Earlier this month, Donald Trump announced (via social media, of course) that the European Union (EU) had an nonreciprocal relationship with the U.S. and that he was, in consequence, going to impose 30 percent tariffs on the bloc come August 1. Imperious as always, he continued that, should the Europeans respond in kind, he would simply ratchet up the tariffs still further.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) is calling on the British government to make a formal statement on the return of US nuclear weapons to Britain via RAF Lakenheath. It is demanding that the government facilitate a transparent debate and vote in parliament on any such a deployment. It follows reports in the media that high priority US transport aircraft designated for nuclear cargo, was detected landing at RAF Lakenheath last week.
This appears to have been a “one-way drop-off” of B61-12 nuclear bombs, according to experts. This means US nuclear weapons are on British soil for the first time since 2008.
Despite the government’s secrecy, evidence has gradually emerged that the base has been primed for a new US nuclear weapons mission. This includes the doubling of nuclear-capable F-35A squadrons to RAF Lakenheath, upgrades to the base’s special weapons storage bunkers to hold the B61-12, and the building of a ‘Surety dormitory’. The latter is accommodation for the additional personnel needed for such a nuclear weapons mission.
In April, CND uncovered declassified Ministry of Defence (MOD) documents which give US Visiting Forces across Britain an exemption from British nuclear safety regulations. This exemption means that local councils will never be told about the presence of nuclear weapons at these bases. It means they are therefore not obliged to produce their own emergency plans for a radiological accident.
Successive British governments have tried to obstruct debate on this deployment, hiding behind so-called ‘national security’. However, these bombs won’t keep citizens safe. Instead, they increase the risk of nuclear war. This is because the US has designed the B61-12 specifically for use on the battlefield alongside conventional weapons. It puts British people on the nuclear frontline of Donald Trump’s global wars – without any protection.
Polling from May 2025 found that 61% of the British public don’t want US nuclear weapons in the UK. This is just another shameful example of the government ramming through its agenda. It is doing so without any consultation with the public it is supposed to represent the wishes of.
CND Chair Tom Unterrainer said:
CND has been calling on the government to come clean about the return of US nuclear weapons to Britain since 2022 – with more evidence proving that RAF Lakenheath is being primed for such a mission gradually uncovered ever since.
It is completely inappropriate for the public to be finding out about such a major escalation in nuclear dangers via reports in British newspapers and the assessments of security experts. Starmer must make a public statement about this major change in Britain’s security arrangements and allow for a transparent and democratic debate on this to be held in Parliament. Enough of the gaslighting and hiding behind national security – the public deserve the truth!
CND is inviting those opposed to this dangerous development to join the monthly vigil at the main gate of RAF Lakenheath, scheduled for this Saturday, from 12pm to 2pm. More details can be found here.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
In a joint statement, more than two dozen Western countries, including New Zealand, have called for an immediate end to the war on Gaza. But the statement is merely empty rhetoric that declines to take any concrete action against Israel, and which Israel will duly ignore.
AGAINST THE CURRENT: By Steven Cowan
The New Zealand government has joined 27 other countries calling for an “immediate end” to the war in Gaza. The joint statement says “the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths”.
It goes on to say that the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.
But many of the countries that have signed this statement stand condemned for actively enabling Israel to pursue its genocidal assault on Gaza. Countries like Britain, Canada and Australia, continue to supply Israel with arms, have continued to trade with Israel, and have turned a blind eye to the atrocities and war crimes Israel continues to commit in Gaza.
It’s more than ironic that while Western countries like Britain and New Zealand are calling for an end to the war in Gaza, they continue to be hostile toward the anti-war protest movements in their own countries.
The British government recently classified the protest group Palestine Action as a “terrorist” group.
In New Zealand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, has denounced pro-Palestine protesters as “left wing fascists” and “communist, fascist and anti-democratic losers”. He has pushed back against the growing demands that the New Zealand government take direct action against Israel, including the cutting of all diplomatic ties.
The New Zealand government, which contains a number of Zionists within its cabinet, including Act leader David Seymour and co-leader Brooke van Velden, will be more than comfortable with a statement that proposes to do nothing.
‘Statement lacks leadership’
Its call for an end to the war is empty rhetoric, and which Israel will duly ignore — as it has ignored other calls for its genocidal war to end. As Amnesty International has said, ‘the statement lacks any resolve, leadership, or action to help end the genocide in Gaza.’
New Zealand has declined to join The Hague Group alliance of countries that recently met in Colombia.
It announced six immediate steps it would be taking against Israel. But since The Hague Group has already been attacked by the United States, it’s never been likely that New Zealand would join it.
The National-led coalition government has surrendered New Zealand’s independent foreign policy in favour of supporting the interests of a declining American Empire.
Republished from Steven Cowan’s blog Against The Current with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Britain and ChatGPT maker OpenAI have signed a new strategic partnership to deepen collaboration on AI security research and explore investing in British AI infrastructure, such as data centres. “AI will be fundamental in driving the change we need to see across the country – whether that’s in fixing the NHS, breaking down barriers to…
The post UK and OpenAI sign new strategic partnership appeared first on InnovationAus.com.
This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.
Britain has set out its plan to invest 1 billion pounds (A$2.06 billion) in computing infrastructure to drive the development of artificial intelligence, which will increase its public compute capacity 20 fold over the next five years. The race to develop AI is intensifying, with the United States, China and India emerging as front runners,…
The post Britain boosts computing power in $2.1bn AI drive appeared first on InnovationAus.com.
This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.
Campaign groups are gearing up to give US president Donald Trump the welcome reception he deserves during his upcoming state visit this September.
Campaigners and students in their hundreds of thousands will make a stand against the far-right fascist president, with multiple protests and walkouts already planned to coincide with his stay.
Buckingham Palace has now booked in Trump’s state visit to the UK for 17-19 September.
With Trump’s visit taking place while Parliament is in recess, Keir Starmer and his Labour government will be hoping to escape the firing line of mass protests like those which Trump provoked during his first state visit to the UK in 2018.
But anti-Trump protest groups and students across the country are not about to let Starmer – and Trump – off the hook.
First up, the Stop Trump Coalition has called for a mass demonstration on the first day of his state visit.
The group emerged in response to Trump’s first term as president. It previously organised mass protests for Trump’s visit to the UK during this – mobilising hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of London and across the country.
Now, it is springing into action again. It plans to galvanise the public to turn out in force against the felon president once more.
The protest will assemble at London’s Embankment at 2pm and march to a rally at 5pm (location tbc).
Stop Trump Coalition spokesperson Seema Syeda said:
This will be a massive protest against Trump’s state visit.
Trump and his authoritarian politics are not welcome here.
Keir Starmer should not be rolling out the red carpet for Trump.
They are already running scared. They have chosen the first possible date that stops Trump from being able to address Parliament.
We know that Trump is deeply unpopular with the public. We mobilised hundreds of thousands of people against Trump during his first term, and he has only got worse since then.
We are working at speed to bring together all the movements – for democracy, for equality, against climate change, for a free Palestine – to show our unity against Trump.
Students are also making preparations to show up bigot Trump on day one of his state visit.
Already hundreds of students have signed up to walk out of their schools, colleges, and universities on Wednesday 17 September. This will be part of the Youth Walkout Against Trump campaign.
The youth walkouts, initiated by Socialist Students, will be a protest against the chaos that Trump’s presidency represents for young people’s futures globally. Students will be walking out to instead demand a future to look forward to. They will call for free education, a decent job, and the guarantee of a high-quality and affordable home for all. And they will agitate for an end to climate crisis, and for a world free from war, oppression, and exploitation.
Adam Gillman, Socialist Students national organiser, said:
By building the youth walkouts, we can send a powerful message to young people and workers in America that we stand with them against Trump – not with Starmer, who issued the invite for this state visit.
TJ, a 19-year-old student in Leeds, said:
Labour has made cut after cut to young people’s futures while bosses make record profits. now they roll out the red carpet for oppressive leaders abroad. I am building for these walkouts to give young people a way to show Starmer’s Labour that this is not what the public voted for.
Lauren from Wrexham said:
Trump’s visit to the UK is an opportunity to fight back; not just against him but the capitalist system he upholds, which puts the interests of big business above the lives of working-class people. These walkouts are a chance to stand up to Trump, as well as our government who welcome him with open arms, and all other leaders who uphold this corrupt system. That’s why I’m building the youth walkouts against Trump.
Penelope, a college student from Preston, highlighted the common attacks facing students on either side of the Atlantic:
Trump has cut funding to US universities, and has attacked students and staff standing up on issues like Palestine. Meanwhile Starmer’s government here raises university tuition fees and continues the rampant underfunding of all levels of education. By walking out when Trump visits we are showing that young people everywhere have to fight for a decent education, in a capitalist world where none of our hard-won rights can be taken for granted.
While the university term has come to a close, and schools and sixth forms break up next week, Socialist Students will be continuing to build the walkout campaign over the summer. This includes calling public youth meetings in towns and cities throughout the UK. These will discuss how young people can build the walkouts and win a decent future under this Labour government.
The Stop Trump Coalition is also planning to call further protests once more details of the state visit are known. This will include one in Windsor around Windsor Castle.
The student walkout and mass demonstrations will draw uncomfortable, embarrassing attention to a number of parallels between Trump’s US and Starmer’s UK. From the violent repression of activists, journalists, students, and academics supporting Palestine, to brutal assaults on welfare and the rights of chronically ill and disabled people, it’s clear that Trump’s state visit is – shamefully – right at home with this right-wing Labour government.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
A key Project 2025 architect, as well as major donors to the infamous Trump administration-linked initiative, have been at the heart of a sprawling UK-US-Israeli nexus working to delegitimize the UN Relief Works Agency (UNRWA).
Previously, the Canary reported on a notable piece of propaganda the Israeli government put out smearing the UNRWA on X. Crucially, this was just weeks ahead of the launch of the controversial US-Israel coordinated Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). We exposed how the baseless claims in its one-minute-long video originated from a report produced by the British dark money foreign policy think tank the Henry Jackson Society (HJS).
Now, the Canary can reveal that the day the genocidal settler state plastered the HJS report’s ‘findings’ across its social media, a Project 2025 author was helping the think tank to launch another publication discrediting UNRWA and various UN bodies.
On 7 May, the HJS hosted a launch event for a new publication. Once more, this was awash with criticism of UNRWA, and other UN bodies operating in Palestine.
Titled, Human Rights NGOs: A Crisis of Trust – The Root Causes and Recommended Remedies, as the name suggests, it presented a 40-page smear of various human rights organisations. While its sole focus wasn’t Israel, it naturally honed in on NGOs critical of the genocidal occupier.
Perhaps predictably after the pair of high profile human rights nonprofits separately set out how Israel is perpetrating genocide, the HJS report had Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in its particular sights.
And like clockwork, it also leaned into propaganda about the UNRWA laying cover for Hamas. Furthermore, the report dedicated an entire section to casting doubt on Israel’s use of starvation as a tool of it ethnic cleansing project. Broadly, it shamelessly contested the idea Israel is committing genocide. One part goes to pains to suggest that official reports about the famine conditions in Gaza from the UN Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) are false.
For this, it referenced another report from the Tel Aviv University-affiliated think tank the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). This points to discrepancies between OCHA and IPC’s aid data and what Israel reports. It spuriously suggested the UN’s information relies on:
incomplete presentation of the distribution of aid in the Strip
Unsurprisingly, the controversial think tank has long perpetuated justification of the IOF’s actions – those illegal under international law. Its current executive director is Tamir Hayman, the former head of the IOF Intelligence Directorate between 2018 and 2021. His tenure follows previous director Amos Yadlin, who also served as a former IOF intelligence chief.
The US Department of State has also financed its work. The US Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) began one donation of US $628,000 on 1 October 2023. Obviously, this was mere days before 7 October and the subsequent start of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. According to official government records, it appears to have finished paying this grant in February this year. In other words, this was amid the so-called ceasefire – that Israel continued to violate – and ultimately shattered altogether.
The speakers list for the HJS report launch was illuminating.
The first was (self-described) human rights lawyer Anne Herzberg. The former New York attorney and Israeli settler is a legal advisor for a notorious Jerusalem-based nonprofit known as NGO Monitor.
For all intents and purposes, the organisation is another pro-Israel pressure group. Far from a nonpartisan watchdog entity it self-proclaims, NGO Monitor has been an instrumental front group for Israel’s domestic and international efforts to discredit aid and human rights NGOs critical of the colonial settler state’s violence.
Its once mission statement preserved on the Internet Archive alluded to this in not so many explicit words. This previously stated how its goal is:
to end the practice used by certain self-declared humanitarian NGOs of exploiting the label ‘universal human rights values’ to promote politically and ideologically motivated agendas.
In short, its entire raison d’etre is to smear groups and bodies championing Palestinian rights. Needless to say, over the years, it has targeted numerous boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) groups. It has also attacked prominent international human rights organisations. Unsurprisingly, that has included both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch – that the HJS report honed in on.
Towards the end of May, NGO Monitor published its own controversial report. This too laundered many of the same unfounded claims about UN agencies and aid NGOs in Gaza. In particular, its publication linked official UK government aid to programmes in which it alleged:
Hamas was likely dictating the disbursement of UK taxpayer funds
Next to Herzberg on the HJS’s report launch speaker list was the Heritage Foundation’s Max Primorac. As the bio for him on the event noted, Primorac is a senior research fellow at the think tank’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. The center covers matters concerning “Europe, foreign aid and global development”. He previously acted as the COO for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
But significantly, it was Primorac who authored Project 2025’s chapter on international aid. One particularly telling paragraph advocates for the US international aid arm, USAID, to cut aid to “states allied to Iran”. Naturally, this singled out Palestine and Lebanon. It argues that the administration should limit aid in these places:
to the advancement of narrow strategic priorities and support for basic American values, such as aid to persecuted religious minorities.
Primorac also input into a previous chapter concerning the Department of State. This called for the US to terminate funding for UN organisations, including UNRWA, and international NGOs.
Of course, it’s a blueprint the Trump administration awash with Project 2025 connections from the get-go has been only too happy to follow. After suspending aid to UNRWA as per Israel’s propaganda, the Trump administration has maintained this.
What’s more, the 922-page conservative manifesto, published in April 2023, contains a noteworthy passage about Iran’s nuclear technology that’s only too prescient. This reads that:
the U.S. must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology and delivery capabilities and more broadly block Iranian ambitions. This means, inter alia, reinstituting and expanding Trump Administration sanctions; providing security assistance for regional partners; supporting, through public diplomacy and otherwise, freedom-seeking Iranian people in their revolt against the mullahs; and ensuring Israel has both the military means and the political support and flexibility to take what it deems to be appropriate measures to defend itself against the Iranian regime and its regional proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
As the Canary’s Charlie Jay previously underscored, the US and Israel have long used unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s purported nuclear capabilities as a pretext for imperialistic expansionism in the region. Project 2025 laid this playbook out in no uncertain terms.
Herzberg and Primorac’s cameos at the HJS report launch event is hardly the only connection between the British dark money think tank, the Israeli nonprofit, and Project 2025 either.
For one, the previous report the HJS put out – and which Israel ran its propaganda piece over – also had a significant direct link to NGO Monitor. Specifically, co-author Salo Aizenberg has regularly written reports for the Jerusalem-based organisation.
NGO Monitor’s involvement with both HJS reports is also telling.
In April 2024, +972 Magazine unearthed the damning resume of its founder Gerald Steinberg. The 2004 document showed that Steinberg had served as a consultant to the government of Israel. Notably, this was two years after he’d established NGO Monitor. In other words, the organisation has had direct ties to the Israeli government from the beginning. B’nai B’rith International, which set up the infamous pro-Israel lobby group the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), is also one of its founding organisations.
A 2018 report by Policy Working Group – a collective of ex-Israeli diplomats and academics – exposed the organisation’s de facto affiliation to the Israeli government. Notably, it stated how:
NGO Monitor describes itself as politically “independent and nonpartisan”. In reality, the organization operates in close coordination and cooperation with the Israeli government.
The group highlighted an instance as far back as 2009, in which the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted a press conference for the nonprofit. This was over a report the nonprofit had produced on so-called ‘lawfare’. Specifically, this contested the legitimacy of human rights NGOs like Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) and Al Haq taking Israeli war criminals to court.
The author of the problematic publication was none other than Anne Herzberg. Naturally, this was a fact which the HJS was only too content to boast about in its report launch.
Unsurprisingly, NGO Monitor’s proximity to the Israeli government doesn’t stop there. The state has repeatedly provided support for its numerous lobbying efforts in Europe. Alongside this, the nonprofit has publicised its cosy ties to government ministries across multiple annual reports.
And like the HJS, NGO Monitor is not transparent about its funding sources. While it styles itself as a nonprofit transparency watchdog, it’s with no small irony that the Israeli organisation itself doesn’t disclose its own donors.
Over the years, journalists and researchers have dug up an informative list of its financiers nonetheless.
Some of its US donors have emerged in Form 990 filings with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Funders have sent donations via a US-registered organisation Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT), formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM). NGO Monitor’s website notes only how it “receives significant financial support” from REPORT, but not who has funded it through the shell donation vehicle.
The group has also reported some – albeit obscure – donor information to the Israel registrar for nonprofits. This details donations of over NIS 100,000 (approximately £20,648) or more than NIS 50,000 (currently £10,324) if it constitutes at least 20% of the nonprofit’s annual turnover.
Guidestar – the online register that displays this information – shows that three donors made contributions exceeding this in 2023. The largest donation comprised NIS 4,199,733 (£867,176). It lists two further donations of NIS 1,219,534 (£251,811) and NIS 186,814 (£38,574). Unfortunately, it does not provide the names of the donors for these amounts.
The Israeli government charity registrar only makes this information available for a small fee. Due to the moral implications of making this payment, the Canary has not accessed this.
Moreover, historic records that groups have obtained previously have revealed that donors have primarily funneled donations through other organisations, and therefore the originating source remains largely hidden. The 2018 Policy Working Group report identified that REPORT had contributed 90.7% of the group’s total income for 2016.
The Orion Foundation – a company registered in the British tax haven the Isle of Man – also made some of its donations that year. Evidently, the company is a conduit for a donor who wanted their donation to stay out of the public view.
The Canary has traced a number of its donors for recent years. Many also fund the HJS. You can explore these here:
Its biggest identifiable donors included US property mogul Myron Zimmerman’s philanthropic organisation, the MZ Foundation. The Canary previously highlighted that it has bankrolled illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank via funding to the Central Fund of Israel.
San Francisco-based Koret Foundation was another and is a known donor to numerous Zionist causes and lobby groups. It’s the charitable arm of the Koret family, who established clothing company Koret of California in 1939.
The Emerson Family Foundation also cropped up and is another prolific donor to a multitude of pro-Israel groups. One of its founding couple – Rita Emerson – previously sat on the board of REPORT and Zionist organisation Stand With Us.
Alongside these, the Maryland-based Ben and Esther Rosenbloom Foundation has given significant sums to NGO Monitor. It has long funnelled funds to a vast number of pro-Israel groups.
Also among the hall of NGO Monitor donation infamy was neoconservative heiress to the Sears, Roebuck and Co. department store fortune Nina Rosenwald’s Abstraction Fund. As an SOAS report on the HJS previously noted, Rosenwald:
Has been dubbed “the Sugar Mama of anti-Muslim Hate”, and is the founder and director of the Gatestone Institute, which has been accused of promoting the ‘White Genocide’ theory that white populations in the USA and Europe are being replaced by non-white populations as part of a deliberate policy.
What’s even more significant, is that a number of HJS and NGO Monitor’s donors have bankrolled Project 2025 advisory groups. These have done so to the staggering tune of close to $99m:
The bulk of these went via the Donors Trust, a donor-advised fund (DAF). Mother Jones once branded it the “dark money ATM” of the conservative movement – and for good reason. The DAF has distributed gargantuan sums to a who’s who of multifarious right-wing groups, and has included many pro-Israel causes. As the Canary previously detailed, DAFs enable donors to conceal their identity.
The Canary didn’t include the Emerson Family Foundation in the above network graph. However, the philanthropic foundation gave to another significant donor of Project 2025-affiliated groups: the Bradley Impact Fund. An investigation by Desmog recently singled out the organisation as one of six billionaire family fortunes financing the Heritage Foundation-led initiative. It uncovered the fund had poured more than $50m into Project 2025 advisory board organisations. It also underscored it had made further donations to the Donors Trust.
Excluding DAFs like the Donors Trust and Jewish Communal Fund, HJS and NGO Monitor donors have given almost $8.46m to Project 2025 groups in the past five years.
Turning Point USA accounted for the lion’s share of this – at more than $6.6m ($10.5m with DAF donation included). The group promotes ultranationalist neoliberal conservative ideals on campuses across the US. Naturally, it has invariably meant manifest support for Israel. This has taken the form of pro-Israel “Activism Kits”, events with prominent Zionists, and sponsoring students on “educational trips” to the genocidal settler state.
Then, there’s the powerful far right Claremont Institute. HJS donor the Jack Roth Foundation ploughed £1.3m into the extreme neoconservative think tank between 2020 and 2024. DAFs take this figure to £1.62m.
In October 2024, Claremont Institute senior fellow Steven F. Hayward penned a Trump ‘Agenda for Day One’ for the think tank’s online publication. Top of his list was to suspend all US aid to UNRWA, and to completely disband it, spuriously claiming it had become a “willing adjunct to Hamas in Gaza”. Through its numerous publications, the think tank has put out a number of articles advancing pro-Israel propaganda.
Perhaps the most obvious pro-Israel Project 2025 advisory board member is the right-wing Zionist think tank, the Middle East Forum (MEF). Multiple HJS and NGO Monitor donors together gave the MEF $173,500 during the same period (of $9.2m when including DAFs). Since 2017, the MEF has operated the controversial ‘Israel Victory Project’.
As the name suggests, it’s all about engineering Israel’s entire occupation of Palestine. Its website is peppered with sinister platitudes to Zionist total dominion, stating its goal to steer:
U.S. and Israeli policy toward backing an Israel victory over the Palestinians to end the conflict by convincing the Palestinians of their defeat in their century-long war against Israel.
The landing page reads like a love letter to Israel’s ethnic cleansing plans. A dashboard delivers regularly updated statistics counting ‘Israeli Military Achievements’. One disturbing figure notes the number of ‘terrorists’ the IOF has slaughtered in Gaza: “+24,000”. It lists this next to a 1.08:1 ratio of civilians to combatants – outrageously implying that nearly half the civilians it has killed are Hamas operatives.
The connections between two organisations at the forefront of manufacturing smears against established aid mechanisms in Gaza, and Project 2025 has clear significance amid the present situation with the GHF.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace remarked recently how the GHF reads like a “prelude to implementing” the “Trump plan”. This was of course the president’s machinations for the ‘voluntary’ removal – that is, the forced mass expulsion – of Palestinians from Gaza. Naturally, Trump’s vision is very much in step with Netanyahu and many among Israel’s far-right government. After all, many haven’t exactly concealed their explicit genocidal occupation ambitions. And, as the Canary previously pointed out, the settler state’s weaponisation of aid is a fundamental part of its leaked ground offensive plan operation ‘Gideon’s Chariots’.
And on 26 June, the US government approved $30m in direct funding for the GHF. It did so amid repeated reports of the IOF massacring – in the hundreds – Palestinians seeking aid. Of course, taking a leaf out of the IOF propaganda playbook, the GHF has denied its role.
None of this is coincidence. Israel’s manoeuvres to concentrate Palestinians at its deliberate death trap aid distribution points is a calculated feature of its ethnic cleansing agenda. The funding signals the Trump administration’s emphatic support for this. Of course, the US has long been an active partner in Israel’s violent colonial annexation of Palestine so it’s hardly surprising.
It all comes amid unsettling revelations over proposals bearing the GHF’s name that went to the heart of the Trump Whitehouse. The documents put forward plans for ‘Humanitarian Transit Areas’, confining the Palestinian population in eight GHF-controlled compounds. And as Reuters reported, the proposals called for:
using the sprawling facilities to “gain trust with the local population” and to facilitate U.S. President Donald Trump’s “vision for Gaza.”
These horrifying proposals are already materialising. Israel’s defence minister Israel Katz has signalled to the IOF to prepare Rafah for a ‘humanitarian city’. The plan involves forcing 600,000 Palestinians into this Israel-commanded area. But it amounts to nothing short of chilling propaganda for what is in essence, literal concentration camps.
Now, Project 2025’s ties to organs of Israel’s UNRWA propaganda brings the IOF’s blood-soaked inauguration of the GHF into sharp relief. The aid outfit was always a front – or more to the point, an active instrument – in Israel’s genocide, which a Trump-tied rightwing pro-Israel network paved the way for from the start.
Feature image via the Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
By Rabbi Neil Janes
Who is the ‘regular’ Jew – your neighbour, friend, colleague and why are they feeling so anxious this week?
In this piece, you’ll meet a regular Jewish family and hear how they experience the world and why recent events are such a worry for them – and what we can all do about it.
I say to you as their rabbi, there can be no making peace in the world if it’s at the cost of Jews…and their history and deeply held core aspects of their identity.
Until that is accepted, there is a clear label for opposition to such a stance: anti-Jewish racism.
Allow me to introduce you to the Smith family. They’re an imaginary family from middle England and they are Jewish.
They’re almost definitely members of a Progressive synagogue and certainly strongly identify with their Jewish identity.
They’ve lived in Britain all their lives and worked hard. They’ve raised their children, sent them to university, paid taxes. And when they go to synagogue, they want their synagogue to be liberal, tolerant, inclusive.
They love the fact that their rabbi is a woman and their community has a Pride Shabbat.
And when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians?
They’ve been lifelong donors to peace charities, organisations working in the field and whenever they visit Israel, they ensure that they visit Arab-Israeli coexistence projects and hear from Palestinians living in the West Bank.
They are as close as you can get to what you probably imagine is the good Jew…(though for some, they are not ‘good enough’ Jews because they haven’t disavowed Zionism and believe in Israel’s right to exist).
If you saw them walking down the street you probably wouldn’t even know they were Jewish… Except for the fact that they probably invited you to their children’s weddings, bat mitzvahs and maybe even a home Chanukah lighting.
The Smiths ended up in the UK because half of the family were refugees from Nazi Europe.
Two-thirds of this side of the family was murdered and a third survived. Some came to the UK. Some had sought refuge in what was then British Mandate Palestine – there were no other places in the world that they could go.
The other side of their family were refugees from Egypt. Around the time of the Suez crisis the family had to leave Alexandria. A few of the family came to the UK.
The rest of the family, because they couldn’t get visas anywhere else, went to Israel. Of course, there were also the cousins who were already in Israel along with the dispersed family across practically every corner of the globe.
For centuries, no matter where their families were, they prayed in the direction of the historic homeland of the Jewish people.
Why am I spending so long introducing the Smiths to you?
Because this is the Jewish Household which makes up the majority of the approximately 250,000 Jews that live in the UK ( at least those that live outside of the main Jewish population centres).
They’re not famous, they’re not VIP’s, they’re not politicians, they don’t have podcasts or public social media profiles, they don’t work in the Jewish community, they’re not on the streets, they don’t fly flags.
They donate to Jewish charities. And they will be buried in a Jewish cemetery.
And there’s every chance that they live in a part of the UK where the Jewish community numbers just 0.3% of the population.
The closest they get to identity politics is that they wear a small Star of David necklace and have placed their mezuzah on the door outside of their house.
Although lately they’ve considered moving it inside.
And they regularly turn up to interfaith activities and help coordinate the Holocaust Memorial Day service in their local council chambers.
Lately, though, the Smiths have become more and more anxious.
There’s regular graffiti in the villages and towns. Sometimes it’s just swastikas. But it’s also included calls for death to Jews or to ‘F*** Israel’.
They’ve heard from their friends that their grandchildren are being targeted in school in the playground and “I love Hamas” has been graffitied on to the desks.
But that’s not what’s making them anxious lately. That’s just since 7th October 2023.
Lately, the tone of political discourse has become coarser and more violent.
The Smiths admit they’re probably online too much and seeing the viciousness of debate, sometimes they go to bed feeling scared. And it’s not just in person and online discourse.
There have been recent murders of Jews and Israelis in other parts of the world and it always feels close to home. Violent acts of vandalism and abuse on the streets.
The campaigning is apparently to help the Palestinians and draw attention to the plight of Gazans. But for them it appears to be at the cost of their security as citizens of the UK.
They don’t feel that they can trust the national broadcaster, the BBC, because whilst the excuse of broadcasting violent chants for death seems to be ‘it was a mistake’, it feels too contrived.
And they saw the hordes of concert goers, at a festival, not only supporting the chant for death of Israelis, but also calling for a ‘Free Palestine’ which is deniable but seems to be clearly a shorthand for ‘Free from the river to the sea’ and destruction of Israel.
It looked to them like something from a far-right rally or the 1930s.
They know what this means. And they know what it means because they’re no longer allowed to discuss, display or give voice to their support for Zionism.
They know what it means because their nephews and nieces have all served in the IDF and now apparently they deserve to die.
Cousins’ homes have been destroyed from the missile barrages from the Islamic Republic of Iran and this has been celebrated by throngs of people.
They know what it means because they go to their synagogue and hear prayers for peace, for Palestinians and Israelis, and they see no equivalent anywhere else – just for freeing Palestine and certainly barely a call for a release of hostages.
Members of their community have got relatives and friends who have been murdered or were taken hostage.
Where they are praying for peace and are desperate to change the humanitarian situation in Gaza and end the horror of innocent deaths, it feels like everywhere else is calling for destruction.
They know what it means because in living memory their families were made unwelcome in the countries in which they found themselves.
And the small number of Jews that ended up in Britain have always thought that this would be their forever home. Even though they were separated from other family members whose forever home is the State of Israel.
They know what it means because they see online that Israeli (Jewish) influence is constantly the centre of conspiracy theories of global power.
They know what it means because their local MP refuses to speak out on the question of Jewish and Israeli lives in as public and regular way as they regularly speak out about Gaza and Palestinians.
They’re told it’s because of the size of their mailbox.
They know what it means because the synagogue activities require a password and a security guard and no publicity.
They know what it means because the local peace and justice group which obsesses about either the rights of Palestinians or the environment has nothing to say when chants for death are heard on their television screens.
And there is no outrage from the councillors who are never shy about how they want the world to live in peace.
They know what it means because it’s no longer good enough for them to have been a good Jew. They now must be either a closet Jew or change their opinions.
They know what it means because their grandchild’s university can run a course about ‘Religion and War’ in 2024 with several lectures about Islam and Gaza but without any mention of Jews, Hamas and anti-Judaism.
And the same university had to cut short a meeting because of fears for safety of Jews in the room due to protestors.
They know what it means because it seems no matter how much their rabbi is involved in local interfaith social cohesion projects their local MP and council seems to be disinterested in tackling deep rooted anti-Judaism.
And they know what it means because apparently the cost of Jewish community security in this country and their concerns about the calls for violence which were broadcast on the national broadcaster are dismissed as irrelevant in the face of the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.
And I say to you as their rabbi, there can be no making peace in the world if it’s at the cost of Jews, like the Smith family, and their history and deeply held core aspects of their identity.
Until that is accepted, there is a clear label for opposition to such a stance: anti-Jewish racism.
My rabbinate changed in 2023.
I realised that I had to work harder and in a more focused way on the need for social cohesion here in the UK with the Jewish voice actively engaged in the wider conversation. Even when I hear and see problematic material sometimes shared by other faith community leaders.
My task was to build bridges with sincere and serious friends across all faiths and none in the hope that we could jointly diminish the radicalised voices and amplify the voice of hope.
I needed to pray harder for peace which seemed beyond all our reaches and pledged my support for people involved directly in the hard work of building a better more peaceful world for Israelis and Palestinians and all life on this planet.
And I needed to redouble my efforts to protect my community and ensure that they could continue to celebrate every aspect of their identity, including a connection to the land and State of Israel, with every political hue of member who comes to our services. Including when that means calling out uncomfortable truths on their behalf.
But…let me be clear: if there can only be peace without Jews and their ideas, there is a name for that. Anti-Jewish Racism.
The Smiths know it. I know it. And it’s about time the rest of the world said they knew it and called it out too.
But sadly the Smiths don’t have much confidence in that happening and sadly, neither do I.
This blog was written by Rabbi Neil Janes and was first published on 01/07/2025.
This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.
Zarah Sultana has announced her resignation from the Labour Party. But it gets better. She and Jeremy Corbyn are going to co-lead the founding of a new party.
Today, after 14 years, I’m resigning from the Labour Party.
Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party, with other Independent MPs, campaigners and activists across the country.
Join us. The time is now.
Sign up here to stay updated: https://t.co/MAwVBrHOzH pic.twitter.com/z91p0CkXW0
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) July 3, 2025
Zarah Sultana had the whip removed back in July 2024, along with six other Labour MPs. This was after they voted against the two-child benefit cap. Whilst several of those MPs had the whip restored, Zarah was one of three who did not as they “continued to be troublemakers”.
https://t.co/1O2ZeMZzBl pic.twitter.com/v2FuK6T1iW
— sarah
(@sazza_jay) July 3, 2025
Some social media users have pointed out Unite the Union’s promotion of Team Zarah.
Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana are to co-lead the new party of the left.
As Corbyn said: things can, and they will, change.
Also, it has been pointed out to me that Team Zarah are being promoted by Unite the Union.. does this mean potential disaffiliation from Labour? https://t.co/tHcHZmr0ki
— George Aylett (@GeorgeAylett) July 3, 2025
Labour has always claimed to be the party of the people. Yet, Starmer has shown us over and over that in reality, it’s now the party for the middle-class, non-disabled, and immoral.
There will be plenty in Labour that will laugh at this but these two will hoover up votes from disillusioned, young and liberal/left people as well as Muslims and those concerned about Gaza.
Put your money on defections as rebellions continue within Labour. https://t.co/UbFDOWOkQZ
— Matthew (@MatthewTorbitt) July 3, 2025
We’re so back jezza-heads https://t.co/FGWiqy0GiY pic.twitter.com/Oh5T5UM2uY
— Jack
There is no doubt that the right-wing, corporate media will already be hatching a plan to bring a new left-wing party down, just like we watched them do with Corbyn for so many years.
Britain’s extremist media (‘mainstream’) will now automatically begin campaigning. No threat to the established order can be tolerated, so the propaganda will be immense, as it was in 2015-19. I for one am going to be following it closely. https://t.co/vlVl1vWg6G
— Mark Curtis (@markcurtis30) July 3, 2025
It seems like the shit-stirring from the MSM has already begun as well. First off the blocks was Times hack Gabriel Pogrund – who recently took great pleasure in writing a book about the rise of Starmer, and how him and Morgan McSweeney tried to kill of the Canary and Corbyn in the process:
EXCLUSIVE: I understand Jeremy Corbyn has not agreed to join the new left party with Zarah Sultana yet
He is furious and bewildered at the way it has been launched without consultation. https://t.co/zEKwC8YUuk
— Gabriel Pogrund (@Gabriel_Pogrund) July 3, 2025
Is this true? Well, Corbyn plainly announced the new party on Peston just 24 hours earlier – so, we call BS on Pogrund’s claim.
We’re just waiting for…
Waiting for AntiSemitism Smears in 3, 2, 1…… https://t.co/hPY4tYodnm pic.twitter.com/BsPCMeXjYN
— Cllr Martin Abrams
(@Martin_Abrams) July 3, 2025
Hopefully, other MPs will follow suit.
Phenomenal news for the long deprived left
I hope other decent, morally sound, left Labour MPs follow suit. There’s enough there to make a decent go of this
https://t.co/qmT5ngU2HS
— Codgey (@CodgeyBhoy) July 3, 2025
It is the job of every one who opposes what Starmer is doing to get involved and make this a success. This is the only chance we are going to get. https://t.co/AY556NXzuF
— Gordon
Early polling by More in Common suggests the party would take in at least 10% of the vote.
the “who the fuck do I vote for at the next election” question has finally been answered https://t.co/sZh8j3s56G
— marc (@feelingsplain) July 3, 2025
During the 2024 General Election, many of us were left with no alternative to Labour or the Greens, and tactical voting suggestions meant we were voting to keep the Tories out, rather than with our hearts and minds. Finally, we might have an alternative.
A small beam of hope here. May it grow to be a model for other countries… https://t.co/SqooG0iPlR
— Lindsay Ballant (@lindsayballant) July 3, 2025
Glorious news!!
This joint leadership will energise the existing base and re-engage those disillusioned while connecting with social movements and people alienated by the main parties.
Bring it on! https://t.co/x0EaS9cYJn
— Mish Rahman (@mish_rahman) July 3, 2025
It’s no longer a choice between the red and blue ties of genocide enablers.
If you want to join the fight against “billionaire donors and press baron friends”, click here to join Team Zarah.
Feature image via the Canary
By HG
This post was originally published on Canary.
The Internet Society (ISOC) and Global Cyber Alliance (GCA), on behalf of the Common Good Cyber secretariat, today announced on 23 June 2025 the launch of the Common Good Cyber Fund, an initiative to strengthen global cybersecurity by supporting nonprofits that deliver core cybersecurity services that protect civil society actors and the Internet as a whole.
This first-of-its-kind effort to fund cybersecurity for the common good—for everyone, including those at the greatest risk—has the potential to fundamentally improve cybersecurity for billions of people around the world. The Common Good Cyber secretariat members working to address this challenge are: Global Cyber Alliance, Cyber Threat Alliance, CyberPeace Institute, Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, Institute for Security and Technology, and Shadowserver Foundation.
In a Joint Statement Between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada on 15 June, 2025, the Prime Ministers announced that they would both invest in the Joint Canada-UK Common Good Cyber Fund. On 17 June, during the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Alberta, Canada, all the G7 Leaders announced that they would support initiatives like the Canada-UK Common Good Cyber Fund to aid members of civil society who are actively working to counter the threat of transnational repression. See G7 Leaders’ Statement on Transnational Repression.
The Fund is a milestone in advancing Common Good Cyber, a global initiative led by the Global Cyber Alliance, to create sustainable funding models for the organizations and individuals working to keep the Internet safe.
Despite serving as a critical frontline defense for the security of the Internet, cybersecurity nonprofits remain severely underfunded—exposing millions of users, including journalists, human rights defenders, and other civil society groups. This underfunding also leaves the wider public exposed to increasingly frequent and sophisticated cyber threats.
Common Good Cyber represents a pivotal step toward a stronger, more inclusive cybersecurity ecosystem. By increasing the resilience and long-term sustainability of nonprofits working in cybersecurity, improving access to trusted services for civil society organizations and human rights defenders, and encouraging greater adoption of best practices and security-by-design principles, the Common Good Cyber Fund ultimately helps protect and empower all Internet users.”Philip Reitinger, President and CEO, Global Cyber Alliance
The fund will support nonprofits that:
These future beneficiaries support the Internet by enabling secure operations and supplying global threat intelligence. They shield civil society from cyber threats through direct, expert intervention and elevate the security baseline for the entire ecosystem by supporting the “invisible infrastructure” on which civil society depends.
The Fund will operate through a collaborative structure. The Internet Society will manage the fund, and a representative and expert advisory board will provide strategic guidance.. Acting on behalf of the Common Good Cyber Secretariat, the Global Cyber Alliance will lead the Fund’s Strategic Advisory Committee and, with the other Secretariat members, engage in educational advocacy and outreach within the broader cybersecurity ecosystem.
The Common Good Cyber Fund is a global commitment to safeguard the digital frontlines, enabling local resilience and long-term digital sustainability. By supporting nonprofits advancing cybersecurity through tools, solutions, and platforms, the Fund builds a safer Internet that works for everyone, everywhere.
The Internet Society and the Global Cyber Alliance are finalizing the Fund’s legal and logistical framework. More information about the funding will be shared in the coming months.
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
In his latest attempt to cosy up to non-Labour voters, Keir Starmer has remained firmly attached to business as the saviour of all. He said:
What works for business, works for Britain. More jobs, opportunities, and money in people’s pockets.
Yes, Starmer said “more jobs” after unemployment has risen to 4.6% – the highest level since the coronavirus pandemic. One of the major reasons for the rise is Starmer’s changes to employer National Insurance contributions (NICs). These impacted businesses who have low hours and/ or low income employees through lowering the threshold of which an employer pays secondary class NICs. The Labour government lowered the threshold of company earnings that qualify from £9,100 to when companies earn just £5,000 per year.
This has not only resulted in low employment but also a lower amount of vacancies. Compared with last year, there are 21.2% less vacancies in accommodation and food service and 17.1% less in manufacturing. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said she wants growth to come from the financial sector, instead of – you know – the actual economy. Meanwhile, finance and insurance vacancies are up 9%. The thing is, economists have long warned that financial sector growth actually crowds out growth in the real economy, stifling research and development while poaching skilled workers from real industries.
A different approach to the NIC rise would be to categorise businesses based on revenue and profits rather than harbouring a regressive tax system for employers. The most profitable of firms in particular can afford to pay higher taxes (and wages) without raising prices.
For example, Tesco employs 326,000 people in the UK and makes profit of £6,150 per every employee (including another around 100,000 abroad). That’s a total profit of £2.7bn on everyday food – an essential – meaning Tesco could pay thousands more each year in tax (and wages).
That’s why it’s laughable that Tesco CEO Ken Murphy is saying that the tax hike is contributing to food inflation. More like greedflation.
Starmer and Reeves changes have instead also impacted small businesses who have had to lower their employees by 21%, with almost 47% of them also citing tax as a barrier to their growth. If Labour had looked at the reality of the market and a company’s revenues and profits, they could have raised tax for big businesses like Tesco, while ensuring small businesses can remain viable.
Another ludicrous part of what Starmer said is the mantra that “what works for business, works for Britain”. The privatisation of essential services certainly works for business shareholders while they milk profits, but it means higher bills, lower investment and higher borrowing costs for the public.
And let’s not forget the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US that contained Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions that allow corporations to sue governments for impacting their profits. But of course, “what works for business, works for Britain” in all circumstances. And indeed, Global Justice Now has warned that an accompanying agreement to Starmer’s recent trade deal with India could contain ISDS, impacting both the UK and Indian governments.
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
Yesterday was the final in-person event for the DWP’s Pathways to Work consultation. The consultation itself has been badly received by disabled people as our thoughts on the excruciating cuts and ‘reforms’ of disability benefits have by and large been ignored.
However, the north-east consultation was somehow an even bigger mess.
Firstly, this was a massively last minute event. Up until last week there was no consultation in the whole of the North East and Cumbria. In fact there was no opportunity for anyone who lived between Glasgow and Leeds to have their say in person. This was something Liz Kendall was seemingly oblivious to until MP for South Shields, Emma Lewell, pulled her up on it in DWP questions.
Then, the event was hastily thrown together with just a weeks notice. Once again, the government couldn’t make it clearer that they don’t care about the north east. That’s in spit of the fact that we’re the region with the most disabled people and high levels of poverty.
The next reason it ruffled feathers was the date. The event just so happened (by coincidence I’m sure) to be the launch date of a new disability-led stakeholders network. The network was founded by local deaf and disabled person’s (DDPO) Difference North East after they resigned from the government’s Regional Stakeholders Network.
The organisation said the government created a regional network to hear from disability charities, organisations and those with skin in the game but refused to listen to them on disability issues in the north east.
In their resignation letter the group said:
Difference North East no longer believe this government is listening or meaningfully consulting with us. If it was, it would not be pushing forward with policy proposals that will be harmful to disabled people
And, on their social media, the group further explained:
We weren’t partners. We were decoration.
So now we’re building something better: run by disabled, d/Deaf and neurodivergent people, and open to everyone who wants to work with us, not just ignore us.
One of the reasons the group resigned from the regional network has been because the government wasn’t planning on holding an in-person consultation for the north and east. Lo and behold, when they are harried into holding the consultation, they organise it for the same day that Difference North East launch their initiative.
Christopher Hartworth, director of development at Difference North East, said:
Last week we resigned from the government’s Regional Stakeholder Network at the lack of meaningful involvement with disabled people. Only then did the government announce that there would actually be a North East Consultation.
Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and Crips Against Cuts have shared Difference North East’s frustrations. Members from the former two groups have been protesting outside the consultation and even gatecrashing proceedings.
However, disability groups from the North East had to be much more covert once they heard of the consultation plans. Just a few weeks ago a consultation in Cardiff was cancelled. At the time, Disability Wales said they were “aghast” at the cancellation.
Perhaps because of the growing anger around the cancellation, details of the venue for yesterday’s consultation were only shared with registered attendees. Conveniently for the DWP, the venue itself was gated, restricting public access.
Hartworth said:
Our members tell us they only got notice of the venue two days ago. They still have no idea if the space is accessible or if BSL will be provided. A person in Teesside reported that it would cost £50 each way for a taxi. This event is not accessible for disabled people living across the North East, who deserve a meaningful consultation that centres their voices. A vote on welfare cuts should not go ahead until this has happened.
Nevertheless, DPAC North East and Crips Against Cuts North East turned up to send a final urgent message to the government.
Lee Turner, from Crips Against Cuts North East said:
These barbaric welfare reforms are an outright assault on the dignity and survival of vulnerable people across the country, particularly here in the North East, where our communities have already been hit hard by years of underinvestment and austerity, and now, instead of offering a hand up, they choose to push us further in to poverty.
Turner concluded:
These policies are not just cruel, they’re a betrayal of basic decency. We will not stand by while lives are devastated for the sake of political posturing.
Campaigner Elspeth, also with Crips Against Cuts North East told the Canary:
We’re protesting the consultation today because this is how the government is treating us summed up. It’s a consultation that will change nothing, planned last minute, in a deeply inaccessible location.
So, what of the actual consultation itself? Two of the attendees reached out to me to share their experiences. Both expressed utter dismay at the way they were treated. They described how when attendees arrived at the building they were made to walk for 15 minutes around the building. The group were escorted by security past multiple offices filled with staff watching them. Then, once they arrived at the meeting room there were two disabled parking bays directly outside.
One attendee, Claire, was not able to complete the consultation. She had to leave two questions in, along with another participant, after she found the event inaccessible and was depleted of her energy before even getting in the room. This is despite her travelling for over an hour to get there.
Claire told me:
if this event was an indication of how the DWP plans to “support disabled people to thrive” then I’m afraid the future looks bleak. The event was not planned to be accessible and inclusive.
Claire was escorted out with a security guard on either side of her roller. Several attendees were wary of the security guards. J, another attendee, told me it was “overkill.” Another three attendees were escorted by three security guards. Claire also told me that the questions the group were asked were badly formed:
some of their questions were very leading and sounded like a benefit to people, when actually it was about making an already hard system worse for disabled people.
From start to finish the Pathways to Work consultation has been an utter sham. And, the way disabled people in the north east have been treated by the government shows just how much they care about those who will be hardest hit by these cuts.
This above all else is why we should – not for one second – believe the government’s concessions. We need to judge them not on their words but their very deliberate actions and attempts to silence those who will suffer the most.
Featured image via Elspeth, Crips Not Cuts
This post was originally published on Canary.
In yet another embarrassing u-turn, Keir Starmer has offered concessions to Labour rebels over disability benefit cuts. More than 120 Labour MPs have mounted a major rebellion against the proposed cuts. And, countless disability organisations and activists have repeatedly warned that the cuts will decimate the lives of disabled people.
Ahead of a major vote next week, Starmer has reached out to rebels with a desperate attempt to win their support. The government has proposed a major reform to Personal Independence Payment (PIP). As ever, it’s worth nothing that PIP has a 0% fraud rate and is not an out of work benefit. That’s in spite of the fact that this raft of disability cuts are being presented as getting disabled people into work. Now, Starmer has proposed the following ‘concessions’:
This is Starmer’s third major u-turn just this month. But, this one really takes the cake. He’s proposed a two-tier benefit system that separates current PIP claimants from new ones. As the Canary has previously reported, the proposed PIP cuts will mean that the following people will no longer be eligible for support:
(a) assistance to be able to cut up food
(b) supervision or prompting to be able to wash or bathe
(c) assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist
(d) assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath or shower
(e) supervision or prompting to be able to manage toilet needs
(f) assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body
(g) supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage medication and, or, to be able to monitor a health condition.
Starmer has some fucking nerve if he thinks that disabled people are going to be in any way convinced by a ‘concession’ that segregates disabled people based on when they applied for an essential benefit. Even before these proposed changes, PIP is a notoriously demeaning and difficult benefit to apply for. How exactly do the needs of PIP applicants change depending on Starmer’s desperate timeline to sway votes? If you can’t fucking feed yourself or clean yourself that shouldn’t be subject to a lottery based on when you apply.
On top of that, the very idea that the UC health element increasing alongside inflation is somehow a concession is batshit. If the UC health element doesn’t increase alongside inflation, that’s a pay cut for disabled people already living in poverty. However, the government has controversially worded the LCWRA to exclude people living with fluctuating conditions. And, disabled people have been begging the government to understand how expensive it is to be disabled. How will more money for employment help with that? If anything, it further demonises disabled people who cannot work. Starmer’s insistence on helping “working people” is a lazy conservative talking point. Does someone who cannot work deserve to starve to death? Should they live on the streets? For the avoidance of doubt, given the absolute fucking state of corporate capitalism: food and shelter is a basic human right that shouldn’t cost anything.
Unfortunately for Starmer, these concessions are being seen for the farce that they are. Canary guest author and disability activist Laura Elliott said:
this would just create a two-tier system of disability based on nothing so much as time of onset – people would still be just as disabled, they’d just be getting denied help anyway
i don’t support this. everyone deserves support no matter when they become disabled https://t.co/E0IKz85du7
— Laura Elliott (@TinyWriterLaura) June 26, 2025
Journalist and disability advocate Lucy Webster decried the immoral decision:
Creating a two-tier Pip and UC system where new claimants get less than existing ones is a political concession, but not a moral one
And if it was a multinational company doing this on pay, Labour MPs would be up in arms
Not good enough
— Lucy Webster (@Lucy_Webster_) June 26, 2025
Canary writer Rachel Charlton-Dailey made it clear that Labour rebels shouldn’t be convinced by any of this horse shit:
Hi MPs if you get swayed by these bullshit concessions your constituents will make sure you lose your job next election, thats all. We're your employers not Starmer
— Rachel Charlton-Dailey (@RachelCDailey) June 26, 2025
And, another person agreed:
None of us are ok with throwing new disabled PIP applicants under a bus the rest of us are already safely on.
And if you think they don’t have plans to go around these “concessions”, wait until “new style PIP” comes out of nowhere & the rules apply to all as originally planned
https://t.co/M3Vsmmwo7Q
— Katie (@LuxMeaMundiAM) June 26, 2025
Disability rights activist Abi Broomfield who launched a vital petition against the cuts – which is still running – said the concessions were entirely worthless:
The proposed concessions put forward include only having the PIP changes affecting new claims not existing ones.
If the concessions don't include everyone then they aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Also I don't trust DWP to not "accidentally" cancel existing claims.— Chronically Vexed
she/they (@ChronicallyVex) June 26, 2025
Erin Ekins took the corporate media to task for parroting the government line without question:
It's wild seeing journalists talk about rebels 'winning major concessions' whilst every single disability advocate and organisation is yelling at the top of their lungs that this is still horrific and not a meaningful concession at all.
You really, really don't listen to us.
— Erin Ekins (she/her) (@QueerlyAutistic) June 26, 2025
That disabled people have to hang our hopes on MPs not falling for Starmer’s sham concessions:
It's so bleak how we have to be grateful for the bare minimum from those with power (over us). It's so bleak that disabled people's lives and existence and dignity hang on the whims of a few elites https://t.co/7snInk5JGN
— Hat #StopSIM #StopOxevision
(@hatporter) June 26, 2025
As usual, it was women of colour having a shred of decency. Diane Abbott said:
The fight over the welfare bill is not about Morgan McSweeney or Keir Starmer. It is not even about the Labour party, even though it could be strongly affected.
It is about the hundreds of thousands of people who will be pushed (deeper) into poverty.https://t.co/nBaM5U1isL— Diane Abbott (@HackneyAbbott) June 26, 2025
Nadia Whittome said MPs had no option but to block the bill:
Setting aside the many reasons to oppose disability benefit cuts, the government is leaving MPs *no option but to block the Bill* on Tuesday for these reasons alone:
— Nadia Whittome MP (@NadiaWhittomeMP) June 26, 2025
Apsana Begum insisted the bill needs to be dropped:
Press speculation about ‘massive concessions’ on the Disability Cuts Bill, when in fact these are tiny.
Fewer disabled people to be harmed but they’ll be harmed nonetheless. The Government’s plans mean that disabled people will be worse off than under the Tories.
Drop the Bill.
— Apsana Begum MP (@ApsanaBegumMP) June 26, 2025
Labour rebels face a choice next week: listen to disabled communities, or sell us down the river for party politics. Starmer may well be wobbling on a knife edge as leader of the Labour party with embarrassing climbdown after embarrassing climbdown. However, I couldn’t give less of a fuck if this does end up being a fight over whether Starmer has the support of the Labour party.
Before Starmer’s proposed cuts and changes over disability welfare, it was hell to be a disabled person in this country. Any welfare is accessed via the DWP who make it their mission to demean and demonise disabled people. We have a broken system that views disabled people as feckless, lazy, and simply requiring a push into work. So many of us live in debilitating pain with complex conditions, all whilst being failed and denied by a crumbling NHS.
With these proposed cuts and changes? People who are struggling to survive will not survive. Starmer is playing with people’s lives. MPs must continue their rebellion against him to avoid destroying lives. It’s beyond a fucking joke that we have to do this, but we must bombard our MPs over the weekend with the consequences of their decision next week.
Use this template from Taking the PIP to write to your MP, and urge them to block the bill. You can also join Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) for an in-person protest against the cuts outside Parliament on Monday 30 June:
Join @Dis_PPL_Protest & allies
Stop Disability Benefit Cuts
— DPAC (@Dis_PPL_Protest) June 23, 2025
Disability Rebellion, Taking the PIP, and Crips Against Cuts are hosting an online protest to coincide with this so chronically ill and disabled people can take action from home:
One Last Push!
Online protest:
30th June 2025, 4 – 7pm.
Tuesday 1st July is the first vote on the Universal Credit & Personal Independence Payments Bill. We have a very good chance to take it down.
At the same time as DPAC's physical protest outside… pic.twitter.com/rojPP4SM87
— DisabilityRebellion (@DisRebellion) June 26, 2025
Any Labour MP that falls for Starmer’s sham concessions will be betraying their disabled constituents.
Featured image via the Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
The Metropolitan police officers who strip searched Child Q in 2020 have been found to have committed gross misconduct. The findings come via an investigation from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The panel found that the treatment of the child was:
disproportionate, inappropriate and unnecessary, which was humiliating for the child and made her feel degraded.
At the time, Child Q was strip searched in a school in Hackney without an adult present, nor without informing her parents. In 2022, the City of London & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership reviewed the case and found that:
had child Q not been Black, then her experiences are unlikely to have been the same
Now, five years later – far too long an amount of time for an official investigation – the Met are finally being held to task. However, alarmingly, the IOPC concluded that:
It did not find, based on the evidence, that race was a factor in their decisions or that the child was adultified.
The panel did outline the numerous ways in which the Met police failed Child Q. The two officers in question, Trainee Detective Constable Kristina Linge and Police Constable Rafal Szmydynsk:
were found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour relating to duties and responsibilities, authority, respect and courtesy; orders and instructions, and discreditable conduct.
The pair:
A third officer, PC Victoria Wray was found to have committed misconduct:
She was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour relating to duties and responsibilities, authority, respect and courtesy; and orders and instructions.
The search of Child Q was initially carried out because a teacher suspected she could smell weed on the pupil. IOPC director Amanda Rowe acknowledged that:
Their decision to strip search a 15-year-old at school on suspicion of a small amount of cannabis was completely disproportionate. They failed to follow the policies that exist to ensure that children in these situations have appropriate protective measures in place.
The enduring understanding of Child Q since her case came to light has been one of anti-Black racism. In 2022, the Canary’s Sophia Purdy-Moore reported:
Today, schools systematically push Black pupils out of mainstream education and into pupil referral units, alternative provision, and – ultimately – prisons. Educators enact this through ‘zero tolerance’ policies which punish Black and minoritised pupils for wearing colourful hijabs or natural afro hair.
Anti-Black racism is built into our education systems. As such, the experiences of Child Q cannot be understood without appreciating the anti-Blackness and racism she suffered at the hands of these cops. In 2022, No More Exclusions founder Zahra Bei told us:
It’s appalling but it’s not surprising that the school dealt with this child and the situation as a criminal matter as opposed to a safeguarding matter. As it says in the report, she was seen as the risk instead of being at risk. And that is what fundamentally needs to change for Black children. Their childhood, their vulnerability, their needs, their humanity has to be recognised in its fullness.
Hackney MP Diane Abbott has also called out the broader pattern of misogynoir that led to Child Q’s awful experience:
Strip searching Child Q wasn't an isolated incident.
It's part of a broader pattern of police abuse towards women and particularly Black women.
It needs to end. pic.twitter.com/8XYXX7Ghpy
— Diane Abbott (@HackneyAbbott) March 26, 2022
The findings from the IOPC shouldn’t have taken five years from the incident to be delivered. But, that’s just like the Met Police – to commit horrific racism, deny they did so, and re-traumatise their victims. Child Q has previously spoken of her trauma over the incident. Undoubtedly, this latest finding that race did not play a part will add to her trauma. The IOPC may be shielding the Met Police from further embarrassing accusations of racism, but the rest of us must understand that denials of racism are a painful and retraumatising experience.
The fact that a 2022 safeguarding report did what the IOPC failed to do in their dismissal of race as a factor is a disgrace. Child Q’s experiences are part of a broader pattern of anti-Black racism that is rampant in our education and police systems.
This post was originally published on Canary.
This blog is part of a five-part series looking at interfaith and intercultural relationships and the factors behind their success and longevity (or lack of). The series is based on my personal experience as a Muslim woman in her 20s and 30s.
In part 1, I look at marriage and love across cultures and borders, examining the role of shared values and knowing oneself.
In part 2, I share my experience of faith and religious divides in an intercultural/interfaith relationship.
In part 3, I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
In this blog I look at emotional factors (in particular attachment styles) and their relation to culture, as opposed to cultural or religious difference as a standalone.
In part 5, I conclude by sharing insight into the factors and dynamics involved in mixed relationships in maintaining a healthy long-lasting interfaith/intercultural relationship.
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
(1 Corinthians 13:4-8)
They say that love – true love – is selfless. And it’s right.
One of the hardest (yet most beautiful) lessons of my life has been the selflessness of love.
Of my love – a love I never planned, never expected and never renounced. A love for a man I shall refer to as “Mustafa”.
This was the only love that I shared without every truly receiving. Unrequited love? Not quite.
I think he loved me. I believe he did. I felt he did – in his reserved, scared, tender, yet very real way.
I knew I did at least. I’d told him so. I couldn’t wait any longer.
“Mustafa, I love you” I texted him one night in Arabic (his native language). He seemed surprised and said we’d talk about it that night during our usual evening call.
I was shocked, surprised and embarrassed. Was he surprised to hear it or to actually know it?
Well, it wasn’t love at first sight – not for me at least. We’d got off to a rough start and I wasn’t sure if it’d go anywhere after an awkward end to our first date (one with highs and lows!).
Was it cultural difference? Not much I don’t think. He was Middle Eastern (Iraqi to be precise), and I was European. But that wasn’t really the issue.
From our very first calls, we’d established a connection and discussed our different backgrounds. I had a fondness for his culture and was very much familiar with it.
Mustafa, on the other hand, had struggled with ex-partners who didn’t understand his culture. He liked the idea of a mixed family, and I did too.
I seemed to fit the bill, and he seemed to fit mine.
I loved and understood his culture. And he loved mine. We were both living in the UK and experiencing life here.
Next: religion. Well, we were both Muslim. In more ways than one. Half Kurdish and half Arab, his parents were a mix of Sunni and Shia. Yet he identified simply as Muslim – just like me, and (as I later discovered) we both loved Sufi mysticism.
We were both spiritual, progressive and cosmopolitan – and had lived overseas amid different cultures and faiths.
It was him in fact that encouraged me to “be myself” as I explained how I was constantly weaving between different cultural/religious norms and settings.
He was right. And I was myself – a Muslim woman in his eyes. Yet also a very British-Italian one too.
There was no pressure. I could be me, in his words at least.
In all honesty though, I once again did battle slightly with previous conceptions of cultural/religious norms.
There was once again a clash between what I’d been taught by other people from Arab (yet more conservative) backgrounds (which seemed an oil and water mix combined with my personal trauma) and Mustafa’s rather more open self.
Mustafa had grown up in an Arab, Muslim majority country. His home country was the seemingly conservative Iraq. But there was more to it.
As a young professional and polyglot, he appeared to be proud of his heritage and likewise non-traditional, liberal and very open minded. He had also grown up in diverse country, a very culturally rich nation and resided in the urban big cities/capitals.
Similarly, I was also still on my path of rediscovery post-Orthodox Islam. I was trying to fully embrace the European “me” (again a big part of my journey a the time – and still to date really).
In fact, despite him having come from a much more conservative society, it was with me appearing, modelling and behaving as the relatively more “conservative” one the more we knew each other.
None the less, it was refreshing. We were both culturally open, both loved learning about other people and both very similarly progressive in our faith.
Religion wasn’t an issue. And culture not so much either – not on a grand or overtly obvious scale in terms of practices, traditions and views.
So, what was the problem? Well, to put it simply: emotional factors.
This boiled down to emotional unavailability on his side and differing communication (or lack of) as a result (regarding emotional intelligibility and his inability to openly communicate his feelings – and quite possibly unhealed previous and more recent trauma).
We had quite clearly had opposing attachment styles (the later generally forming in relation to childhood upbringing and personal trauma).
These three were in hindsight all related – very related. Of course, some of this can be cultural – and it mostly likely was.
Communication styles, norms and practices vary amongst cultures. They relate to one’s reality as an adult and through our upbringing as a child.
And it’s our childhood that has a particular impact on our lives.
In this context, undoubtedly collective trauma affects cultures/societies and how we’re taught to communicate, behave and relate to others.
Growing up in a country of multiple conflicts, I think this is entirely relevant. I cannot begin to imagine what Mustafa must have gone through.
I of course hold sympathy for (yet basic insight into) this.
Back in 2011, my MA final thesis comprised a translation project based on a text by the Italian-Iraqi writer named Younis Tawfiq entitled “L’Iraq di Saddam” (Saddam’s Iraq).
This text covered the Iraq war, the journey of migration and longing for one’s homeland. I’d poured my heart and soul into this work (and got a distinction as a result).
But, I’d had little communication with Iraqis prior to meeting Mustafa.
Whilst I was very much against the war in Iraq on behalf of the US and UK, it wasn’t something I was an expert on or that had become part of my world since my degree.
Nonetheless, my heart went out to him. And it always will. But it wasn’t as simple as that.
Whilst we both loved and knew each other’s cultures to varying degrees, that wasn’t the problem.
The problem was his emotional state at the time when he’d put himself on the dating scene of marriage (and I say this without judgment and with full compassion and care).
When looking to date/marry, we’re putting ourselves out there to become part of a union. And that union is comprised of individuals who will impact on each other.
Everyone deserves love. No one should be a prisoner to their past. And yet, how we live as fully grown adults is our own responsibility.
So too is how we relate, communicate, engage and interact with others – including what we project onto them, how we treat them and how they feel as a result (consciously or consciously, intentionally or unintentionally).
I know that from my story with Rami. And well, this is how my story with Mustafa unfolded…
After keeping in touch via video and text (he was living in London and myself in the Midlands – including with a trip to Poland in between for a training I was undertaking), we met.
The first date started well… But ended badly (and confusingly). Yet, we stayed in touch.
Mustafa had reached out. But, I didn’t find him to be as communicatively open as I was (and felt I needed and deserved).
And so, over time, a culmination of distance, life pressures and emotional baggage got in the way. I didn’t hold out hope.
And then it happened. Text after text, video call after video call over the Christmas break. I felt it.
“I think I’m in love with Mustafa” I texted a friend. Well, it was early days. Very early days. But I felt it – and it grew, more and more.
I tried to doubt it, but I was right: I loved him. It was a love that had crept up on me so innocently, so softly, so beautifully.
But, I didn’t say anything. I wanted him to say it first and I definitely didn’t want to scare him off.
This heart-on-her-sleeve romantic had sensed he was the emotionally introverted take-it-slow type. So, I waited and hid it – in words at least.
Valentine’s Day then came round. We decided to mark the occasion but were in different areas of the country on the day itself.
So, I sent a package (a few days early) – full of love but inner silence.
Inside I’d placed a card that I’d very carefully chosen to be as low-key as possible, with a few selected gifts. Cute, thoughtful, personalised. But not OTT.
Not knowing how he’d respond, we spoke later that day, and he shared how he’d loved it.
The following evening (on Valentine’s Day itself) the door ball rang, and I opened the door to an Amazon driver.
I’d received a box, with a note and two gifts inside: a wooden music box to the tune of Can’t Help Falling in Love and a flashing standing musical card with the words “I love you” printed on the front.
This was a much more romantic response to the one I’d so carefully but very un-typically ended with “from Liz” in Arabic.
I texted my friends a video and a few photos. My British friends thought it was uber cheesy (and so said nothing!). I loved it.
For the old school romantic that I am (and my friends know very well), hardly anything could be (too) cheesy.
It was a very typically (stereotypically) Middle Eastern display of affection. And a sweet, tender, subtle declaration of affection by Mustafa.
I was moved, beaming and smiling from ear to ear. I was touched. In particular by those three little (yet big) words.
Mustafa had not uttered them himself, but when we spoke that night, he confirmed that he’d chosen everything purposely.
So, it was mutual, I thought. Like every other love I’d ever felt – mutual, real, beautiful.
Give him time I told myself. This was him. And it was a beautiful first display of affection.
We were so compatible – or so I thought. In my mind, we were seemingly perfect for each other. I’d have married him (in time) if he’d have asked.
Yet, this was a beautiful, but sadly impedingly tragic tale.
A tale that became written by feelings of painful half measures, emotional withdrawal and immense frustration. Hurt, rejection and longing – on my side at least.
I’d told him I loved him. And I discovered that we had totally different attachment styles: anxious attachment (me) and avoidant attachment (him).
I was already working on healing this pattern, acknowledging this and sharing my newfound knowledge with him. But it didn’t go very far.
We broke down and resolved a few miscommunications, but the real work behind the scenes didn’t seem to be happening on his end.
At the end of my tether, he finally opened up: he hadn’t been happy but thought a relationship would make him happier. It wasn’t about me.
I explained that he needed to make himself happy first. To not dive into a relationship. Because his misery (a word he used himself) was making me miserable too.
And here came the lesson. One of the hardest lessons in my life to-date: I loved him, I truly loved him.
And it was because I loved him that I wanted him to be happy: with or without me.
“But I don’t want to lose you” – he uttered. He wanted me, he just needed time.
And so, I gave him time. But, week after week, the wounds grew deeper. As did his distance and my sense of hurt, rejection and being pushed away by the man I loved.
I couldn’t hang on. I couldn’t cling to half measures. I deserved better. I deserved more.
And so, disappointment after disappointment, I ended it. And it hit me. Like a knife. A deep searing knife right in my chest. Aching, paining, digging.
I cried with my heart and soul. Day in day out for a week – without contact.
Mustafa later returned and we met in person, with more disappointments, more misery and more hurt. My heart broke all over again. I cried rivers, streams, oasis of tears.
He needed time to figure out what he wanted, although declaring once again when he finally opened up that it wasn’t about me and that he valued our bond. That he needed time.
But I wouldn’t hang around for answers. I could be patient and support him, but only if he chose me.
And so, I chose myself. I chose self-love. I chose me. Because I wasn’t going to wait on the sidelines in a limbo for a man who didn’t know what he wanted – or wasn’t going to say it if he did.
I was also going to take space and time to heal before looking to (see if we could) be friends.
So, we no longer spoke. Then, a few weeks later, he texted me – with a photo of him in a hospital bed.
It was a surprise and shock. Totally out of the blue. He was ill.
He’d undergone a major operation and had been in hospital for two weeks.
We spoke. I packed my bags and rushed to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (London) when discharge day came.
As I entered the building, I paused, took a deep breath and gathered myself for what I knew was going to be a very difficult few days ahead. And it was.
It was four days of caring, four days of raw wounds and four days of arguments, fatigue, unspoken words and many, many tears. Beautiful, intense and tragic.
During one disagreement, he said we were incompatible. I replied that he didn’t deserve me.
There we were, like two very close strangers. He didn’t understand me, and I didn’t understand him.
We were on two different emotional planets (and no, this wasn’t just a “cultural thing”).
Looking back, it required a lot of effort (on his part) and healing and dialogue (for us both).
Several days in, the night before I left, we told each other how we’d miss each other – of course I initiated:
“You annoy the hell out of me but I’m going to miss you” I told him.
“I’ll miss you too” he replied. Then, early next morning, I left.
I boarded a coach back to the Midlands. And as the coach left Victoria coach station, I burst into deep tears. Streaming, hot tears.
A few hours later, back “up north”, I arrived at work and opened my phone: “I’m missing you this morning” he’d written. So he was. And so was I.
But, I’d returned without expectations – just like when I’d travelled down to London to be with him. I couldn’t expect anything.
My love was there to care and look after a friend who needed practical and emotional support. And I’m glad I went.
I’m glad I remained true to myself. And I’m glad I listened to myself.
I took it for what it was. For the beauty that we’d shared; for the care I’d given, for the support he’d received, and for the moments we’d shared.
And: I moved forward – with a lot of hurt, tears and memories behind me and my self-respect in tact, my friends by my side and my future ahead of me.
True love is selfless – it does not falter, it does not demand, it simply gives
Any relationship should be a mutual exchange – a selfless exchange, without discounting one’s needs. Sharing, giving and caring should be done for the sake of the other, for the sake of love. And true love is selfless.
True love is about wanting the other person to feel happy, secure and fulfilled. Both partners should expect respect, love, trust and appreciation.
However, love cannot force a person to heal. Love cannot heal another person who is not ready or willing to heal.
Love on its own is not enough. But it is selfless in its truest form. This however does not mean discounting oneself.
Self-love is not selfish – it’s a priority
Self-love must come first. This is not being selfish. It’s about being responsible, about looking after yourself and about respecting yourself.
Self-love, self-care and self-respect translate to communicating your needs, setting boundaries and loving for others what we love for ourselves (the Golden Rule).
Therefore, self-love in the purest, kindest and purest sense translates to selfless love for others too.
Compatibility is about more than outward religious or cultural difference
Mutual long-term compatibility is about sharing commonality, navigating difference and communicating deeply. Without communication, no relationship can flourish.
Just as values are about more than simply about culture or religion (to not be viewed as a homogonous monolith on their own, nor as part of a split binary and in any over-simplified view), compatibility requires emotional availability.
This requires deeper communication, regardless of one’s culture – whilst acknowledging the effect of socio-cultural norms on religious and cultural practice and one’s emotional wellbeing (e.g. collective societal trauma and how this shapes socio-cultural norms).
Emotional needs are an important element of who we are and how we relate to others. Different love languages exist, different attachment styles exist and different perceptions of what a happy relationship exist.
These can vary, but this doesn’t mean they’re incompatible or present unsurmountable barriers.
However, they do require reflection, communication, and the will, trust and understanding to move forward together to break down, navigate and manage these differences into compromise (or forming new behaviours individually and together – for example through healing trauma).
Look out for part 5 of this series (the final segment), where I conclude by sharing insight into the factors and dynamics involved in mixed relationships in maintaining a healthy long-lasting interfaith/intercultural relationship.
This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.
On Saturday 21 June, US president Donald Trump launched massive and illegal missile attacks on the sovereign nation of Iran, following on from an unprovoked Israeli assault on the country a week before. He did so in total violation of international law, and without the consent of the US congress or the support of the US people. It was an unjustifiable act of aggression which threatens to escalate into a full-scale war which will kill many, further destabilise the Middle East, and disturb the cooperation of nations around the globe for decades to come.
So of course Keir Starmer immediately came out in support of the escalation:
Keir Starmer endorses an attack which his own Attorney General has advised may be illegal pic.twitter.com/GENDqpFRTQ
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) June 22, 2025
The conflict with Iran began when Israel attacked it. The apartheid state justified its assault with the same excuse that the US and Britain used to illegally invade Iraq in 2003, claiming that Iran was working on ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Citizens around the world weren’t falling for this, as we reported last week, and yet Labour immediately took sides with Israel – the aggressor.
For those following Israel’s genocide in Gaza, this turn of events was unsurprising. Both the US and the UK have continued to support and arm Israel despite it facing accusations of war crimes in the International Criminal Court (ICC). Former prime minister David Cameron even tried to threaten the ICC not to issue arrest warrants for those responsible.
What’s one more breach of international law on top of all that?
The fact that Starmer’s move was unsurprising, however, does not mean it wasn’t disgusting. And many people made their disgust clear:
I have never despised a prime minister more. You’ve drenched every British citizen in blood. The vast majority reject your support for Israel, its genocide, and its constant violations of international law. Shame on you.
— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) June 22, 2025
Stop pretending this is about international security. It's about Western interests and the opposite of international security. It represents a shattering of international law, and submitting to the will of a genocidal state who is destabilising the region. You're a disgrace
— Marc Owen Jones (@marcowenjones) June 22, 2025
Keir Starmer is a cipher, the most spineless, talentless British leader of all time. A human rights lawyer with utter contempt for human rights for people who don't look like him. A character that doesn't work in a movie: a baddie with zero charisma. pic.twitter.com/dAmU63BNPH
— Tehran Tadhg (@TadhgHickey) June 22, 2025
Personally I can’t wait to watch my prime minister Sir Keir Rodney Starmer immediately commit to the course of action that will kill the most people in the worst way over the longest period of time at the largest cost for the least valid reason
— Eyup Lovely (@eyuplovely) June 22, 2025
If you’re a terror state committing a genocide, you’re a friend. If you oppose it, you’re a terrorist.
Welcome to Keir Starmer’s Britain. https://t.co/4Mmy3bAqFg
— Hamza Yusuf (@Hamza_a96) June 20, 2025
Others are highlighting that Starmer either had no idea what Trump had planned or was openly lying to the media:
How thick is Starmer. pic.twitter.com/eVFm3vuFvF
— JmRoyle #LFC #YNWA #BLM #RejoinEU (@MyArrse) June 22, 2025
STARMERS LAW – The probability of an opposite outcome is directly proportional to the certainty with which Starmer delivers the original statement.
Example:
“I don't believe President Trump will attack Iran"Outcome – Trump attacks Iran.
— Bernie (@Artemisfornow) June 22, 2025
Keir Starmer predictably announces his support for the US bombing of Iran, which is surely illegal under international law. https://t.co/c5iWanq7Wf
— Declassified UK (@declassifiedUK) June 22, 2025
The big difference between this moment and 2003 is that increasingly few people support the Western establishment’s crusades in the Middle East. As such, even commentators like the Daily Mail‘s Dan Hodges are calling Starmer out:
I cannot recall a major foreign policy crisis where the British Prime Minister has debased and humiliated themself in such a comprehensive way. https://t.co/xqUYqa1gzE
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) June 22, 2025
When is Keir Starmer going to learn he is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not a glorified global marriage guidance councillor > Mail on Sunday > https://t.co/ttaqoDUAPc
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) June 22, 2025
But then, Hodges may have actually been hoping for even stronger support for Trump, by the looks of it:
One thing being missed about Starmer's "Trump isn't going to get involved in Iran" blunder. It's not just it was wrong. It was said just at the time the US was trying to convince Iran they were serious about intervention, in a final effort to bring them to the negotiating table.
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) June 22, 2025
The picture this paints is that the US was sincerely trying to bring Iran to the table (despite backing Israel’s offensive) and that Starmer fucked it all up. In reality, Iran has been open to and engaging in negotiations for years, and was reportedly ready to pledge never to develop nuclear weapons before Israel came in and blew up the negotiating table. There was also reporting last week that Trump planned to attack Iran at the weekend (i.e. when the markets were closed).
Another right-winger criticising Starmer was founder of Conservative Home Tim Montgomerie:
Starmer's argument on Tuesday that Trump wouldn't join Israel in bombing Iran was questionable at the time. This morning Starmer's misjudged words reinforce how irrelevant Britain and Europe are in setting Middle Eastern policy. pic.twitter.com/88B5wgXoha
— Tim Montgomerie
(@montie) June 22, 2025
We’re sure that Montgomerie is upset we’re apparently being sidelined, but either way, it highlights how despicable Starmer is. Even when the US doesn’t care about us at all, our prime minister is bending over backwards to let it step on us.
Shameful. Depraved. Expected.
The following post truly highlights what an empty vessel Keir Starmer is:
Lest not forget that in 2004, @Keir_Starmer defended a man who broke into an RAF base and tried to set fire to British aircraft. Starmer argued his actions were legal because they were to stop an 'illegal war.' pic.twitter.com/LJaPyQIbRR
— TLTM (@TLTM32) June 21, 2025
The Telegraph reported on the case Starmer defended in 2004:
A group of anti-war protesters had broken into RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to sabotage US bombers before they flew to Iraq.
Sir Keir argued that while the actions were against the law, they were justified because they were trying to stop the planes from committing war crimes.
Josh Richards, who was represented by Sir Keir, was cleared after a jury failed to reach a verdict.
The Telegraph covered this with a negative slant, of course, because the right care more about property damage than illegal wars which kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Comparing the above case to this moment, Starmer’s government is moving to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group because it grafittied a fighter jet. As Maryam Jameela reported on 20 June:
Palestine Action activists have broken into RAF Brize Norton and damaged two military aircrafts. The military base is the largest hub in the UK for air transport. In a video posted to its social media, actionists can be seen squirting paint into the engines of military aircraft.
BREAKING: Palestine Action break into RAF Brize Norton and damage two military aircrafts.
Flights depart daily from the base to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.
From Cyprus, British planes collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/zzmFqGKW8N
— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) June 20, 2025
Regarding Labour’s plan to proscribe Palestine Action, the BBC wrote:
The home secretary will move to proscribe the Palestine Action group in the coming weeks, effectively branding them as a terrorist organisation, the BBC understands.
Yvette Cooper is preparing a written statement to put before Parliament on Monday.
The decision comes as a security review begins at military bases across the UK, after pro-Palestinian activists broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military planes with red paint.
Palestine Action responded:
When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action.
We agree with Palestine Action. Starmer’s government is operating outside all moral and legal expectations, and it would be wrong to just stand by and watch.
Starmer’s refusal to call out the US or its Israeli partner for their almost-certainly illegal actions is deeply troubling. His cowardice suggests that, if it comes down to it, he will try to sign us up to a war that very few people in this country want.
As Starmer is already one of the most unpopular politicians this country has ever suffered through, we imagine the resulting response will make the Iraq protests look like a picnic.
Featured image via Gage Skidmore (Flickr) / UK Home Office (Wikimedia) – all images cropped
By The Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
On 22 June, the BBC‘s Laura Kuenssberg interviewed suspended Labour MP Zarah Sultana. The interview highlighted why Labour is reluctant to readmit her, as she didn’t flinch from criticising Israel and its ongoing genocide – something Keir Starmer refuses to do as a lackey of US interests. Sultana also wasn’t afraid to hold the BBC accountable for platforming prominent Israelis who have defended and whitewashed the ongoing atrocities in Gaza:
Zarah Sultana, "Israel is committing genocide"
Laura Kuenssberg, "There is no legal ruling Israel is engaged in genocide"
Piers Morgan, "Israel is admitting ethnic cleansing.. Smotrich is openly talking about cleansing Gaza of all Palestinians.. That is ethnic cleansing, that… pic.twitter.com/HhCFnyPIOd
— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) June 22, 2025
Sultana took issue with the BBC for interviewing Israeli president Isaac Herzog. The Palestine Chronicle wrote the following on Herzog in January 2024:
Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, has become the subject of criminal complaints during his visit to the Davos based World Economic Forum, say Swiss prosecutors.
This comes as South Africa accuses Israel of committing the crime of Genocide at the International Court of Justice, where Herzog’s comments were quoted to prove Israeli genocidal intent.
Although the position of the president in Israel is considered primarily a ceremonial role, with the Prime Minister bearing the pivotal decision-making power, it is still an influential position and Isaac Herzog directly reflects state policy.
In this respect, he is largely being considered complicit in the ongoing war crimes that the Israeli military is committing against the people of Gaza.
It added:
One comprehensive database was compiled by Law for Palestine – which collated Israeli genocidal intent from every level of society, drawing from various politicians, military leaders, prominent TV personalities, activists and soldiers who are fighting in Gaza – has been an invaluable tool at proving intent and the complicity of those driving Israeli policy.
Infamously, Isaac Herzog remarked that “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” for the Hamas military offensive of October 7.
He also went on to state the following: “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.”
The clear inference here was that after Israel had announced its intent to fight what Israeli defense minister, Yoav Gallant, called “human animals” by cutting off water, food, fuel and electricity, that the civilian population of Gaza is complicit in the conduct of Hamas and should suffer as a result.
Speaking to Kuenssberg, Sultana said:
This is the head of a state that is committing genocide, where over 55,000 people have been killed in Gaza; over 17,000 children. In fact, after the October 7 attacks… Herzog himself accused all of Gaza’s population of collective responsibility. He said ‘the entire nation is responsible. The rhetoric that civilians are not involved, it’s absolutely not true.’ And ICJ judges included that genocidal intent in their ruling. This is a man that should be at The Hague; not platformed on the BBC.
At this point, Kuenssberg butted in to say:
That legal process has not concluded yet. There is no legal ruling that they are engaged in genocide in that way.
There’s no legal ruling that the sky is blue, and yet we can all clearly see that it is. Should we wait until after Israel has exterminated or expelled all the Palestinians before we speak out?
Kuenssberg then faced another interruption, from Piers Morgan no less (a man whose overall pro-Israel bias is clear). He pointed out:
But they are they are admitting ethnic cleansing… I mean, if you listen to Smotrich, the finance minister… You know, he’s one of the senior members of that cabinet talking brazenly and openly about cleansing Gaza of all Palestinians. That is ethnic cleansing. That is a war crime.
So, you know, I say to Israel – and to Israelis – are you comfortable with what your government is doing in Gaza? Because there seems to be no endgame. Bill Clinton has come out and said that, in his estimation, Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging all this warfare because it will stop him being held accountable for October 7 and also for the corruption charges he faces in a criminal court
Sultana wasn’t just critical of the BBC, saying the UK is:
deeply complicit in what is happening in The Middle East.
Staggeringly, Kuenssberg interrupted to ask:
Why do you say that?
This woman was the BBC‘s political editor for several years, and yet she’s acting like she just woke up from a coma. And not just any coma, either – to be ignorant to Britain’s misadventures in the Middle East, she must have slipped into unconsciousness some time before the Crusades.
Ignoring Kuenssberg’s feigned ignorance, Sultana continued:
When we talk about arms sales, the UK government suspended 30 out of 350 arms licenses. 90% are still active, including components of lethal F-35 fighter jets. Now the government will talk about directly or indirectly, there are F-35 components that are leaving RAF bases in this country, are being transferred through Heathrow and other airports in this country, that are going to Israel.
Every bomb that is dropped, we have to ask the question… those lives that are being killed, is the UK complicit? Are we complicit in that? And the evidence says yes, we are. Hence, there is a court case where the UK government has been defending sending these components to Israel.
And we should be suspending all arms sales. We should [not be] trading at all with this Israeli government. In fact, we’ve allowed the US, in particular with the Iran context, to fly through our airspace. In ’73, Edward Heath, a Tory prime minister, refused to allow US planes to go through UK airspace to take part in defending Israel.
"The UK is deeply complicit in what is happening in the Middle East. When we talk about arms sales, the UK government has suspended 30 out of 350 arms licences. 90% are still active, including components of lethal F35 fighter jets"
Well said @zarahsultana pic.twitter.com/knjbgnhyzs
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 22, 2025
The UK political and media establishment have whitewashed countless atrocities over the years, and Sultana is brave to stand against their blatant dishonesty. We really could use many more politicians like her in parliament. With Starmer dedicated to sidelining individuals like Sultana and tanking Labour’s popularity, however, it’s more likely we’re going to get a parliament filled with Nigel Farage clones.
And if you’re thinking that might be better for Britain, just be aware that Farage is even more blatantly Israel First than Starmer:
Reform UK stands behind the military actions of the USA overnight.
Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the future of Israel depends on it.
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) June 22, 2025
What a sad state this country is in.
Featured image via the BBC
By The Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
In a betrayal of disabled communities, MPs voted through the assisted dying bill by a narrow margin. In the end, 23 votes separated the two sides, with 314 voting for, and 291 against. This was even after warnings from activists, charities, and medical professionals on the impact for disabled people.
The bill will now head to the house of lords before it can become law. However, realistically, the most the house of lords can do is delay it on its way to becoming law. The day of this vote on assisted dying – or, more accurately, assisted suicide – is a dark day for disabled people.
This feeling was exemplified by MP Jen Craft who recalled how once her daughter was diagnosed with Downs syndrome, a nurse told her she could book an abortion within 48 hours. Craft spoke passionately, when she said:
I’ve had to fight for so many things for her because the establishment does not see her life as valuable.
It’s an experience that is very familiar to chronically ill and disabled people. Craft has hit the nail on the head in describing the implicit assumption that underpins British society: better dead, than disabled. The Canary is proud to have many writers on our staff and regular readers who are disabled. Any one of us can probably tell you the casual conversations we’ve had with abled people who express, in one form or another, that they’d rather be dead than live with whatever we have.
Bradford West MP Naz Shah explained that while she was in support of the principles of allowing people a dignified death:
this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted death – that is not the decision before us today, and nor is it the issue that we will be walking through those lobbies for when we are deciding to vote for or against this bill.
The bill that was in front of MPs was not one that will guarantee dignified deaths for those who need them. It is a woefully under-debated piece of legislation that doesn’t have safeguards which make it fit for purpose. Coming just days after the welfare reform bill which will make it harder for disabled people to live, how can it be considered anything but state-sanctioned murder of disabled people?
The government could have done so much more – or failing that, even one single thing – to make it easier for disabled people to exist. Instead, they’re gathering savings wherever they can. As far as they’re concerned, as long as the disabled people end up dead one way or the other, the savings are worth it.
Vicky Foxcroft, who resigned the whip just hours before the debate, said:
I don’t claim that every disabled person opposes assisted dying, but I do claim that the vast majority of disabled people and their organisations oppose it.
They need the health and social care system fixing first. They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die.
Foxcroft criticised disabled people being shut out of the bill’s progression:
Disabled people’s voices matter in this debate, and yet, as I’ve watched the Bill progress, the absence of disabled people’s voices has been astonishing. They have wanted to engage. Indeed, they have been crying out to be included, yet the engagement has been negligible.
Her recognition is, unfortunately, a rare one in modern politics. But, as with her resignation, it makes her voice matter all the more in this grim political climate. As grim as this day has been for disabled people, there have been a select few who have pushed back against the ableism and eugenics of this government.
Mother of the house, Diane Abbott, delivered an impassioned speech, saying:
I came to this house to be a voice for the voiceless. It hasn’t always been favoured by my own leadership, but that is why I came to the house. Who could be more voiceless than somebody who is in their sickbed and believes they are dying?
I ask members in this debate to speak up for the voiceless one more time, because there is no doubt that if this bill is passed in its current form, people will lose their lives who do not need to, and they will be amongst the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society.
It is not because I am opposed to assisted dying in principle, but because my concern is for vulnerable and marginalised persons, vulnerable and marginalised communities, that I implore the house to reject this bill.
People who did not need to die, people who did not want to die will die because of the bill passed today in the house of commons. As usual, disabled people have been ignored by those in power. But, let’s not lose sight of just what it means to be in the disabled community. For too long, disability politics have been dominated by white and middle class people. But, there are many of us, poor, trans, queer, people of colour who are disabled. Our voices matter too.
And whilst we need to feel the rage and fear of this moment, we also need to do more. We need to make disabled justice spaces much, much more expansive. It terrifying to think of those who are multiply marginalised who will be swallowed up when this bill becomes law. It’s exhausting, just the thought of fucking picking ourselves up again. But, we have no choice.
Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Sky News
This post was originally published on Canary.
MPs have passed Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill at third reading – ignoring the warnings of hundreds of groups representing chronically ill and disabled people, palliative care specialists, as well as organisations that represent older people, people with eating disorders, and domestic violence organisations, respectively.
Just earlier in the day, MPs had again voted down a number of amendments. These amendments would have offered basic safeguards to marginalised communities the bill will invariably disproportionately impact.
Outside parliament, huge numbers of anti-assisted dying campaigners turned out to call on MPs to reject the bill:
Huge numbers of Not Dead Yet UK supporters in Parliament Square right now making it clear to all #MPs we are not going away and we will be heard. This Bill will kill people unintentionally pic.twitter.com/OknTTS9874
— Not Dead Yet UK (@TheNotDeadYetUK) June 20, 2025
As proceedings commenced in the Commons, on X, former independent MP Claudia Webbe underscored a vital point:
If you are willing to cut welfare, including incapacity benefit and withdraw Personal Independence Payments (PIP) support to disabled people suffering, you cannot be trusted to deliver assisted dying legislation.
— Claudia Webbe (@ClaudiaWebbe) June 20, 2025
Ultimately however, in what was a painfully close vote, parliament passed the bill 314 to 291.
Many expressed their devastation on social media. Coercive control expert Dr Emma Katz was one of them:
I'm gutted the Assisted Dying Bill has passed by a small minority.
This will be devastating for domestic abuse victims, disabled people and beyond. https://t.co/cwXa0hr78F
— Dr Emma Katz (@DrEmmaKatz) June 20, 2025
Others, like disabled activist Abi Broomfield were defiant and called for the community to continue to support each other going forward:
Any medical practitioner who recommends assisted suicide to me will be told a swift fuck off.
Disabled people we need to survive out of spite. We must live against these cruel cuts and attempts to kill us. It's difficult but we will prosper.
— Chronically Vexed
Another X user highlighted Marcia’s story from Canada, who the Canary reported on earlier this week:
Assisted dying – is this what it’s all about? pic.twitter.com/SJ33oagzea
— Pogue Mahone. (@indicative101) June 20, 2025
Disability rights advocate and Canary writer Rachel articulated in a word what the vote signifies:
The passing of the Assisted Dying Bill is just the start. Look at Canada. Over the next decade we're going to see the eligibility criteria expand and expand. Why? Because ultimately it's cheaper to assist someone to die than to treat them and support them to live. #Eugenics
— Rachel
(@ChasingGlimmers) June 20, 2025
Ahead of the vote on the bill as a whole, parliament also voted on a number of additional amendments selected by the speaker.
One particular amendment would have stopped a person being eligible for assisted dying if they were “substantially motivated” by feeling a burden on public services, or had a non-terminal disability or mental health condition. Notably, this also set out how individuals’ decision must not revolve around “financial considerations”, including a “lack of adequate housing”, or a lack of access to healthcare.
MPs voted this down.
Essentially, parliamentarians have said that even if individuals are seeking assisted suicide because they’re disabled, poor, depressed, homeless, or have limited access to care, they can qualify for the state to kill them.
What’s notable is that Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) ministers abstained on this:
Stephen Timms MP, Minister of State for Disability, abstained on this too. https://t.co/W7OlIZlXcE
— Nikki da Costa (@nmdacosta) June 20, 2025
Perhaps their spineless abstentions were a quiet admission that their welfare cuts bill is going to drive countless chronically ill and disabled people into just such circumstances.
Another focused on preventing the definition of terminal illness within the context of the bill from including those who make their condition life-threatening by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking. In this instance, parliament passed this amendment. However, as ex director of legislative affairs at Number 10 Nikki Da Costa pointed out, MPs previously rejected a crucial amendment that would have closed the loopholes in the bill that put people living with eating disorders at risk:
Naz Shah Amendment 14 has been accepted on the nod.
A person who wants to die and deliberately chooses to stop eating AND drinking in order to bring about their death will not qualify.
But MPs have failed to close the anorexia loophole (amendment 38)
— Nikki da Costa (@nmdacosta) June 20, 2025
A further amendment would have stopped the bill from enabling the Secretary of State to unilaterally amend the National Health Service Act 2006. The Act sets out the NHS’s purpose to “secure improvement”:
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.
To ensure the assisted dying bill doesn’t alter the NHS’s core function, the amendment stipulated that the government can only make changes to it through an act of parliament. But once again, parliament rejected this.
On top of these, a further amendment parliament debate revolved around capacity. Specifically, it removed the presumption that a person has capacity – making it so that the bill requires clinicians to establish this. Again, MPs voted this down.
The last non-Leadbeater amendment mandates an assessment into how assisted suicide services impact the:
availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end of life care services.
This would need to be conducted within the first year after parliament passed the act.
Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson put this forward – and the House passed it. However, in the debate, she noted that:
a report on its own is not going to improve our palliative and end-of-life care.
And we have had no commitment from ministers as yet that they will do so. The result will be either people choosing to end their lives before they want to, or those who already have a huge distrust in the system, particularly from minority and disadvantaged communities whose voices have been heard the least in this debate, choosing not to access the care they need, dying an even more traumatic death.
She also made the key point that a singular marginalised life lost due to this legislation is unacceptable:
How many lives taken in error is too many? One? One in ten? One in a hundred? The House, this House, clearly supports the principle of an assisted death, as does the public, but not at any cost. This Bill is not fit for purpose and the experts have told us the safeguards in it will not adequately protect those who most need, indeed expect us as legislators to protect them.
One aspect of this result that’s hard to reconcile is how many of the same MPs who have been vociferously opposing the welfare cuts, supported this bill. For instance, Green Party MPs who are fighting the benefit cuts, all supported the bill. Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay tried to tell the social media-sphere that he’d listened to the concerns of marginalised communities:
I listened carefully to assisted dying debate. Thanks to the many constituents, party members & groups who've shared moving experiences & evidence.
I scrutinised the safeguards & decided to vote in favour. I believe people at the end of life have a right to choose how they die
— Adrian Ramsay MP (@AdrianRamsay) June 20, 2025
Meanwhile, independent and long-time supporter of grassroots disability groups, John McDonnell, also spoke out during the debate confirming he would vote for it.
It demonstrates a staggering cognitive dissonance. Parliamentarians in their Westminster bubble have failed to join the dots.
They’ve failed to acknowledge that chronically ill and disabled people will now likely face the very alarming prospect of the twofold danger from this bill and the benefit cuts bill.
They might argue that they’re intending to vote against it, but this doesn’t change the fact the government is trying to ram it through – and are concerningly likely to succeed. It’s a galling disconnect: MPs imagine we live in an ideal world when they take their moral beliefs into Westminster. But, as many MPs pointed out, including mother of the House Diane Abbott, parliamentarians can support the principle of assisted dying, but still oppose this particular bill.
That fact seemed lost on many who voted it through – or more likely, obtusely ignored.
Conservative MP for North Dorset Simon Hoare noted the shocking fact that the previous parliament:
spent 746 hours discussing the death of a fox, and about 98 hours discussing the death of fellow humans.
With such minimal time allotted to a bill with such enormous ramifications, parliament has shown just how little it values the lives of marginalised communities.
Meanwhile, in a society soon to strip hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of chronically ill and disabled people’s vital benefits:
Josh Babarinde just made the argument that you if you seek assisted dying because you feel like a burden that's a choice you should be able to make
Imagine saying that someone is choosing to stay in an abusive and coercive relationship and so that's fine
— Lucy Webster (@Lucy_Webster_) June 20, 2025
Both sum up in a nutshell how dehumanising the whole process has been. MPs have voted through a bill that lets physicians raise assisted suicide with their patients. They’ve voted through a bill that says, if you feel like a burden, you can seek out assisted suicide. There’s no protections to ensure people aren’t turning to assisted suicide because they can’t access palliative care.
It will now move into the House of Lords. However, as many MPs who opposed the bill outlined, peers will be able to do little to plug the glaring gaps in this bill riddled with unconscionable risks. What MPs voted on today is broadly how the legislation will operate. What’s more, in essence, assisted suicide will now become law. Lords cannot block the bill, only amend it and delay its course to royal assent and then law.
Disabled campaigners mounted a fierce fight against it – but ultimately, big money talks. And the pro-assisted dying lobby, the likes of the opaquely funded Dignity in Dying, drowned out the voices of those very communities who know they’ll find themselves at the sharp end of this.
Parliament might have passed it in the name of supposed ‘dignity’ and ‘personal choice’ in death, but it will come at an indefensible cost. Today, Westminster politicians sent a resounding message that they back the state-sanctioned culling of chronically ill and disabled lives. The MPs who passed this bill can never again claim to represent our communities.
Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Sky News
This post was originally published on Canary.
Palestine Action activists have broken into RAF Brize Norton and damaged two military aircrafts. The military base is the largest hub in the UK for air transport. In a video posted to its social media, actionists can be seen squirting paint into the engines of military aircraft.
BREAKING: Palestine Action break into RAF Brize Norton and damage two military aircrafts.
Flights depart daily from the base to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.
From Cyprus, British planes collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/zzmFqGKW8N
— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) June 20, 2025
In a statement, the group said:
Palestine Action have damaged two military planes at RAF Brize Norton, where flights leave daily for RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, a base used for military operations in Gaza and across the Middle East.
It also explained:
Red paint, symbolising Palestinian bloodshed was also sprayed across the runway and a Palestine flag was left on the scene. Both activists managed to evade security and arrest.
An investigation from Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) found that the Royal Air Force (RAF) has conducted at least 518 reconnaissance flights over Gaza since December 2023. Declassified reported that:
The flights, carried out by 14 Squadron’s Shadow R1 aircraft from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, have been shrouded in secrecy, raising concerns about whether British intelligence has played a role in Israeli military operations that have resulted in mass civilian casualties in Gaza.
The United Nations (UN) and affiliated experts have repeatedly conducted investigations that have found Israel to be committing genocide in Palestine. And, UN experts have warned that states supplying or abetting Israel could have to answer for “serious international crimes.” Nevertheless, as Declassified reported:
The UK government insists that the flights are purely for hostage recovery, but the lack of transparency has done little to allay suspicions that the intelligence gathered may be facilitating Israeli attacks.
Palestine Action demonstrated the centrality of RAF Brize Norton:
From the military base, Airbus Atlas flights also travel to RAF Akrotiri. Atlas flights can carry soldiers, guns, ammunition, bombs and munitions. During the escalating genocide in Gaza, the British military have flown Atlas flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv, carrying soldiers and/or military cargo.
However, there’s been no official recognition of what the base has been used for, with Keir Starmer even saying:
Quite a bit of what goes on here can’t necessarily be talked about […] we can’t necessarily tell the world what you’re doing.
Now, why would that be? The state and military routinely use classified information as a way to avoid public scrutiny. However, given Israel’s numerous war crimes, they may well no longer be able to keep that information classified.
Predictably, the response from corporate media and the government has been to discuss Palestine Action’s protest as ‘vandalism.’ Starmer took to social media to say:
The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful.
Our Armed Forces represent the very best of Britain and put their lives on the line for us every day.
It is our responsibility to support those who defend us.
Palestine Action quickly hit back:
It is YOUR responsibility to not be a war criminal.
It is YOUR responsibility to not play an active military role in genocide.
Now, It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to stop what YOU have allowed.
Time and time again, Palestine Action has shown that it has more moral clarity and backbone than this Labour government. Actionists have effected actual change and put themselves on the line to stand with Gaza. The longer this government allows Israel to continue its genocidal rampage on Palestine, the more it has to be considered culpable.
For anyone who’s genuinely horrified by a bit of paint chucked at military jets, perhaps have a think. Have you been that horrified by the blood, guts, and souls that Israel has spilled in its relentless extermination of Palestinian life? It doesn’t quite compare, does it?
Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Times News
This post was originally published on Canary.
Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has resigned as government whip over the heavily criticised disability benefit cuts. In a statement late on Thursday night, she wrote:
Whilst I continue to support the government in delivering the change the country so desperately needs, I cannot vote for the proposed reforms to disability benefits.
The shock resignation comes as prime minister Keir Starmer faces a growing revolt over proposed cuts. And, Foxcroft’s announcement came just hours before a crucial vote on the assisted suicide bill.
In her letter to Starmer, Foxcroft wrote:
When you asked me to be the Shadow Minister for Disabled People in 2020, I had no idea the impact this role would have on me. I knew life was difficult for disabled people, but via my engagement with disabled people and their organisations I would learn that it was even tougher than I had imagined.
Her words will be a rare beacon of light during a time when disabled people have been demonised and vilified simply for existing. Disability charity Scope found that:
government figures shows that without PIP, a further 700,000 more disabled households could be pushed into poverty.
Life costs more for disabled people. Huge numbers already live in poverty as a result of these extra costs. The impact of any cuts to disability benefits would be devastating.
Disability Rights UK have called the cuts “dangerous“. Meanwhile, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Paul Kissack said:
A government that came to office pledging to end the moral scar of food bank use clearly should not be taking steps that could leave disabled people at greater risk of needing to use one.
As politicians and mainstream media debate whether disabled people have the right to exist, disabled people have – entirely fucking reasonably – been terrified. In her challenge to Labour’s position on disability cuts, Foxcroft is making disabled people, finally, feel a little bit seen.
Bringing her tenure as a Labour whip to a close, Foxcroft wrote to Starmer:
I absolutely understand the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill in these difficult economic times, but I have always believed this could and should be done by supporting more disabled people into work. I do not believe that cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and the health element of Universal Credit should be part of the solution.
Her comments shouldn’t be a shock. As someone who lives with various disabilities, I know just how much the proposed cuts will absolutely decimate the lives of disabled people across the country. If these cuts go ahead, disabled people will struggle to survive, and some of us will die. In acknowledging that cuts to personal independent payments (PIP) and universal credit (UC) are not a reasonable way to save money, Foxcroft has done more than many politicians.
Admittedly, the bar for these craven politicians is in hell. But, it’s fucking exhausting seeing yourself vilified by an ableist set of policies that you know will decimate the lives of many in our community. Foxcroft has made a principled stand in saying:
I have wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the Government and fight for change from within. Sadly it is now seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see. I therefore tender my resignation as I know I will not be able to do the job that is required of me and whip – or indeed vote – for reforms which include cuts to disabled people’s finances.
The support for Foxcroft garnered similar praise from others on social media. Canary guest writer Laura Elliott urged more Labour MPs to do the same:
huge admiration for Vicky, who holds to her true principles on this issue and has also acted on them
we need more Labour MPs to do the same#TakingThePIP https://t.co/PJzNYbDKEG
— Laura Elliott (@TinyWriterLaura) June 19, 2025
General Secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association, Maryam Eslamdoust said:
Vicky Foxcroft has done the right thing. Cuts to PIP and welfare are not humane, they’re callous and unjust. https://t.co/oQ8Avstv0t
— Maryam Eslamdoust (@MEslamdoust) June 20, 2025
Disability justice activist Teri painted a vivid picture of the evident panic amongst remaining Labour MPs:
Labour MPs doing to the rounds on national tv this morning to try and mitigate the fallout from Vicky Foxcroft resigning whip over disability cuts, is telling. Both Nandy and Flint conflated PIP with an out of work benefit. Lies. Is it any wonder Vicky resigned? #TakingThePIP
— Teri
And, another person had praise for Foxcroft’s decision:
Someone with a conscience and putting what is right before their own career. The disabled community thanks you. And making such a public statement may well give others the courage to vote against, too.
— Shane Brown (@shanebrown74) June 19, 2025
It is a surprise in today’s landscape of image-obsessed MPs that Foxcroft has listened to members of the disabled community and learned from it. Other Labour MPs must take her resignation as a sign of the principled path to take in confronting the disability cuts for the devastation that they will cause. Increasingly, it’s MPs who revolt and resign that are fighting for the heart and soul of the Labour party. Starmer and his ilk should be disgraced by Foxcroft’s principled resignation. It’s the least disabled people deserve.
Featured image via Victoria Foxcroft ©House of Commons, CC by 3.0
This post was originally published on Canary.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) Liz Kendall, formally presented the long-awaited welfare reform bill. The bill has been hotly anticipated by disability rights campaigners, MPs, and disabled people more broadly for some time.
It means we will finally know just how much the government is planning to fuck with disabled peoples lives – but most importantly it means we can start organising how to stop it.
One thing that’s quickly becoming a pattern with this government, however, is how much they’re trying to sneak the bill through quietly. Unfortunately for them, disability justice campaigners are ready and waiting.
The bill is called The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. However, the green paper that’s up for public consultation is called Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working. That’s more than a little shady when there’s been such a strong public reaction to disability benefit cuts. Surely they wouldn’t want to make it difficult for people to respond to the outrageous cuts they’re proposing?
On top of that, the presentation was expected just after 12:30, but didn’t actually happen until 2pm. Apparently this was due to an urgent update and questions around HS2. I’m sure was a vital debate that absolutely had to happen today and definitely not a distraction tactic so that the welfare bill wasn’t covered by the press or barely even noticed.
Government paperwork is almost always written with lots of jargon, and is difficult to understand. With this bill, once you cut through the bullshit, there’s not much we didn’t already know. Even so, I was still surprised at how angry it made me.
The bill says it will:
Make provision to alter the rates of the standard allowance, limited capability for work element and limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit and the rates of income-related employment and support allowance, and to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment.
To see them so clearly admit they will make it harder to claim PIP is actually jarring to see after months of them claiming that it won’t affect the majority of claimants.
So what will the bill actually introduce?
Much of the bill was already known to us, but there are a few slight tweaks and changes snuck in through alternate wording.
Universal Credit (UC) will be increased above inflation between 2026 and 2030. Originally, this was pitched as a way to support those who receive UC and work. However, by making this calculation, the bill claims that there is no need to review this yearly. That means that if – or when – inflation rises, claimants will lose out.
This decision is also supposed to offset how much those in the Limited Capability for Work Related Activity (LCWRA) group will lose. LCWRA will be halved for new claimants and frozen for existing claimants. This will mean those who can’t work and have no requirement to look for work will receive less money, despite having no other income source. In order to get LCWRA you now must struggle to complete tasks at all times. Of course, being disabled isn’t always a static thing. Those with fluctuating conditions that are difficult to predict on a day-to-day basis will suffer under these changes.
Those on end of life and “most severe” conditions will not be routinely reassessed. But, it’s the DWP that will decide who is classed as having a “most severe” condition.
Put simply, PIP will be harder to claim. Whereas before you only had to score 12 points overall in the daily living element, a claimant must now score 4 points in at least one activity. These changes will undoubtedly affect the quality of life of PIP claimants who already struggle to survive.
Another element of the bill that jumps out is how determined the government want us to thin they are when it comes to those who “fiddle” the system. In particular the bill talks about how conditions only count if they’ve been diagnosed by a NHS professional in an NHS setting.
This on first glance appears as though they’re saying ‘you can only apply if you have a REAL disability, not just say you have one.’ But by doubling down on this, they’re actually saying that those who sought private diagnosis wont be included. Many assume that a private diagnosis means the patient is rich, and certainly has no need for benefits. However, as fellow disabled people will know, long NHS waiting times mean that people often have to scrimp and save for a private diagnosis because they were failed by the crumbling NHS.
Of course, this will massively affect those with mental health and neurodivergent conditions. Coincidentally, that’s just the group of people the government, MPs, and the media have spent years claiming are faking their diagnoses for benefits.
Despite Kendall claiming that the bill will:
give people peace of mind, while also fixing our broken social security system so it supports those who can work to do so while protecting those who cannot.
What it’s actually doing is attempting to rush through cuts with no care for the fact that hundreds of thousands of lives could be at risk.
For the last few weeks now I’ve been part of the core team of Taking The PIP. We’re a campaign group aiming to bring awareness of the true human cost of the cuts on the disabled community. The government are working hard to make it seem like these cuts are all about saving money. We as disabled people need to show the public just how much it will cost: disabled peoples lives.
As a community we need to flood social media with as much of the reality of the situation as possible. Please, if you’re able to share your stories of what benefits enable you to do and what the cuts would mean for you, share how much this would impact you.
Keep bothering your MPs, now is the time to email them and tell them why they should oppose the cuts. If you already have and they haven’t replied, email them again. Many assume they can just stay silent on this but we need to show them that isn’t an option when disabled lives are at stake. We have a quick and easy template and tool on our website.
Kendall and her ilk can harp on all they like about how much good this will do for the economy, but are they really willing to pay for the cost of disabled peoples lives?
Featured image via the Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
High-vis and safety helmet. Lots of talk of building and “we can fix it.” No, not CBeebies, but Rachel Reeves the builder, after the comprehensive spending review (CSR).
The first trick the spin doctors do is to try and establish a figure. They know few people will bother to check the numbers. £113 billion of capital spending is the figure they have been pushing. But, £90 billion of that was already planned and announced when the Tories were in power a year ago.
Scratch the surface, and lot of the numbers don’t add up. £14.2 billion over the next 5 years for a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell C. Hinkley Point C, the identical kind of nuclear plant, was forecast to cost £18 billion in 2015 prices, and to be in operation in the early 2020’s. It’s currently sat at an estimated cost of £46 billion and ten years late. Renewables are faster to deploy and way, way cheaper. Yet, the CSR made only 1 mention of climate change, and took billions out of GB Energy’s budget.
Councils will get a spending power increase of 2.6% in real terms, we were told. But the small print shows only 1.1% is coming from government, and that’s in cash terms, not counting for inflation. So Rachel the builder has graciously allowed you to pay council tax to fix your broken potholes, bridges, and derelict parks. Not to mention councils facing insolvency due to a £5 billion deficit in special educational needs spending. But I guess BlackRock haven’t found a way to profit from disabled kids yet, so no cash is heading that way.
Rachel the builder announced that growth was great, and her Midas touch was the reason she could shower these golden gifts upon us in the spending review. Before the ink was dry, official figures showed the economy shrank 0.3% last month. Her explanation on the media round? “The world is unstable.” Sherlock Homes is in the building!
Before the general election I warned, “What have the Labour leadership offered? The magic growth bunny. It will hop along, and Britain will boom. No need to invest in public services. The magic growth bunny will fix the crisis in social care. The sick will walk. Greenhouse gases will chill out.” I also said there was a £20 billion hole in public finances in March 2024. If I knew before the election was called, so did Labour.
Trickle down has never worked as plan. It is a smokescreen to justify the rich getting richer. Of course the world is unstable. We keep fuelling wars and climate destruction. We keep stripping away regulations and privatising common assets to create “investable propositions” to allow very, very rich people to make even more money. Although “we” is not accurate – it’s a tiny fraction of society. That’s why we need a plan to fix things without relying on trickle down.
Part of the problem is that the system is too big to be easily seen. Understanding the relationship between investment banking, big oil, regulatory capture, and dark money in politics requires a bit of digging. That’s why in Majority we run economics reading groups.
I’ve worked and negotiated with government ministers and many in the current cabinet. Most of them genuinely believe they are doing the right thing. Although if you cross examine them on their own, their imposter syndrome is easy to see. Once you talk about anything outside their briefing notes, they go into a holding pattern of clichés.
There’s a scene in The Big Short, an excellent film which exposes the causes of the 2007 financial crash. One of the bankers says:
Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I’ll have my wife’s brother arrested. I guess you just don’t realise how clueless the system really is.
On the left, we have to be better than that. We have to move beyond critical slogans and establish alternative ideas for government. I’ve said it before, to win an election you need to convince people of two things:
The truth is pretty much no one believes Starmer, Badenoch, Farage, or anyone else could run the country at the moment. Shouting our demands is not enough. Saying these people are crooks, warmongers, or careerists is not enough. Most people already think that. They hold their nose and vote for the least objectionable.
We need to show that it is we who have the plan, and they are the CBeebies politicians. A plan that fixes the things that matter to people’s daily lives – traffic jams, housing costs, food prices, childcare, crime. A plan backed by evidence, that could actually be delivered in the short and the long term. Tax the rich is a good slogan for the converted, but we need to add the hows and the whys.
A year ago Act Now was published. I co-wrote it along with many others. It’s a ready to go manifesto on how to fix everything in domestic policy. How to actually fund and deliver expanded public transport that is simultaneously cheaper and more reliable. How, exactly, we could take back ownership of the utilities, and why it would be really cheap. And, how this would increase people’s freedom, not curtail it.
The costings and economic analysis is all there. It demolishes the “magic money tree” and “iron clad fiscal rules” rubbish that are the bread and butter of the spending review.
Can we fix it? Yes we can.
Featured image via Unsplash/Towfiqu barbhuiya
This post was originally published on Canary.
The Labour government has dropped its second appeal of a High Court ruling. Human rights group Liberty challenged it in the High Court in May 2024, the law change gave the police ‘almost unlimited powers’ to restrict protest. It did so through lowering the bar for police action against a protest from a ‘serious disruption’ to ‘more than a minor disruption’.
This latest ruling found that the previous Conservative government acted unlawfully in using executive powers to sharply tighten protesting restrictions in the UK.
Under such an overreach, police have arrested hundreds of protestors including climate and pro-Palestine activist Greta Thunberg.
In June 2023, the then-Conservative government used secondary legislation, known as Henry VIII powers, to unlawfully change the protest regulation. Secondary legislation shifts power to the executive because the law changes face less parliamentary scrutiny and cannot be amended.
Indeed, the Home Office estimated that its lowering of the threshold would increase police intervention in protests by 50%.
But a year later the High Court agreed with Liberty’s legal challenge that the government cannot make such a change under executive powers.
The Labour government then sought to appeal the ruling on behalf of the Conservatives. After that troubling development, Liberty defeated the government first in the Court of Appeal in May 2025 and now again in June, with the Labour government dropping a second appeal, after continuing the Conservative agenda against protests.
Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said:
Our ability to make ourselves heard is fundamental in a democracy and must be protected. This Government has finally seen sense and this backdown is a step forward for the right to protest after years of attacks by those in power.
But while this case dragged on, the police used these regulations to funnel protesters into the criminal system. Justice now needs to be served for anybody wrongfully arrested or convicted under these laws that should never have existed in the first place, and the Government must urgently review every case.
Whether it’s austerity, an aggressive foreign policy, privatisation, deregulation or the right to protest, Labour have continued the Tory programme almost line by line. The mantra of ‘change’ at the election was anything but.
Featured image via Unsplash/Dylan4photography
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
Following Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran, Britain’s Labour government has faced renewed scrutiny for arming and supporting the rogue apartheid state. Now – understandably – the media is asking Labour and its ministers if they’re clueless or misanthropic enough to drag us into a wider regional conflict. Alarmingly, the response from Rachel Reeves suggests they very much are.
Speaking to Sky News, Reeves said:
This is a fast moving situation. Israel has every right to defend itself. We also are very concerned about Iran’s nuclear deterrent.
Clearly, this is Reeves and Labour seeking to echo the Israeli government’s lie that its unprovoked assault was somehow an ‘act of self-defence’.
Madness. Total madness
Israel launched a war of aggression against Iran in contravention of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
Iran is exercising its right to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter
This has nothing to do with us pic.twitter.com/k0qoKKHfBb
— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) June 15, 2025
Reeves also said:
We have, in the past, supported Israel when there had been missiles coming in. I’m not going to comment on what might happen in the future. But so far we haven’t been involved. We’re sending in assets to protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.
And when pushed on whether Labour would be foolish enough to join this war, she said:
I’m not going to rule anything out at this stage. It’s a fast moving situation, a very volatile situation. But we don’t want to see escalation.
Any reasonable person would agree that if the Labour doesn’t want to see escalation in a Middle Eastern conflict, then they probably shouldn’t be shipping in more weapons and troops (or training Israeli soldiers, or sending regular flights from RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus, or pretending that the genocide in Gaza doesn’t exist). Indeed, many ordinary people did say this:
#Reeves calls for de-escalation then sends jets to war. We've seen this before: rising oil prices, wasted taxes, and no public say. This isn’t our war. Don’t repeat past mistakes. #TrevorPhillips pic.twitter.com/WthSaGardf
— Candice Holmes (@hol40900) June 15, 2025
Rachel Reeves confirms the UK govt is sending military assets, including jets, to the Middle East to support our allies, & in the very next breath she says what's needed is de-escalation #trevorphillips pic.twitter.com/JATTe9sa1x
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 15, 2025
Reeves: "we are very concerned around Irans nuclear ambitions"
Some facts Reeves doesn't mention. Iran has no nuclear weapons. Israel does. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty. Israel hasn't. Iran allows IAEA observers to inspect its nuclear programme. Israel doesn't. pic.twitter.com/luqGbqkIpc
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 15, 2025
The British public did not vote for this! Parliament must be recalled immediately to decide on this before we start putting our military in harms way and to waste £billions which we need in our country! Israel started this! So they can deal with it! https://t.co/lXppmEZ4F2
— Ayoub Khan MP (@AyoubKhanMP) June 15, 2025
Make no mistake – sending the UK army into this mess would mean sacrificing the lives of countless British people for the sake of propping up a crooked and genocidal regime (not to mention the countless more lives that our troops would cut short in the territories they invade).
This has the potential to be the invasion of Iraq all over again, and with that in mind, let’s remind ourselves of what a then-obscure Labour backbencher said in 2003 (emphasis added):
For those who say that this is a necessary and just conflict because it will bring about peace and security: September the 11th was a dreadful event. 8000 deaths in Afghanistan brought back none of those who died in the World Trade Centre. Thousands more deaths in Iraq will not make things right. It will set off a spiral of conflict, of hate, of misery, of desperation, that will fuel the wars, the conflict, the terrorism, the depression, and the misery of future generations.
You cannot humiliate the Palestinian people in the way that they’ve been humiliated and not expect some problem in the future. You cannot arm regimes like Iraq, Iran, and many others, without expecting further problems in the future.
Our message, our message today here in London, a million and more strong, is this. We want to live in a world free from war. The way to free us from the scourge of war is to free ourselves from the scourge of injustice, of poverty, and the misery that’s associated with that. This movement, this movement is giving that message to the British government. Stop now, or pay a political price.
That figure was Jeremy Corbyn, and history has proven him to be right on both the invasion of Iraq and how the Labour right would behave if they returned to power.
On the “spiral of conflict” which Corbyn predicted, Kim Sengupta wrote in 2023 of how the disastrous occupation of Iraq spawned much of the Middle Eastern conflict which followed. In part, this happened because US “neo-cons, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld” and others pursued:
a disastrous policy of de-Baathification – banning anyone who had been a member of the ruling Baath Party. This failed to take into account the fact that membership of the Baath was necessary to get government jobs in Iraq and did not indicate blind adherence to the regime. The ban also meant it became virtually impossible to keep the machinery of government running in an increasingly chaotic environment.
The occupying forces additionally made conditions for the Iraqi police forces intolerable, with Sengupta noting:
There was confusion, followed by anger when the American military decreed that patrols going out must be unarmed. Most of the Iraqi officers simply refused to set out and many walked off. Among them was Major Rashid Hussein Janabi who said, shaking his head in disbelief: “Do they even realise this is Baghdad?”
Sengupta highlighted how these decisions would go on to have staggering repercussions:
The conditions were brewing for a perfect storm. Many of the experienced Iraqi police and soldiers sent home under de-Baathification stayed away from the vicious insurgent war which followed. Worse, others joined the Islamist fighters, providing valuable experience and leadership.
One head of Isis military council, Abu Muhanad al Sweidawi, was a former member of the Iraqi military, as was his successor, Abu Ahmad al Alwani. Major Janabi, the disgruntled police officer I met in 2003, died fighting for Isis in Mosul 11 years later.
Within months of the regime’s fall, a savage insurgent war broke out, with bombings and shootings, kidnappings and murders. The death toll began to rise dramatically as Sunni insurgents stepped up their attacks on Western forces.
Then came an incendiary sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias Waves of Sunni suicide bombers left Fallujah to wreak havoc on Baghdad, and Shia fighters, some in government-run militias, sought vengeance.
At this point, the impacts of the invasion of Iraq are well known to everyone. Now, just imagine the impacts of an even larger conflict overseen by an even more temperamental US president.
The horrors that will unfold really don’t bear thinking about, and yet Labour is immediately willing to sign us up.
We cannot allow them to do this again.
Featured image via Sky News
This post was originally published on Canary.
On 13 June, Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran to distract from its ongoing genocide in Gaza. Claiming that it launched the assault because Iran was developing weapons of mass destruction (which Israel already has many of itself), the apartheid state’s justification mirrored that which the US and UK used to pardon their illegal invasion of Iraq. The difference between now and 2003 is that no one is buying it anymore, and this means that even the usually compliant BBC has to question the narrative:
Tzipi Hotovely justifies the genocidal Israeli regime launching an unprovoked attack on Iran because she claims there was an imminent threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons.#bbclaurak points out the head of US national intelligence says Iran was not building a nuclear weapon pic.twitter.com/OBdXXL5Fn9
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 15, 2025
Tzipi Hotovely is Israel’s ambassador to the UK. As The Canary reported in December 2023:
The Labour Muslim Network has written to leader of the Labour Party Keir Starmer outlining an expectation “that no further engagements be made or platforms shared by Labour Party representatives with the current Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely”. …
Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom Hotovely made clear in a Sky News interview last week that Israel will never accept a Palestinian state. When pressed on the question of an independent Palestinian state in the future, Hotovely answered without equivocation “the answer is absolutely no.” A two-state solution has been the policy of the Labour Party, the UK, and has had international consensus, for decades.
Moreover, Hotovely is considered to be far-right politically by many people. She has repeatedly denied Israel is causing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Hotovely also repeated the lie that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies on 7 October.
When Israel made Hotovely the ambassador in 2020, the Guardian described “outrage as hardliner is chosen as next Israeli ambassador to UK”, writing:
The appointment of a hardline supporter of the annexation of Palestinian land as the next Israeli ambassador to the UK has dismayed sections of the British Jewish community, with some calling on the UK government to refuse to accept the nomination.
Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s settlements minister, has been named by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the successor to Mark Regev, who stepped down as ambassador to the UK last week.
She has described herself as “a religious rightwinger” and rejects Palestinian claims to any part of the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem. In a speech in 2015, she said Israel had tried too hard to appease the world. “This land is ours. All of it is ours. We did not come here to apologise for that.”
The Canary also covered Hotovely attending the Labour conference in 2024, with Hannah Sharland writing:
If the new Labour government signalled one thing indisputably at its party conference this year, is that it’s an unrepentant apologist for genocidal war criminals. This was particularly apparent at a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) official fringe event. There, cabinet members – half themselves funded by the pro-Israel lobby group – welcomed Israel’s hard right genocide-mongering ambassador with open arms. Obviously, this was in sharp contrast to its violent repressive reception towards activists protesting for Palestine at conference.
Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely’s disgusting genocidal rap-sheet has been hard to miss. But it didn’t stop Labour’s top-dogs hobnobbing will Hotovely anyway
“Every school, every mosque, every second house” in Gaza is a legitimate target for Israel, Hotovely told LBC.
She told Sky News that “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza” as Israel imposed an unlawful blockade.
Why is this war criminal at the Labour conference? https://t.co/JgoZC2WK2K
— Hamza Yusuf (@Hamza_a96) September 25, 2024
In 2022
Tzipi Hotovely said this.
She’s also on record as saying that Jews should be educated to not marry non Jews.
Furthermore, in 2012 she called for annexation of the entire Palestine territory. https://t.co/UK4Y85RmhO
—
Not The Torygraph
#SaveOurNHS #ScrapNHSBill (@TweetForTheMany) September 26, 2024
Speaking to the BBC‘s Laura Kuenssberg, Hotovely explained Israel’s convoluted reasoning for why its unprovoked assault was actually “an act of self-defence”, explaining:
Now, we are in a point where president Trump gave sixty days of negotiation to the Iranians to give a diplomatic solution, and the Iranians didn’t really [want] to have any diplomatic solution. They were actually – when the IAEA published this report that was clearly showing that Iran was misleading the international community, enriching uranium – and we saw with our intelligence abilities, that they were racing fast to get nuclear bombs with the combination of enrichment and weaponization. When all this happened, we had to move fast to operate against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
We criticise Kuenssberg most weeks, but in this instance she did clearly point out the following:
But let me tell people… what the director of intelligence of the United States said very clearly – recently – [was] ‘we continue to assess that Iran is not yet building a nuclear weapon’.
Israel has faced ongoing threats from Iran for many years. There was no imminent threat.
While Kuenssberg is simply stating the obvious, those of you who are old enough to have lived through the invasion of Iraq (or are aware of the BBC‘s clear pro-Israel bias) know that we can’t always trust our media to do the absolute bare minimum.
The term ‘crybully’ is defined as follows:
A person who intimidates, harasses, or abuses others yet, esp. following resistance or disagreement, claims to be a victim of ill-treatment
The Israeli government is the greatest crybully on the planet, and its representatives like Hotovely are masters of the technique. This is how the crybully tactic manifested in the interview, with Hotovely saying:
Actually, what we are seeing is targeting communities in the centre of Israel. My parents live in the city that was hurt yesterday. Now, I was talking to my father and to my mother – 3 o’clock in the morning Israel time – and their whole house was shaking. And – and they had to go to to their shelter. They’re in their seventies.
Once again, Kuenssberg didn’t let her get away with it, cutting Hotovely off to say:
That is retaliation to strikes by Israel. That is retaliation from Iran.
Hotovely has been the ambassador to the UK since 2020, which is more than long enough for her to have heard the phrase ‘chat shit, get banged’, and in this instance Israel did far more than just chat.
What Israel has done to the Palestinians – with Western support and participation – is one of the greatest atrocities of this or any other century. Now, in what seems to be an attempt to draw its supposed allies into a much larger war, Israel is purposefully starting a conflict with Iran.
We all need to be very clear about this.
We will not support any involvement in this war, and we should immediately stop providing Israel with the weapons and other assistance it’s using to commit these atrocities.
As grim as things seem, though, we are at least optimistic that the tide is turning. After all, when even Laura Kuenssberg can’t help but challenge the bullshit, it’s obvious that no one can.
Featured image via BBC
This post was originally published on Canary.
The Western Australian government and UK tech and business groups are among critics of AUKUS’s advanced technology program, warning ‘Pillar II’ is still missing funding, structure and direction four years in. It comes as a US review of the trilateral pact announced on Thursday threatens to upend the deal entirely and as Australia faces new…
The post Pillar II pile on: Stakeholders warn on rudderless AUKUS tech appeared first on InnovationAus.com.
This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.
The United States has denounced sanctions by Britain and allies — including New Zealand and Australia — against Israeli far-right ministers, saying they should focus instead on the Palestinian armed group Hamas.
New Zealand has banned two Israeli politicians from travelling to the country because of comments about the war in Gaza that Foreign Minister Winston Peters says “actively undermine peace and security”.
New Zealand joins Australia, Canada, the UK and Norway in imposing the sanctions on Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
Peters said they were targeted towards two individuals, rather than the Israeli government.
“Our action today is not against the Israeli people, who suffered immeasurably on October 7 [2023] and who have continued to suffer through Hamas’ ongoing refusal to release all hostages.
“Nor is it designed to sanction the wider Israeli government.”
The two ministers were “using their leadership positions to actively undermine peace and security and remove prospects for a two-state solution”, Peters said.
‘Severely and deliberately undermined’ peace
“Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have severely and deliberately undermined that by personally advocating for the annexation of Palestinian land and the expansion of illegal settlements, while inciting violence and forced displacement.”
The sanctions were consistent with New Zealand’s approach to other foreign policy issues, he said.
“New Zealand has also targeted travel bans on politicians and military leaders advocating violence or undermining democracy in other countries in the past, including Russia, Belarus and Myanmar.”
New Zealand had been a long-standing supporter of a two-state solution, Peters said, which the international community was also overwhelmingly in favour of.
“New Zealand’s consistent and historic position has been that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are a violation of international law. Settlements and associated violence undermine the prospects for a viable two-state solution,” he said.
“The crisis in Gaza has made returning to a meaningful political process all the more urgent. New Zealand will continue to advocate for an end to the current conflict and an urgent restart of the Middle East Peace Process.”
‘Outrageous’, says Israel
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said the move was “outrageous” and the government would hold a special meeting early next week to decide how to respond to the “unacceptable decision”.
His comments were made while attending the inauguration of a new Israeli settlement on Palestinian land.
Peters is currently in Europe for the sixth Pacific-France Summit hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron in Nice.
US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters: “We find that extremely unhelpful. It will do nothing to get us closer to a ceasefire in Gaza.”
Britain, Canada, Norway, New Zealand and Australia “should focus on the real culprit, which is Hamas”, she said of the sanctions.
“We remain concerned about any step that would further isolate Israel from the international community.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
We’re seeing an escalation of open state violence and illegality right now. But it’s not Iran or another Western establishment bogeyman responsible. It’s in the heart of the Western political order – in the US, Israel and, yes, the UK too.
In recent days, the US government has ramped up its violent and highly controversial attacks on immigrant communities. And its actions have sparked mass protests in Los Angeles. The Donald Trump administration has responded by unnecessarily and provocatively sending in thousands of National Guard soldiers and hundreds of Marines. So far, authorities have engaged in open shows of brutality, shooting at both Australian and British journalists. Protests are now spreading around the country against Trump’s repression.
Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinians in occupied Gaza, meanwhile, continues to face resistance. And its most recent challenge to international law has come with its illegal abduction of civilians from an aid boat in international waters which was heading to Gaza. After the kidnapping, Israeli occupation forces unlawfully held the international volunteers offshore with no outside contact for almost a day before taking them to the mainland. The Adalah legal centre says four crew members of the Madleen Freedom Flotilla accepted deportation and “left or are on their way to their home countries”. It added:
The remaining eight are still detained and will contest their deportation before an Israeli tribunal
Since 2023, Israel’s genocide and Western support for it have seen the masks of ‘democracy, international law, and freedom’ slip. The world has seen the establishment’s true face of elite control, repression of dissent, and flouting of international norms. Even academics from Israel have joined the global scholarly consensus that the apartheid state has been committing genocide. And as the United States once again vote against a ceasefire amid a brutal starvation campaign in Gaza, it was clearer than ever for most that it is also a US genocide.
Israeli occupiers, meanwhile, have long documented their war crimes, fully expecting to benefit from ongoing impunity. And the Israeli state is so confident about this that it has even admitted to backing criminals with links to Daesh (Isis) in Gaza. Now, even though Israel illegally abducted Western civilians – including prize-winning climate campaigner Greta Thunberg and European Parliament member Rima Hassan – from international waters, their governments have overwhelmingly failed to hold the settler-colonial power to account. Chief among those was the UK, whose shipping flag the aid vessel carried.
British inaction, however, is unsurprising. Because around the time Israeli thugs attacked the civilian ship, a UK plane was actually heading towards Gaza from RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus – as has become routine during the genocide. The base has indeed been “a foundational asset” for Israel’s criminal assault on the occupied Palestinian territory. Meanwhile, as the British government tries to defend its complicity in court, more and more reports have shown how arms have continued to flow from Britain to Israel. Evidence of the influence the Israel lobby has over Keir Starmer’s cabinet also keeps coming in. And the Foreign Office has told hundreds of staff members that, if they’re unhappy about all this, they should just resign.
The disdain for humanity and international law in the halls of British power are clear also in the raiding of journalists’ homes, the repression of anti-genocide activism, and former prime minister David Cameron’s attempts to bully the International Criminal Court into not issuing arrest warrants for Israeli war criminals.
The US and its junior partners in the UK and Israel have long flouted international law, but rarely so openly and defiantly as today.
The genocidal “Selfie Army” pic.twitter.com/wnkVFyQWQ1
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) June 10, 2025
The mainstream media – like British state propaganda outlet the BBC – have tried to cover for Western crimes while keeping a veneer of respectability. But the livestreaming of the US-Israeli genocide has made that near-impossible. As actor Liam Cunningham put it recently, ongoing media platforming of Israeli war criminals is like “contacting Heinrich Himmler for his take on the genocide” after discovering “the horrors of Auschwitz” back in the mid-1940s.
Social media makes it a lot harder for establishment propagandists to hide the truth. And the truth the world is seeing is that it’s not Iran, or the Houthis, or even Hamas that are committing countless war crimes (and self-documenting them) – it’s Israel, with Western backing. It’s not the West’s Middle-Eastern bogeymen routinely bombing hospitals, assassinating media workers, or killing thousands of children before starving the rest to death. It’s Israel.
More and more people can now see through the hypocrisy.
Imagine, just imagine, the response from the West if the Iranian government, in international waters, had rammed and then boarded a European ship, filled with European citizens, and taken them captive.
But it's Israel, so it's all good. Our citizens don't matter.
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) June 9, 2025
Had the Houthis carried out the same act of piracy as has just been committed by the Israelis, Starmer would have bombed them. https://t.co/KfDnWLVBsh
— Mark Seddon (@MarkSeddon1962) June 9, 2025
The UK has repeatedly bombed Yemen supposedly to protect international shipping/freedom of navigation so the RAF is gearing up for air strikes on Tel Aviv, right? pic.twitter.com/YULSuJniVW
— Mark Curtis (@markcurtis30) June 9, 2025
As Israeli occupation thugs stopped civilians getting aid to Gaza, politicians may have stayed quiet, but ordinary people didn’t. Throughout Europe, people took to the streets in solidarity:
France is finally starting to wake up after Israel kidnapped French MEP Rima Hassan.
They're shouting: "Gaza, Gaza, Paris est avec toi" ("Gaza, Paris is with you") pic.twitter.com/yjZqsb70b7
— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) June 10, 2025
Liverpool in solidarity with the Gaza flotilla. pic.twitter.com/MAoWkXHEZi
— Alan Gibbons (@mygibbo) June 9, 2025
NOW!
The emergency #FreedomFlotilla demo has spontaneously decided to divert through Brighton's biggest shopping centre.
It is BIG! And LOUD!
Amazing support from shoppers & shop workers— Brighton PSC (@BrightonPSC) June 9, 2025
Crowd building outside Downing St tonight demanding action from the government over Israel’s seizing of UK-flagged #MadleenToGaza and her crew inc @GretaThunberg #StopArmingIsrael pic.twitter.com/3lbNchKTMl
— Stop the War (@STWuk) June 9, 2025
Outside the UK Foreign Office now demanding action after the israelis illegally raided the UK-flagged Madleen in int’l waters | @fossilfreeLDN pic.twitter.com/w93U1jBVTA
— Sarah Wilkinson (@swilkinsonbc) June 9, 2025
Dutch protestors rallied outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to demand that the Ministry ensure the safety of activist Mark van Rennes and his crewmates on the Freedom Flotilla. pic.twitter.com/F5h577Z8wb
— PALESTINE ONLINE
Palestine supporters rallied in Geneva, Switzerland to show solidarity with the Flotilla activists and to demand an end to genocide in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/7WQaxHYN1E
— PALESTINE ONLINE
The movement to take aid to Gaza by land, meanwhile, is quickly growing:
The Al-Soumoud Convoy will join delegations from around the world in Cairo for the Global March to Gaza.
At least 10,000 people expected to participate. https://t.co/Sw9uePhfHE pic.twitter.com/XZ6i4Bk6RC
— MenchOsint (@MenchOsint) June 9, 2025
And as Donald Trump tries to scapegoat immigrant communities in order to militarise the streets and crush dissent, one message bears repeating over and over again:
— Secular Talk (KyleKulinskiShow@bsky.social) (@KyleKulinski) June 9, 2025
Why do you hate immigrants who pay taxes, but admire billionaires who don't.
— Mohamad Safa (@mhdksafa) June 8, 2025
Featured image via the Canary
By Ed Sykes
This post was originally published on Canary.
Britain lacks the computing infrastructure to deliver the full potential of its leading artificial intelligence research base, Nvidia’s chief executive said on Monday, as the UK partners with the US chipmaker for a new AI testing environment. Jensen Huang’s comments came as the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority announced a new framework to allow financial firms…
The post Nvidia chief says UK needs its own infrastructure to develop AI appeared first on InnovationAus.com.
This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.
(@mustang_rranjan)
