chair Caroline Dineage asked the select committee members whether any of them had any conflicts of interest in relation to the BBC – it was more a case of who DIDN’T have any:

    Therefore, not only does the BBC exhibit (often unconscious) bias – but this pervades many politicians’ thinking about the broadcaster, too.

    The fact editors didn’t even think to provide balance in the ICJ evidence sessions is damning. However, it actually shows the BBC operating as it is supposed to – punching down in the interests of Western capitalism and colonialism, and maintaining that status quo.

    Featured image via ArchDaily

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Planet-wrecking fossil fuel corporate criminal Shell has just revealed it’s got around £590m in tax rebates from the UK government since 2015. This is not even the full picture – because 2015 is the earliest date its records go back to. Moreover, in 2023 the UK government gave Shell around £34m in tax back – when its global earnings soared to £22.4 billion.

    Shell: a £600m tax rebate

    As Energy Voice reported:

    Shell has disclosed nearly $750m of tax rebates received from the UK Government for decommissioning its Brent oilfield in the North Sea.

    The shutdown of the iconic field, which the international crude benchmark takes its name from, started in 2017 after four decades of production. Preparation began in 2006.

    Later this year the final platform, Brent Charlie, is expected to be removed.

    According to its latest payments to governments report, Shell received a $43.3m rebate during 2023 for Brent and other Northern North Sea assets.

    Taken together with its previous reports, which only date back to 2015, a total of $748m of rebates have been disclosed from the government to Shell.

    The public will have no idea how much Shell has actually got in tax back, though – because it hasn’t disclosed what the UK government gave it prior to 2015.

    It’s all normal and above board… LOL

    Apparently, the UK government giving Shell hundreds of millions of pounds in tax back is ‘normal’, though, and a “genuine business expense” – NOT a public “subsidy”  -according to Energy Voice.

    This is against a backdrop of Shell paying NO tax in the UK for four years. It’s also against a backdrop of severe cuts to public services since 2015 (when Shell first reported its tax rebates) – y’know, ’cause the government didn’t have any money left’.

    But hey – it’s NOT a subsidy. We repeated: NOT a subsidy.

    As Rig Zone reported:

    From 2018 — when it started publishing these figures — to 2021 Shell received tax credits from the UK’s treasury because of expenses tied to investments in new North Sea fields and rebates related to dismantling old platforms.

    That’s the Brent oilfield rebates, by the way, allowing Shell not to have to pay any tax – while 6.5 million of us are in fuel poverty. Rig Zone continued:

    Last year, the company paid $40.5 million in tax from a UK profit of $1.81 billion, according to its annual tax-contribution report. Without the government’s new Energy Profits Levy, Shell said it wouldn’t have had to pay corporate tax in the UK.

    Shell: wrecking the planet while the rest of us freeze

    Overall, Energy Voice reported that the UK government (that is, you and me) will end up paying out a staggering £24bn in tax back to fossil fuel giants, to get them to decommission their planet-wrecking activities.

    This is of course portrayed as ‘fair’ and partly an ‘incentive’ for these climate criminals to transition to renewables. However, as has been well documented renewables in the likes of Shell’s world actually mean greenwashing.

    But remember – Shell’s £600m tax rebate is NOT a subsidy.

    NOT. A. SUBSIDY.

    We’re sure that will give you some comfort as you choose between heating and eating next winter. It may not bring comfort to the loved ones of the 5,000 people who died due to cold homes in winter 2022/23, though.

    But remember: the public giving Shell £600m is NOT a subsidy.

    Feature image via Unsplash

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In this blog post, international student Kayla Neville reflects on attending the inspiring event, Women Speak Out on COP28, hosted by the Women’s Climate Congress (WCC).

    “At the end of the day, we don’t have a choice. This is our future, these are our lives and we’re going to fight till the end.” – Angelica Mantikas, youth advocate with the Australian delegation and coordinator of the Oceania Climate Stories project

    As an international student who has just arrived in Australia from the US, I became immediately aware of differences in culture, geography, wildlife, society and more. With an open heart, I have made it my goal to immerse myself in learning deeper about the land that I am temporarily calling home.

    Fortunately, as an early part of this learning experience, I had the opportunity to sit in on the recent Women’s Climate Conversation, ‘Women Speak Out on COP28,’ hosted by the Women’s Climate Congress (WCC). Although the event focused on the UN climate convention in Dubai at the end of 2023, many topics of the conversation highlighted issues specifically being faced in Australia and, while climate change is ultimately a global challenge, I was able to expand my knowledge of how climate change is affecting Australia.

    In a broader sense, each conversationalist amplified the urgency of the climate crisis, the hopes to phase out fossil fuels and the need to adapt the systems we are currently using.

    As Angelica Mantikas articulated, “the really slow pace of the UN does not reflect the urgency that we need, we need systems changed, [we need change in] the way we value things in our society, instead of continuing to value success based on the degradation of habitats and of displacing indigenous peoples from their lands … we measure that as success in terms of economic growth at the moment.”

    These discussions also shared a common stress for inclusion of diverse women’s voices at all levels if more ambitious and better action is to be taken to combat the climate crisis.

    Each day I spend in Australia, new things which are foreign to me appear before my eyes – in particular, the wonderful wildlife. It amazes me that I would never have had the opportunity to learn and explore the wildlife of Australia if I had not opened myself up to travelling across the globe to this country.

    Red Kangaroos in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia. Image: Adobe Stock Photos.

    Red Kangaroos in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia. Image: Adobe Stock Photos.

    The same could be said for those that open themselves up to the perspectives of others’ stories and listen to those around them intently. This introduces them to an experience they would not have known about otherwise. The key point is that we must intentionally give ourselves the opportunity to understand, experience and listen to things we may not otherwise be exposed to, instead of waiting for these opportunities to come to us.

    What particularly stood out for me from this Climate Conversation were the impactful stories and the representation of the diverse voices that each conversationalist brought to the table.

    Opening the conversation was Mamta Borgoyary, Executive Director of SHE Changes Climate (SCC), an international organisation working for women’s equal representation at all levels of climate change decision making. Touching on the responsibility of representing the voices and recommendations of 30+ women leaders, 300 partners and 1000 participants spanning across five continents at the November Solutions Summit hosted online by SCC she said, “We very strongly wanted to bring the voices and amplify the voices of these women leaders.” Mamta highlighted the need for nation-wide engagement and collaborative action to bring about change. She stressed how essential it is for people to ask the difficult questions regardless of how hard they are.

    The conversation continued with Tishiko King, a campaigner of Our Islands Our Home project. She told of the challenges of sea-level rise, flooding, erosion and coral bleaching that threaten not only the homes of Torres Strait Islanders, but their culture as well. She highlighted the benefits that increasing funding for climate response adaptations, such as seawalls, could provide and went on to say:

    “It’s my responsibility as a Torres Strait Islander to protect and defend my island home and use my education and work together with other incredible women to speak [the] truth about our home.”

    Tishiko believes people need to stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity to get messages heard and she emphasised the importance of conferences like COP in connecting people and communities with similar goals.

    Continuing the emphasis on the importance of sharing stories and knowledge, Angelica Mantikas, board member and project lead for Australian Youth For International Climate Engagement Incorporated (AYFICE), shared with us her contributions to the recent COP. She spotlighted the Oceania Climate Stories project, which gathered stories from people across the region who were not able to attend COP28, or who may not have felt comfortable to engage with technical policy dialogue. Elaborating on the significance of these shared stories, she said, “People on the front lines, they’re not just victims but they have the solutions too.” Angelica mentioned the recent introduction of the Youth Climate Champion role into the COP process as an encouraging step towards youth power being represented at a higher level in decision making.

    Tying together this conversation, Sarah Ransom, the General Manager of the Australian Water Partnership spoke on supporting the participation of Pacific and Indigenous women, specifically in water and climate conversations – and her organisation supported the attendance of three water sector representatives at the COP. Sarah explained the difficulties climate change causes for access to clean water and on an increase in preventable waterborne diseases. She also touched on the need for more ongoing conversations on these topics, “[It] is really important for us to make the connections and grow the group of people who are thinking and working in this space and help us to support each other in our work.”

    As a young college student, I gravitated towards the perspective of Angelica Mantikas. Her stance on our circumstances being our realities and that we, as a society, have to be the ones to change. It is a shared responsibility which many students, older people, and environmentalists can take up equally and together. This taking up of joint responsibility with the specific involvement of young people is an important factor in propelling the movement towards a better future, and possibly even faster. It was inspiring to hear her story and her determination. It was motivating to listen to her effouts and success in being heard in a room that is typically heavily dominated by voices other than youth voices.

    In summary, humanity is at a crossroad where we are able to change our future’s climate crisis outcome if we work in solidarity towards a common goal.

    As Tishiko King said: “Across the globe, young people, communities, activists [and] storytellers continue to show up in the face of adversity.”

    There are hopes that future UN Climate Change Conferences will listen even more intently to the wisdom of these diverse voices of women and of young people as they can hold the solutions that are needed to set society on the right track to address climate change.

    • This conversation was hosted by WCC Founder, Janet Salisbury. For further information and details, listen to the audio or watch the recording of Women Speak Out on COP28.

    The post Climate crisis: humanity is at a crossroads appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • ANALYSIS: By Chris Wilson, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Ethan Renner, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Jack Smylie, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, and Michal Dziwulski, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    As our research has previously revealed, the man who attacked two mosques in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, killing 51 people, posted publicly online for five years before his terrorist atrocity.

    Here we provide further information about Brenton Tarrant’s posting. This article has two main goals.

    First, by placing his online posting against his other online and offline activities, we gain a far more complete picture of the path to his attack.

    Second, we want to show how his online community played a role in his radicalisation. This is important, as the same can happen to others immersed in that community.

    In combining his online and offline activity here we do not seek to attribute blame to those who might have been expected to detect this behaviour. It is exceptionally difficult to identify terrorists online.

    And yet, history is full of difficult problems that have been overcome. We use the benefit of hindsight to provide greater understanding of Tarrant’s pathway than has previously been available.

    The aim is to prevent similar attacks by better understanding how such people act and how they might be detected.

    Words and deeds
    In the timeline below, we focus on Tarrant’s activity in 2018, following his first visit to Dunedin’s Bruce Rifle Club on December 14 2017, until his final overseas trip in October. It is for this period that we have the most comprehensive online posting history.

    A timeline of Brenton Tarrant's activities in 2018
    Graphic: The Conversation, CC BY-SA

    In 2024, we have both the benefit of hindsight and the accumulation of information relating to the attack. However, this triangulation of online and offline activities illustrates the ways those contemplating terrorist violence might act.

    We can now see, for example, that Tarrant bought high-powered firearms on three occasions over a six-week period in March and April 2018. And he posted publicly twice on the online imageboard 4chan about his plans for racially motivated violence, and his veneration of a perpetrator of a similar attack.

    Tarrant therefore not only “leaked” his plans for violence, he did so at the very moment he was buying weapons for it.

    Over 20 days in July and August, Tarrant presented to hospital with gunshot wounds, and began selling weapons online under the username Mannerheim (the name of a Finnish nationalist leader revered for defeating the communists in the country’s civil war).

    He also posted publicly about his anger at the presence of mosques in South Island cities (claiming one had replaced a church). He wrote “soon” when another poster suggested setting fire to these places of worship.

    A month later he attempted to sell weapons on online marketplace TradeMe, using a prominent white nationalist slogan — “14 Words” — in his username. (Strangely, this clear red flag was mentioned only once in the royal commission report on the attacks.)

    TradeMe removed one of these advertisements for violating its terms of use. That caused Tarrant to move to another forum — NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums — to complain.

    Extremist community
    Our study has also revealed how important the 4chan community is to the radicalisation of individuals like Tarrant. In contrast to the fleeting human interaction he had with others as he travelled the world, 4chan was Tarrant’s community.

    4chan’s /pol/ (politically incorrect) board became his home. Here he interacted with others over long periods, imagining he was speaking to the same people over months and years, and assuming many of them had become his friends.

    We have found that, while creating a sense of belonging and community, /pol/ also works to create extremists in both direct and indirect ways.

    Its anonymous nature (users are assigned a unique ID number for each thread, rather than a username) has two effects. One is well known, the other identified in our study.

    First, anonymity encourages behaviour that would be absent if the poster’s identity was known. Second, anonymity is frustrating for those who wish to “be someone”, who crave respect and notoriety.

    We have documented the way Tarrant (and others) strive to gain status in a discussion, only to have to start again when they move to a new thread and are given a new ID. This lack of ongoing recognition is agonising for some individuals, who go to lengths to obtain respect.

    Anonymity and peer respect
    And just like a real-world fascist movement, /pol/ venerates violent action as necessary for the vitality and regeneration of the community.

    When a terrorist attack, school shooting or other violent event occurs, users celebrate these events in so-called “happening” threads. These threads are longer, more emotional and excited than any other discussions. Participants often claim the individual at the centre of the event is “/ourguy/” (a reference to the /pol/ board).

    The threads are also highly anticipatory: many users believe this event will finally push society into violent chaos and race war.

    These dynamics are closely connected. For those who seek recognition and status on the bulletin board, such as Tarrant, the excited attention and adoration given to those who perpetrate high-profile violence is the clearest path to the peer respect that the anonymity of the board otherwise denies them.

    As harrowing as this finding is, we contend that gaining respect from their online community is in itself a crucial motivation for some perpetrators of far-right terrorism.

    The nature of this extreme but easily accessible corner of the internet means any hope Tarrant was a one-off — and that this won’t happen again — is misguided.


    The authors acknowledge the expert contribution of tactical and forensic linguist and independent researcher Julia Kupper. More information about our study will be released at heiaglobal.com. Our research was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participant Ethics Committee. A paper based on this study has been submitted for peer review and publication.The Conversation


    Chris Wilson, co-founder and director of Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa (HEIA) and director, Master of Conflict and Terrorism Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Ethan Renner, researcher, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Jack Smylie, research analyst, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, and Michal Dziwulski, researcher, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. 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 Canary is publishing in full a first-hand account of the current student occupation at Bristol University. We got in contact with one of those currently inside the management building. This is their account of what is happening, why it is happening, and what the students hope to achieve.

    Bristol University: refusing to ‘engage meaningfully’

    I am a student currently engaged in an occupation of the executive management building at Bristol University. We are taking this action to protest the university’s complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza and its broader ties to the arms trade. You can find our open letter and detailed list of demands here.

    Our occupation began on Friday 8 March as a response to the university’s silence and inaction regarding their complicity.

    We have since escalated our protest, moving the occupation to the executive management building:

    Despite this, university administration has refused to engage meaningfully with us. Instead, they have attempted to silence our voices and discredit our cause.

    Our vice chancellor Evelyn Welch has offered to meet with us to discuss our demands, on the basis that we first end our occupation and vacate their offices. She has also postponed meetings with staff unions, UCU and Unison, both of which have publicly backed our campaign, in an attempt to avoid pressure from staff regarding their response (or rather lack thereof) to our occupation.

    Not only did she postpone their meeting, but she has also blamed us, the student occupation, as the reason for the postponement. However, after repeated attempts from multiple members of staff to contact Welch today, the UCU and Unison have managed to get in contact with her secretary and may have been able to get their meeting rearranged for a sooner date than it was originally postponed to.

    ‘Perpetuating violence and oppression’

    The significance of our occupation cannot be overstated.

    Not only does it highlight the university’s role in perpetuating violence and oppression, but it also exposes the broader complicity of UK universities in supporting industries that profit from human suffering.

    Our actions have garnered local media attention, and Sky News will soon be featuring a story on UK universities’ involvement in the arms trade and their response to student protests, including our occupation as well as those happening concurrently at Goldsmiths, Leeds, and now UCL.

    Bristol University has a history of leading progressive change within the higher education sector. They were among the first to declare a climate emergency and divest from fossil fuel investments in response to student-led campaigns.

    We believe that our demands for divestment from companies complicit in human rights abuses are in line with the university’s commitment to social responsibility.

    Bristol University must end the ‘harassment of Palestinian students’

    One of our key demands is simply to end the harassment of Palestinian students on campus.

    It is unconscionable that a university claiming to be dedicated to decolonising education would tolerate such behaviour.

    We have heard firsthand accounts of the trauma experienced by Palestinian students, and it is imperative that immediate action is taken to address this issue. The fact that they cannot even agree to meet this demand as a bare minimum is incomprehensible.

    The action will continue.

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.