radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Questions about Tory wastage and cronyism persist, following exposure of massive PPE dump

    Earlier this month photographs published on Twitter revealed a massive dump of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in Hampshire. This raises questions about who in the Conservative government or in industry – or both – was behind this wasted PPE that would have cost taxpayers millions.

    The dump is also a stark reminder of the numerous PPE contracts awarded to alleged unsuitable firms. Many of those firms, as we will see, had business links with the Conservative Party or the UK government.

    Disappeared PPE

    The PPE dump was discovered at Little Testwood Farm, Calmore. The PPE consisted of what appeared to be medical gowns and possible face masks, still in their packs. Hampshire County Council (HCC) are inquiring with the Environment Agency, as they suspect the items may have been dumped because they were defective.

    HCC has initiated enforcement activity with the New Forest District Council, the Environment Agency, and the police. According to a local newspaper, the PPE is on land licenced to an adjoining caravan park.

    This tweet includes a photo of the PPE dump – the caravans behind give an idea of the massive size of the dump:

    Disappeared PPE profits

    In another vanishing act, it’s alleged that at least ÂŁ65m in profits from PPE contracts found its way to the family of Tory baroness Mone. The contracts were awarded to PPE Medpro, following her recommendation of the firm to government ministers. The contracts to supply gowns and face masks were worth in excess of ÂŁ200m.

    In May 2020, Mone contacted lord Agnew, the Cabinet minister who was responsible for PPE procurement, by private email. She told him that Michael Gove, another Cabinet minister, suggested she contacted him “urgently”. She further told Agnew that her “team in Hong Kong” could organise the PPE supply. Her emails can be seen here.

    In September 2020, it was further revealed that, on being awarded the PPE contract, PPE Medpro had only been in existence for just over a month.

    The government claims it’s suing PPE Medpro as the gowns “did not comply with the specification in the contract”.

    There’s more PPE wastage

    Earlier this year, the Independent reported that the government paid Clipper Logistics ÂŁ11m for PPE provision. Subsequently, Clipper was paid a further ÂŁ4.5m to burn the PPE gloves, goggles, and gowns it procured as they were “ineffective”. Steve Parkin, who founded Clipper, donated ÂŁ730,000 to the Conservative Party.

    Labour minister Angela Rayner commented:

    The Tories’ conveyor belt of sleaze and incompetence has come full circle. They handed millions to a donor’s firm with no experience of delivering PPE, then forked out millions more for the exact same firm to incinerate it.

    Taxpayers’ cash is going up in flames as the government’s bonfire of useless PPE grows. Ministers must come clean about these grubby deals and explain how a Tory donor’s company came to be awarded millions on millions for this fiasco.

    Even more wastage

    But the wastage does not end there. The government has admitted it spent:

    • ÂŁ673m on PPE “not suitable for any use”
    • ÂŁ2.5bn on PPE “not suitable for use in the NHS”
    • ÂŁ4.7bn paying inflated pandemic prices for PPE we didn’t need to buy

    In another case, a ÂŁ70m contract with Saiger LLC to supply over 10 million surgical gowns resulted in the items being withheld. Their use was suspended because of concerns about the way they were packaged. According to the BBC, the “contract had not requested double packaging, as used in sterile settings”.

    In June 2022, the Public Accounts Committee stated that PPE worth ÂŁ4bn was unusable because it did not meet NHS standards.

    In 2020, it was reported that 400,000 medical gowns from Turkey had been impounded because of poor standards.

    Cronyism

    There are also allegations of cronyism.

    In July 2020, the Canary reported on firms awarded PPE contracts. They included a recruitment agency, a sweets manufacturer, and a business specialising in pest control products.

    One such firm was Ayanda Capital, which specialised in “currency trading, offshore property, and private equity and trade financing”. It was awarded a contract worth £252m to supply face masks. Ayanda senior board adviser Andrew Mills was an adviser to the government’s board of trade.

    In September 2020, the Canary published names of more firms awarded PPE contracts. Many had no history of manufacturing or supplying PPE; some were listed as dormant.

    One firm, Globus (Shetland), was awarded a ÂŁ93m contract to supply respiratory face masks. It donated more than ÂŁ400,000 to the Conservative Party. Other firms, such as Public First, Faculty AI, and Topham Guerin, also had business links with the Conservative Party or the UK government.

    It took another year before the Conservative government got around to publishing the names of the firms to which it awarded PPE contracts. Some were included in a high-priority lane, while others either offered PPE made in the UK or sourced from China. Another category listed companies that were awarded contracts but had no history of PPE supply or manufacture.

    In June 2023, it was reported that PPE contracts that were yet to be published amounted to an eye-watering ÂŁ7bn.

    Fast-tracking of PPE contracts

    With regard to the high-priority lane, in November 2021 the Good Law Project reported ÂŁ1.6bn worth of contracts resulting from referrals.

    MPs who were either referral sources or actual referrals included: Matt Hancock, the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster (then headed by Michael Gove), Gavin Williamson, Grant Shapps, Julian Lewis, Steve Brine, Andrew Percy, and Esther McVey.

    The following peers were also named as either referral sources or actual referrals: baroness Mone, lord Agnew, lord Leigh, lord Chadlington, lord Deighton, and lord Feldman.

    The Guardian reported that Hancock allegedly recommended a firm run by his former neighbour and pub landlord Alex Bourne. The firm was subsequently subcontracted to provide test tubes in a deal worth ÂŁ40m. However, questions were raised about the reliability of the product and it’s alleged many test tubes were burned.

    Warnings unheeded

    There were warnings.

    In October 2021, the Canary reported on how the Tory government was warned about PPE shortages years before the pandemic. It failed to act and was later accused of covering up the recommendations resulting from a contingency planning exercise.

    Indeed, the Coronavirus (Covid-19) Inquiry, currently underway, will examine “resilience and preparedness”. It will also look at procurement problems, which will presumably include wastage and alleged cronyism.

    The bereaved families of those who died directly or indirectly from the pandemic deserve to know the full truth of what took place.

    Featured image via Flickr / Images Money cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

  • The provisional wing of Corbynism is getting a bit tiresome

    Many of us invested heavily in Corbyn. Against my better judgment, I was one of them. The betrayals, disingenuous attack lines, and internal sabotage from within the Labour party robbed many people of reforms which could certainly have improved working class people’s lives. On top of that, it showed us that there is no route to power for working class people through Parliament.

    Even as somebody about 400 miles to the left of Jeremy Corbyn – a man who I like very much, by the way – I banged on doors and argued the case and actively helped his comms team out with veterans-related matters.

    I did this because because while I’m on the radical and anti-state end of the Left, I’m not a weird spiky separatist or poseur when it comes to getting things which might help people. I backed Corbs’ mild reformist agenda while also arguing that it wouldn’t resolve real human needs. I’d spent too much time broke, hungry and homeless myself to do anything else.

    People were traumatised by the defeat. Though we should put it in context: the result for most of us wasn’t Stalin- or Franco-esque gulags (excepting migrants and so on). That’s real defeat. We just got more time being governed by Tory wankers. I note also that many people for whom that period was their first political experience were then duped by Keir Starmer. We all remember his explicitly left-wing election video right? Before he emerged as a conniving Tory.

    This all grieves me as much as the next recovering Corbynista, no doubt. Surely though, it’s time to move the fuck on. Look no further than the tone of row about new film about that period, The Big Lie, being pulled from Glastonbury.

    Endless re-litigation

    I haven’t seen the film yet. Maybe it makes some good points. And it is certainly cowardly of Glasto not to show it. Though I note the excellent Reel News did stealth in a screening:

    My issue is the tone of debate around the film. Or rather some of people attached to it

    There’s a group of people who insist on reliving the Corbyn years and spend their energy mired in its memories. This credo can be slightly indistinct but is evidently quite real. I term this Provisional Corbynism. Of course, I do this to take the piss out of it because I think it is silly. But also because of its rudderless and cranky militancy.

    The politics of these 2015-2019 nostalgists sometimes seem verge on the manically conspiracist. I’ve seen it up close on several occasions from a range of individuals. Ask anyone who worked at the pre-revolutionary Canary what it was like.

    Ultimately, this is a politics of endless re-litigation, of ‘Jeremy should start his own party’, and of urging anyone remotely left-wing who gets a platform to do the same.

    Yes, Corbyn was treated badly. But this band of Corbyn’s fandom are keeping themselves looking back at the heady days of 2018 to the detriment of building any meaningful resistance here in 2023. Instead, they’d rather lament the Corbyn days gone by, and urge anyone remotely left-wing to become Corbyn 2.0. Case in point – every time Mick Lynch appears on TV.

    Moving on from Corbyn

    But, Provisional Corbyn people miss the big points. First, that people like Lynch (and militant union members) are far better positioned to practically improve their own lives than any political party or politician ever could be. Parliament is where the ruling class goes to manage its affairs. It’s where radicalism goes to die. Formulating a progressive politics around elections is a failure of imagination and analysis.

    Secondly, that this is a zombie politics. It shambles on long after the moment has passed with just an echo of the energy which animated the Corbyn movement.

    The question needs to stop being how do we re-litigate that defeat. It needs to be how we build working class confidence and power in new ways, outside ruling class institutions like Parliament – or, indeed, the film tent at Glasto.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Raph_PH, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Hospital doctors in England to stage five-day strike

    On 23 June, hospital doctors in England announced the longest strike in the 75-year history of the NHS. As ever, it’s part of the ongoing row over pay and working conditions.

    The British Medical Association (BMA) stated that Junior doctors – those below consultant level – will stage a walkout. They’ll start on 7:00 on July 13, and continue until the same time on July 18.

    The stoppage follows a 72-hour strike earlier this same month. It was in opposition to the government’s refusal to budge on its offer of just a 5% pay increase.

    Rock-bottom real-terms pay

    Medics have seen a 29% real-terms pay cut in real terms in the last 15 years. Salaries have completely failed to keep pace with runaway inflation.

    They want pay restored to 2008-2009 levels. However, the government says this would mean an average pay award of about 35% this year. This, they claim, would be too costly.

    Robert Laurenson and Vivek Trivedi, who jointly chair the BMA junior doctors’ committee, echoed the by-now familiar warning that the government seemed intent on letting the NHS “decline to the point of collapse”.

    They highlighted a BMA survey that said 53% of the nearly 2,000 junior doctors who responded had received offers to move abroad in the past four months. The government of South Australia state had even paid for advertising trucks to be sent to picket lines offering better pay if doctors emigrated, they claimed.

    Laurenson and Trivedi said the government was refusing to reopen talks on pay. In turn, this is forcing them to stage their record-breaking strike. They added that:

    With the 75th birthday of the NHS just days away, neglect of its workforce has left us with 7.4m people on waiting lists for surgery and procedures, 8,500 unfilled doctors’ posts in hospitals, and doctors who can barely walk down the road without a foreign government tempting them to leave an NHS where they are paid £14 per hour for a country which will pay them properly.

    The government could avert the strike if it comes up with a “credible offer” on pay restoration, they added.

    NHS: 75 years of service

    The government’s refusal to budge is playing a dangerous game with the public’s health. The inevitable strikes have hit patient care, forcing the cancellation or rescheduling of appointments.

    Health officials say this has disrupted services during the ongoing battles to clear a huge backlog in treatment caused by years of under-funding and under-staffing, and by the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

    The BMA has stated that junior doctors feel:

    their patients are behind them in their fight for fair pay, with 82% reporting they had found their patients supportive of industrial action.

    As Laurenson and Trivedi stressed, the government could easily halt the industrial action with a credible pay offer. They finished by saying that pay restoration would:

    lead to a future 75 years of doctors being paid fairly, in a rebuilt workforce and NHS that this country can continue to be proud of.

    The NHS has protected Britain’s health for 75 years. It remains to be seen whether the Tory government will, in turn, move to protect the NHS.

    Featured image via Flikr/Garry Knight, public domain, resized to 770*403.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Defence secretary Ben Wallace out of race for NATO boss role

    UK defence minister and former soldier Ben Wallace is out of the race for NATO’s top job. The Tory MP, a vocal proponent of massive military spending hikes, was touted to replace current chief Jens Stoltenberg.

    Wallace told the Economist, “It’s not going to happen”. Stoltenberg, an ex-Norwegian PM, is favoured by the US to stay on for another year.

    The UK government has been pushing for Wallace to get the job after he played a unrelenting role in providing Western arms to Ukraine to fight Russia’s invasion.

    But Wallace conceded that his bid has run afoul of the politics of the NATO role and competing visions for the alliance from US president Joe Biden and French president Emmanuel Macron.

    Stoltenberg’s eventual successor “is going to have to please both Macron and Biden”, he said in the interview.

    No NATO consensus

    However, there is so far no consensus on a clear pick among the 31 NATO countries, and diplomats are increasingly talking up the chances of Stoltenberg being asked to stay on.

    The alliance faces strategic choices. The United States has ramped up aggression towards China, while France has pushed for greater self-reliance within Europe.

    “The French have a point in lots of areas,” Wallace said, highlighting the need for more collaboration among Europe’s defence industries:

    The answer to everything is not America first, when it comes to procurement.

    Wallace’s record

    One of the reasons Wallace stood out as a future NATO chief was his belligerence over Ukraine. He has been a driving force in delivering deadly weaponry including long-range missiles. He’s also been a key advocate of sending more warships to Asia to challenge China.

    Wallace also worked for arms firm Qinetiq before he got into politics.

    However, his military past was recently questioned by our colleagues at Declassified UK. Wallace was mentioned in Dispatches (a form of military award) for capturing terrorist bombers in Ireland in 1992. Recent police disclosures show none of those captured were ever convicted, despite his claims to the contrary.

    With an opaque military record and a long history of snuggling up to arms firms, Wallace looked like a shoe-in for the role. But not this time, it would seem. Rather, the US – the dominant power in NATO – seems to have decided for itself that Wallace isn’t their man.

    Additional reporting by Agence-France Presse.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Russian Defence Ministry, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Northern Ireland Legacy bill is so bad even the DUP are against it

    Northern Ireland’s ‘Legacy’ Bill is being imposed on the colonial statelet by the Tory government. The proposed legislation echoes the Overseas Operations Act – aka the Tory War Crimes Immunity Bill. And just like the earlier bill, it would put justice out of reach for victims while protecting the British state.

    Simply put, the law aims to make prosecutions harder. The bill has often been framed as a way to protect British veterans from vexatious claims and draw a line under the Troubles. It will do anything but.

    After the bill returned to the Lord this week, many different groups slammed it. Even Northern Ireland’s most controversial hard-right party is against it. Additionally, the Council of Europe warned that the bill will diminish rights and accountability in a country which has seen precious little.

    The DUP

    The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Northern Ireland’s radical right-wing electoral grouping, are against the bill. That’s not to say the hardcore unionists have softened. But the bill aims to replace legal processes with a process of testimony in exchange for legal immunity in a way even they can’t abide.

    Leader Jeffrey Donaldson said he feared Republicans would get away with crimes and re-write history:

    An amnesty for terrorists is not only an affront to justice but a gateway to further attempts to rewrite and airbrush the past.

    He added:

    As things stand, the only condition placed on a terrorist seeking immunity is that they give their account of the acts of terrorism they were involved in.

    While in the Commons, Northern Ireland minister Chris Heaton-Harris admitted that no Irish party backed the bill. In fact, he added that he felt the DUP could never be convinced:

    I don’t think I will ever be able to win that argument with them.

    South of the border

    On top of that, the Republic of Ireland government is also against the bill. In a press release, Irish foreign and defence minister MicheĂĄl Martin urged that the bill be paused.

    He said that the bill would set peace back in the North:

    I worry, deeply, that the enactment of this bill, opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, and by victims and survivors of the Troubles across communities, will set back the essential work of reconciliation.

    Additionally, Martin warned that the bill, if passed, would immediately be challenged in the courts:

    If enacted, the bill will be the subject of significant legal challenge, adding to the distress of families.

    The left-centre Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) also raised the issue in the Commons in defence of survivor’s rights:

    Council of Europe

    The Council of Europe’s commissioner also attacked the bill. Dunja Mijatović warned that the bill would mean the UK abandoning weighty legal obligations:

    The UK government’s ongoing attempt to pass the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill, including its recent introduction of amendments, ignores the many warnings that this legislation would violate the UK’s international obligations and put victims’ rights at risk

    In fact, Mijatović also cited some of the many influential international organisations which oppose the bill.

    Serious concerns have also been expressed by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Special Rapporteurs, national human rights institutions, parliamentary committees and civil society organisations, including victims’ groups.

    Self-preservation

    This latest vicious bill from the Tories comes on the heels of many others, and is about protecting the British state. The reality is that justice for victims is not in the Tory creed – be those victims Irish Republicans, Unionists, or the very British troops the legislation is claimed to protect.

    Pausing the bill isn’t enough. In truth, it should be stopped in its tracks. Yet with barely a spinal column to be found in the Commons or the Lords, it’s hard to imagine the bill not passing.

    Feature image via Wikimedia Commons/Eric Jones, cropped to 1910 x 100, licenced under CC BY 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

  • Cycling Time Trials issues new rules for trans competitors – that also affect cis women

    Cycling Time Trials (CTT) – the national governing body for time trial events in England, Scotland, and Wales – has issued new, stringent rules for trans competitors. Now, anybody wishing to compete as any gender other than that assigned to them at birth must participate in the ‘open’ category. This was, until recently, known as the men’s category. However, the new rules will also prevent a good deal of cis women from competing in the women’s category.

    The rules

    CTT’s rebrand of the men’s category as ‘open’ follows a similar move from British Cycling in May. In its FAQ section, CTT stated that it issued the new rules:

    Because we are convinced that after undergoing male puberty a rider will retain strength, stamina and physique which will give them a permanent advantage over someone who has not.

    However, this given motivation is belied by the list of people affected by the rules. Trans men, trans women, and non-binary people are all required to compete in the open category. This makes no reference to male puberty, or taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT). It simply shifts all trans people into the open category.

    As such, a non-binary athlete who was assigned female at birth, who has never taken testosterone, is now required to race against men. This is clearly not a requirement motivated by a belief in the advantages of male puberty. It is a requirement that trans people – any and all trans people – be denied the opportunity to compete against cis women.

    Massive overreach

    However, the new rules don’t stop with trans people, either. They state that a competitor in the women’s category must satisfy all of three requirements:

    they must have been assigned the sex female at birth, they must never have gone through any part of male puberty and they must not have had a testosterone result in serum above 2.5 nmol/L level before competing even if they satisfy the other two requirements.

    The last requirement is extraordinary. Testosterone (T) is often spoken of as the ‘male sex hormone’. However, it’s also produced naturally in the bodies of cis women. What’s more, it can vary for a number of reasons, including polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Around one in ten people with ovaries will develop PCOS at some point in their lives.

    Research has shown that higher T levels in male athletes can produce better performance. However, there are comparatively few similar studies for women. That said, elite female athletes tend to have higher T levels than the general population – making CTT’s new rules more likely to affect them.

    What’s more, the NHS considers the reference range for serum T in women to be anything below 2.7 nmol/L. So, CTT’s rules aren’t even in line with a ‘normal’ T range. Any attempt to define an ‘acceptable’ hormone profile for an athlete will be arbitrary. CTT’s ruling pushes past that into the pointlessly punitive.

    ‘Promoting inclusivity’

    Chair, Andrea Parish, said of the new rules:

    Here at CTT, we are committed to the promotion of inclusivity and a fair competition in sport. This decision underpins these such values and shows our collective support for women’s sport.

    However, we have got to ask: is this what inclusivity looks like to you? These are rules on women’s sport which exclude any trans person, of any body type or hormone profile. They exclude women with common conditions that cause even mildly elevated T.

    CTT’s new rules are part of the widespread reaction to trans participation in sport. They also continue the campaign of exclusion waged against intersex athletes like Caster Semenya. If you wanted a demonstration of how such policing of womanhood hurts far more than just the trans people it claims to target, look no further.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Coen van de Broek

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ACORN has been winning more victories for tenants across the UK

    Tenants from the ACORN renters union have been winning victories across the UK over the last few weeks. Union branches in Bristol and Brighton have reported successes. What’s more, campaigns are also underway in Cardiff and Birmingham.

    ACORN organiser Nick Ballard tweeted:

    Stop the bidding

    In Bristol, ACORN picketed several branches of lettings agency CJ Hole. ACORN Bristol has been demanding that lettings agencies stop promoting ‘bidding wars’. Agencies have been encouraging prospective tenants to bid against each other, offering over the asking price to rent properties in the city. The branch has gathered 22 pledges from Bristol agencies not to engage in the practice.

    Campaigners reported that CJ Hole, Bristol’s biggest lettings agency, agreed to the union’s demands after ACORN members held demonstrations and stuck ‘wanted posters’ for CJ Hole founder Chris Hill on the windows of its agencies.

    The Canary contacted CJ Hole for comment, but we didn’t receive a reply.

    ACORN Bristol tweeted:

    Forcing landlords to sort out disrepair

    In Brighton, ACORN members occupied the town hall. They were calling on a local landlord to sort out the disrepair of a member’s home. As a result of the protest, the council reportedly issued the landlord with a fine. And this also led to the landlord finally setting a date for the much-needed repairs.

    Campaigning for Public transport

    In Birmingham, ACORN has been campaigning for better transport. The union is campaigning for more public control of buses in Birmingham. According to their online petition:

    Profits are being put before people, and it’s high time that public transportation was run for the public good once again. We live in a region that runs on its buses, they are the lifeblood of the West Midlands and the vast numbers of our residents who rely on them. 30% of households have no access to a car and we deserve better!

    Our members and communities across the West Midlands believe that through bus franchising we can achieve the best possible service through a publicly controlled network, run for the benefit of residents, not simply to maximise profits and dividends.

    ACORN is calling on councillors and the mayor to join its campaign.

    Not standing for theft of deposits

    Meanwhile, in Cardiff, a campaign is underway to get back a union member’s deposit. ACORN Cardiff says that CPS Homes has stolen a deposit from Acorn member Becca.

    The Canary contacted CPS Homes for a comment. A spokesperson for the agency said that Becca’s deposit had been handled by the government-authorised Deposit Protection Scheme (DPS), and DPS had handed them the deposit money.

    However, ACORN Cardiff says that CPS Homes has a history of taking tenants’ deposits. The group has been leafleting outside CPS Homes branches, informing the public of the company’s practices.

    Housing campaigner Penny Dinh, who attended a demo against CPS Homes, tweeted:

    One thing’s for sure: tenants’ unions like ACORN are sorely needed right now. Landlords would walk all over us given half the chance, but when we organise collectively, we have real power.

    Click here to learn more about ACORN and how to join the union. Take a look at Living Rent and London Renters Union websites too, to find out what’s going on in your area.

    Featured image via Unsplash

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Groups are coming together to resist this year’s Armed Forces Day in Cornwall

    This year’s Armed Forces Day is on Saturday 24 June. The main “public show” (perhaps the most grotesque uses of the phrase imaginable) will be in Cornwall. However, local and national campaigners are not taking this display of militarism lying down. In fact, they’re planning a counter-event to show the public’s resistance.

    Armed Forces Day: state-sanctioned propaganda

    Armed Forces Day is a state-sanctioned event. As the Soldiers’ Charity noted, it was the brainchild of Tony Blair’s Labour Party:

    Plans for the event were announced in February 2006 by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the aim of ensuring that the contribution of our Armed Forces was never forgotten. First known as Veterans’ Day, the first event was held on Saturday 27th June 2006. The date was chosen as it came the day after the anniversary of the first investiture of the Victoria Cross in Hyde Park, London, in 1857.

    The event became Armed Forces Day in 2009, and is now held annually on the last Saturday in June.

    Naturally, the day is less about the public showing support for vets, and more about the state pushing creeping militarism. As the Canary previously wrote, campaign group ForcesWatch published a report in 2019. It detailed how the state uses Armed Forces Day to push the idea that war is normal to the public – and that we should support both it and continued militarisation:

    Warrior Nation: War, militarisation and British democracy, published by ForcesWatch, details a “militarisation offensive” launched against the British public by the military, political and media establishments. Warrior Nation argues that events like Armed Forces Day are part and parcel of a creeping militarism and militarisation of British society, designed to suppress dissent and ensure long-term support for war.

    The report finds that engineering widespread support for military action among the British public has not been very successful. But militarism has nonetheless had an incredibly corrosive effect upon social norms and liberties. Attempting to create a society that accepts a state of permanent war, the establishment has sought to suppress multiculturalism, freedom of speech, and the right to dissent.

    Of course, the current authoritarian Tory government is making all this worse. However, people are resisting across the UK. And specifically, for Armed Forces Day’s national event in Falmouth, groups are coming together to push back.

    Cornwall will resist

    The official Armed Forces Day website states that Falmouth:

    will play proud host to a packed programme of events and activities including a military parade, marching bands, military displays, live music, flying displays and fireworks.

    If you think that sounds insidious and nauseating, then you can join in a counter-event. Campaign Against The Arms Trade (CAAT) said in a press release that:

    Local and national organisations are uniting to show their opposition to Armed Forces Day, due to be held in Falmouth on 24th June. Groups involved include Campaign Against Arms Trade, the Peace Pledge Union, ForcesWatch, Demilitarise Education, Cornwall Resists and local and national Quaker organisations. All groups say that we should be giving peace a chance rather than glorifying the military. Events planned include talks, stalls, street theatre, banners, protests and more.

    CAAT has various concerns about Armed Forces Day. For example, it said in a press release that:

    Armed Forces Day has cost Cornwall Council at least ÂŁ300,000 during a cost of living crisis. Local groups are appalled that this money has been spent promoting militarism when local services have been cut to the bone.

    It also added that:

    The day is also taking place at the same time the Bibby Stockholm refugee prison ship is likely to still be in Falmouth. It is currently in the dry docks to double its capacity to house 500 refugees and asylum seekers in accommodation the size of parking spaces. This ship is a wider manifestation of the border violence that is enacted on people seeking sanctuary, many of whom are fleeing conflicts either caused by the British military, or the devastation caused by bombs made by British arms companies such as BAE.

    Furthermore, one of its major concerns is over what the day’s objectives are.

    The UK state: recruiting kids to kill

    As the Canary reported in 2019, the state actively encourages kids to participate in events. This includes even pushing Armed Forces Day onto toddlers:

    a British soldier encouraged children to wear military gear in a nursery school in Lincolnshire. The nursery celebrated the event on Facebook and published 18 photos of very young children wearing body armour and helmets.

    At the time:

    The Peace Pledge Union (PPU) released a statement blasting the “shocking” example of “everyday militarism”. It also pointed out that other Armed Forces Day events “have seen primary school aged children invited to handle real weapons”. In 2018 The Canary also published an article about Armed Forces Day targeting children by letting them handle weapons.

    So, as CAAT said in a press release:

    The UK is one of only 17 countries, and the only one in Europe, which allows for the military recruitment of children [under 18 years]. The United Nations Child Rights Committee recently called on the UK government to raise the age of recruitment to 18 and prohibit the targeting of children in military advertising. Since 2008, there has been a concerted push by the armed forces to engage with school children, especially those in deprived areas, with visits to 10,000 schools a year.

    Pushing back against capitalist militarism

    On top of all of this, weapons manufacturer BAE Systems is sponsoring some of this year’s events. Of course, it suits the company to promote things like this. The more the public support the state’s militarism, the more government contracts companies like BAE Systems will get. However, as the Canary‘s Joe Glenton previously wrote:

    The ultimate winners when it comes to defence spending are not the public, in whose name these vast sums are lavished on war. It’s the arms firms and defence firms who making a killing. In the case of the UK, our vast spending comes amid a cost of living crisis.

    So, Cornwall will resist on 24 June. ForcesWatch coordinator Luke Starr said in a press release:

    While presented as a celebration of veterans and service personnel, Armed Forces Day is also a huge opportunity to normalise military action and run recruitment activities.

    A spokesperson for Quakers in Britain said:

    Quakers believe that all life is precious. We have always tried to ‘live in that life and power which takes away the occasion of all wars.’

    Instead of pretending that Armed Forces Day is a family-friendly celebration of their peace-keeping work, the British government should stop recruiting children into the military and stop recruiting the wider society to be war ready. We should be investing in education for peace, not war.

    With the Labour Party under Keir Starmer renewing their engagement with Armed Forces Day, it’s down to campaign groups like CAAT to resist. The perpetual militarisation of societies across the planet is one of the mainstays of corporate capitalism – where people’s lives are treated as profit margins, and wholly expendable.

    Armed Forces Day is a sick reflection of this, dressed up as a patriotic celebration. However, theres nothing patriotic about celebrating death, maiming, and the destruction of people’s lives and the planet.

    Feature image via Cornwall Council – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UoM students are not having it – despite cowardly bosses running to their lawyers

    Students at the University of Manchester (UoM) have vowed to continue their rent strike into at least the next academic year. This comes after bosses inflamed the situation by getting lawyers involved – and amid growing student disquiet nationally about the state of universities and higher education.

    UoM: striking over rent

    As the Canary documented, around 650 students have been withholding their rent from the UoM. This is because uni bosses increased rents on halls by up to ÂŁ450 for the 2022 academic year. Plus, it’s unsurprising that students are rent striking when you see the state of the accommodation:

    mould in a building

    Back in February, students occupied areas of the university in protest. They were part of the group UoM Rent Strike. Bailiffs eventually removed them. Meanwhile, university bosses have dug their heels in. As the Canary previously wrote:

    bosses are taking disciplinary action against 11 students over the peaceful occupation.

    This includes potential fines and even expulsions. Moreover:

    uni bosses took the students to court in March. It issued a 12-month ban on occupations – with UoM Rent Strike saying the legal and associated costs to the university around their occupation were around £100k. This included £40k on bailiffs alone – who forcibly removed students [from the occupation]

    Demands of bosses

    Now, some students have started receiving legal letters. UoM Rent Strike said in a press release:

    Many rent strikers have received a new letter from Branchers LLP, a law firm instructed to collected the debt on behalf of the University. The letter, dated 9th June, says, ‘We anticipate our client will issue a formal pre action letter. Which may result in the issue of legal proceedings

    UoM Rent Strike has the support of the majority of students. The UoM Student Body backed the actions by a 97% majority. All this is despite UoM making ÂŁ119m a year. Moreover, the University and College Union (UCU) has found that the university has a surplus of ÂŁ98m. So, UoM Rent Strike has continued to put pressure on uni bosses. It has made three demands of them:

    • A 30% rent rebate for the year, followed by the freezing of rents at that level for the next 3 years
    • A guarantee that 40% of accommodation will be affordable (less than 50% of maximum student loan) within the next 3 years
    • No punishment or victimisation for rent strikers, occupiers or other protesters related to the campaign

    The concern over affordability was underscored by UoM bosses’ plans for student accommodation redevelopment. The uni will be demolishing and redeveloping three halls on the Fallowfield Campus. While the plans state that the aim is to provide “more high-quality, modern student accommodation” that “enriches the student experience”, students are wary. UoM Rent Strike is concerned that bosses have not mentioned affordability anywhere in the proposals.

    So now, the group has said that the protest and rent strike will continue “indefinitely”:

    Universities: hollowed-out but not yet rotten

    A spokesperson for UoM Rent Strike said that:

    It is clear that our University has the money to take legal action against peaceful protestors, yet refuses to provide affordable accommodation at the expected standard of liveability to its students.

    A press release from the group added that:

    Students plan to continue striking until the University finally decides to listen to them. The unprecedented disciplinary action against 11 peaceful protestors, and resorting to expensive legal fees to silence the voices of their own students, has set a worrying tone in the suppression of free speech on campus going into the future.

    The group will also be:

    mobilising the next year’s first years to build their own rent strike for a second year running

    Student disquiet is a running theme across several universities – including Brighton’s protests over redundancies. These situations are reflective of the wider situation in higher education. Successive governments’ privatisation and marketisation of universities, coupled with greedy uni bosses, have led to the hollowing-out of the student experience. At the UoM, though, students won’t be beaten, and this situation is likely to be seen at more and more universities in the future.

    Featured image and additional images via UoM Rent Strike

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Pivotal case against UK fossil fuel project gets its day in the Supreme Court

    A legal challenge against an onshore oil project in Horse Hill, Surrey will be heard in the Supreme Court on 21 and 22 June. The years-long case challenges Surrey County Council’s failure to consider the emissions produced from the burning of fossil fuels, rather than those that occur only during the production of them, when granting planning permission for the development.

    Rowan Smith is the Leigh Day solicitor who is representing campaigner Sarah Finch in the case. He has pointed to the pivotal nature of the proceedings. Smith said:

    It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this case. The Supreme Court will rule conclusively on whether or not the climate change impact of fossil fuel development in the UK must be taken into account before planning permissions are granted.

    In other words, the court’s ruling could have major impact on future fossil fuel developments and, more importantly, on the planet.

    The long battle over Horse Hill

    As the Canary has previously reported, Surrey County Council approved the oil project in 2019. It’s an extension of an existing site referred to as the Gatwick Gusher. Horse Hill Developments Ltd could potentially extract 3m tonnes of oil from the site over 20 years. The company is a subsidiary of UK Oil & Gas (UKOG).

    Finch – as part of the Weald Action Group, which opposes fossil fuel development in southern England – has legally challenged the project since its initial approval:

    The High Court heard Finch’s case in November 2020 but dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal reviewed this decision. In a 2:1 ruling, the judges decided that the High Court’s dismissal was right. However, a dissenting judge found that the council’s exclusion of the emissions produced from the burning of fossil fuels – known as Scope 3 emissions – in its environmental impact assessments (EIA) for the project meant that it failed to “assess the relevant and required effects of the proposed development”.

    A threat to fossil fuel interests

    The significance of the case is apparent in the parties that have chosen to join it. Finch’s claim is perhaps unsurprisingly supported by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK.

    In a rare move, the UK environment watchdog – the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) – intervened in the case. Explaining why, the body’s general counsel Peter Ashford previously said:

    Environmental impact assessment is so important for integrating the environment into planning decision-making. We are interested in this case because of the opportunity to clarify the law here to ensure proper decision-making that enhances environmental protection.

    Moreover, West Cumbria Mining Ltd has also intervened, signalling that the fossil fuel industry sees the case as a threat to its interests. The mining company is behind the deep coalmine in Whitehaven, which will be the UK’s first for decades. The Climate Change Committee has calculated that the mine will create the equivalent of 220m tonnes of CO2 during its planned lifecycle. This includes emissions from burning the coal as well as producing it.

    West Cumbria Mining Ltd’s intervention means that it, along with the other intervenors, will be able to make submissions – orally or in writing – to inform the court’s understanding of the case.

    A critically important case

    Friends of the Earth lawyer Katie de Kauwe has spelled out why the case is relevant to the mining company. She said:

    This is a critically important legal challenge that could have significant repercussions for new fossil fuel projects, including the proposed new coal mine in Cumbria.

    Meanwhile, Finch has argued that the case will bring much needed clarity on whether authorities can ignore downstream emissions in their planning permission decisions. She said:

    The biggest climate impact from this project will occur when the oil is eventually burned. If councils can ignore these ‘downstream’ impacts when making planning decisions, then we have no hope of staying within safe climate limits.

    I hope that the Supreme Court will confirm that no fossil fuel development – coal, oil or gas – should be allowed without consideration of its full climate impact.

    Featured image via UK Oil & Gas PLC / YouTube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • IWW union wins back Plymouth hospitality worker’s unpaid wages

    Members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) carried out a picket at a Plymouth restaurant last week, calling on bosses to pay the workers properly.

    The radical trade union accused the bosses of the Kickin’ Caribou of withholding wages.

    Bristol IWW tweeted:

    The picket was attended by IWW members from Bristol, Devon, Cornwall and Plymouth.

    The union decided to take action after the managers of the Kickin’ Caribou didn’t respond to a grievance letter.

    Workers lined up outside the restaurant, waved union flags, and chanted:

    Caribou, shame on you! Pay your workers what they’re due!

    The picket went on for nearly an hour, receiving a good deal of attention from customers and passers-by. IWW representatives negotiated with the manager while the picket was underway.

    By the end of the protest, the union had been able to secure almost ÂŁ400 of unpaid wages.

    ‘Solidarity gets the goods’

    The Canary contacted the owner of the Kickin’ Caribou for a comment. They said that a deduction had been made from the worker’s wages because of the worker quitting mid-shift. However, when faced with a noisy picket, the Kickin’ Caribou quickly agreed to pay back nearly the full reduction in wages.

    Sab, who was acting as a union rep for the IWW, said in a statement:

    At first the managers weren’t even there but when they found out what was happening we called them to come and meet with us, we would wait. By turning up outside the restaurant we showed that we were serious and that we wouldn’t leave with our member empty handed. We would walk the manager to a nearby cashpoint if needed.

    Grey, the worker who had brought the grievance against the Kickin’ Caribou, made the following statement:

    My union rep spoke with the owner on my behalf and we were able to settle on a pretty good agreement.

    We settled on splitting the deductions in half so rather than the ÂŁ414 owed it would be ÂŁ370! Hopefully it showed the other staff that if you come together you can overcome!

    I’m so grateful for today, felt very empowering and it was an incredible show of solidarity!

    Grey told the Canary that the experience had impressed on them how important it was to be in a union. They said:

    This experience has really taught me how important it is to be a part of a union. I didn’t think I would ever achieve something so empowering. I was supported the whole time and inspired by how many people showed up to support.
    That part of my life is finally over thanks to the IWW I have a lot more peace of mind and security.

    ‘Hospitality employers think they can take the piss’

    Max, the secretary of Bristol IWW, was also pleased with how the day went. They said:

    It felt really great to come out to support our fellow worker in their dispute and to share a sense of togetherness with the other wobblies [IWW members]. So many hospitality employers think they can take the piss with their employees, but today really showed that solidarity is strength and that we can fight back.

    The IWW concluded their statement by calling on other workers not to tolerate similar behaviour from their bosses:

    Never tolerate wage theft in any form, no matter where you work. Solidarity gets the goods!

    You can read more about IWW here, or click here to find out how to join the union.

    Featured image courtesy of IWW

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Peers parrot trophy hunting industry’s deceptive ‘neo-colonial’ defence against an imports ban

    At a debate in the House of Lords on Friday 16 June, a number of peers served as a mouthpiece for the trophy hunting lobby. Parliament is currently considering a new bill which would seek to prohibit imports of hunting trophies from endangered species protected under UK wildlife regulations.

    As the Canary has previously reported, MPs passed the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) bill during its final reading in the House of Commons in March. It now sits with the House of Lords and will undergo committee scrutiny before a final reading in the second chamber.

    During the bill’s second reading on Friday, peers parroted deceptive trophy hunting talking points in the House. Specifically, they spouted pervasive industry framing that positions those supporting the bill as ‘neocolonial’ and ‘racist’.

    However, over a hundred communities and government officials throughout Africa have called for peers to back the bill. In an open letter the coalition wrote to UK peers, signatories called out the accusations of neocolonialism and racism. Notably, they instead argued that the practice of trophy hunting in Africa is itself neocolonial.

    Trophy hunting ban as ‘neocolonial’?

    Speaking to the chamber, Conservative peer Lord Lilley repeated the industry’s deceptive framing. He claimed that the Bill was ‘liberal imperialism’. Lilley made headlines in 2021 when he was appointed to a parliamentary committee to review UK government policy on the climate crisis. The appointment was a controversial move owing to his former trustee role for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The group was established by former Conservative chancellor and climate denier Nigel Lawson.

    Echoing Lilley, Lord Swire also said the bill was “neocolonial”. While Swire claimed to “stand with” Africa, he appeared to completely ignore the open letter from over one hundred people living and working across the continent.

    The group of community representatives, conservation experts and government officials argued that:

    Although they purport to speak for Africa, they present grossly over-simplified and unsubstantiated arguments, and it is critical for Honourable Members of the House of Lords to acknowledge that they do not represent the views or experience of many scientists and community members living and working throughout the African continent.

    In addition, they challenged the idea that the imports bill was ‘neocolonialist’:

    We also reject the fallacious proposition that banning trade in hunting trophies is neocolonialist or racist.

    Instead, they stated that:

    The irony of this claim is that it is in fact the Western-conceived, profit-driven trophy hunting industry that perpetuates colonial power dynamics and continues to drive social and economic inequalities every day across many communities.

    Framing funded by the hunting industry

    The Canary’s Tracy Keeling has already highlighted the “deep rifts” between conservationists over the bill. Scientists for and against it have penned a number of letters to the journal Science.

    However, as Keeling has also pointed out, some of the signatories of a key letter against the ban have links to a prominent trophy hunting advocacy group. Additionally, the Times has also reported that four of the letter’s authors have close ties to hunting groups. This raises clear impartiality concerns.

    Moreover, in a previous article, I argued that the framing of the ban as ‘neo-colonial’ was coming from those in Africa employed by the industry, who therefore have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

    What’s more, an All-Party Parliamentary Group on banning trophy imports found that a prominent US hunting group had funded social media campaigns to push pro-trophy hunting messaging. In particular, this involved an astroturf organisation – a fake grassroots group – funded by the US hunting concern Safari Club International.

    Titled the ‘Inclusive Conservation Group’ (ICG), the Land reported that the fake grassroots campaign organisation had:

    vigorously promoted the idea that criticism of trophy hunting is a form of neocolonialism

    In other words, the hunting lobby has pushed this rhetoric to silence critics of the industry. In addition, it aims to garner support for the practice as a form of conservation. As the exchange in the House of Lords suggests, some politicians are happy to platform the industry’s pitch.

    ‘Colonial relics’ of trophy hunting

    The letter to the House of Lords also highlighted what it termed the “colonial relics” of trophy hunting. In particular, it raised the issue that trophy hunting has displaced communities. It also highlighted that the practice had obstructed opportunities for communities to secure land rights.

    A number of Maasai pastoralists from Tanzania signed the letter. As the Canary has previously reported, the Tanzanian government has been violently evicting the Indigenous community from their ancestral lands to lease it to a UAE-based trophy hunting company.

    The situation in Tanzania is therefore exemplary of the destructive colonial impacts of the industry. Moreover, it illustrates how the hunting pursuits of Global North’s wealthy elite are forcing the practice on communities in Africa. This is disrupting Indigenous and community ways of life.

    As a result of these devastating impacts on people and Nature, the signees argued that:

    Trade prohibitions on hunting trophies are absolutely necessary to stop the extinction of imperilled animals and to disincentivize exploitative colonial practices. Only by leaving trophy hunting in the past, where it belongs, may we establish conservation and development programmes that have preservation, rather than greed, as the primary imperative and ensure that local communities have a real stake in the management of their natural resources.

    In other words, the letter authors and signatories have raised their voices as members of the communities that trophy hunting directly affects. Importantly, they argue that trophy hunting ‘conservation’ is subordinating nature as well as the lives of both human and non-human inhabitants to the exploitative and extractive whims of rich, white hunters from the Global North.

    The UK now has an opportunity to listen and move beyond this abhorrent colonial legacy.

    Feature image via Bernard DUPONT/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Equality Act debate Part 2: Which lesbians count?

    On Monday 12 June, MPs held a debate in response to two petitions, for and against changing the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act. This followed advice from the EHRC stating that such a change could “bring clarity” to the law. It would also serve to remove protections for trans women as women, and vice versa for trans men.

    In part one of this series, I spoke about how the debate was a proxy for questioning trans existences more broadly. People react to trans people’s statements about themselves with either acceptance or rejection. Neither side has objective reasons for its reactions. Rejection of the possibility that someone can be trans means that the trans person can’t be trusted – either they’re deluded, or lying.

    In part two of this article series, I’ll examine more closely the arguments and assertions that the MPs made. I’ll also talk about how this acceptance or rejection informs the ways the MPs spoke in the debate.

    Equality Act: Which lesbians count?

    One of the central topics of the debate was the relationship between transness and queer sexuality. In particular, a great deal of focus fell squarely on lesbians and lesbian spaces. This is understandable: if you reject what trans people say, then trans women aren’t women, and their presence in lesbian spaces is read as a violation.

    For example, Tonia Antoniazzi opened the discussion by stating:

    I heard how, for the lesbians I met, biological sex is fundamental to understanding their rights as same-sex-attracted people, so the grey area that we have is creating ongoing problems for lesbians

    Likewise, the SNP’s Joanna Cherry rejects trans people’s statements that they are who they say they are. She repeated the sentiment which Antoniazzi relayed:

    In the short time I have, I want to focus on the right of lesbians and gay men to be same-sex and not same-gender identity attracted, and on our right to freedom of association. The protected characteristic of sexual orientation is contingent on the definition of sex as meaning biological sex. Lesbians, gay men and bisexual people all experience same-sex attraction—that is, attraction based on biological sex, not gender identity.

    However, there are a few problems here. First, if the “protected characteristic of sexual orientation is contingent on the definition of sex as meaning biological sex” in the Equality Act then we wouldn’t be having this debate in the first place.

    That aside, it’s undeniable that there are lesbians who don’t date trans women. There are also gay men who don’t date trans men and straight people who don’t date trans people of the opposite gender, for that matter. And, besides that, there are bi people who don’t date trans people full stop. Some, not all, of these groups are vocal about these facts.

    However, they’re not the only people out there. What’s more, it’s deeply disingenuous to speak as if that’s the case. There are cis lesbians who date trans women, and cis gays who date trans men. I know because I’ve met them, seen them, spoken to them. I know happy couples of cis and trans people of many different sexualities, and I’d wager that anyone active in a modern queer scene that isn’t explicitly trans-exclusionary could say likewise.

    Sexuality is complex

    Then, that’s not even to mention the fact that there are lesbians who date trans men and mascs, and a thriving trans femme scene on Grindr. This is because sexuality is complex.  You can embrace this or deny it, but you can’t stop it. Yet this is what people like Cherry are doing when they state that queer attraction is based on “biological sex, not gender identity”.

    As an aside, people don’t tend to check up on someone’s chromosomes – or whatever other sex marker you set store by – before becoming attracted to them. Unless people can tell with 100% certainty who is trans and who isn’t – and, as came up later in the debate, most people can’t – then there is some component of attraction that isn’t simply based on biological sex.

    People of whatever sexuality who don’t want to date trans people are welcome not to. That’s their deal, it’s valid. However, Cherry and the lesbians who spoke to Antoniazzi are not arguing this alone. In fact, they’re going much further.

    They also seek to redefine the sexuality of anyone who does love trans people. If, as they say, sexuality is based on ‘biological sex’, then any gay or straight person who loves a trans person is suddenly redefined as bisexual, or similar. This is, to put it bluntly, unacceptable.

    Cherry and her like gave no reasons why they get to speak for all lesbians, and why they get to redefine the sexuality of people who disagree. Individuals know best about their sexuality, just as they do their gender – Cherry doesn’t get to speak for them.

    Trans-affirmation

    What’s more, there are plenty of lesbians who are dog-tired of being used as a political tool for transphobic ends. Among them, Angela Eagle spoke with passion in favour of trans people in the Equality Act debate. She said:

    I am also a lesbian. I was only the second out lesbian ever to sit in this place, and the first ever out lesbian Government Minister, so I have had some experience of bigotry, prejudice, misogyny and homophobia—and I recognise a politically induced moral panic when I see one. I also recognise a discredited Government unleashing a culture war for their own divisive ends when I see it.

    Here, Eagle recognised the distinct similarities between the homophobic and transphobic movements. To elaborate, both are replete with quickfire accusations of pedophilia, rejections of the ‘natural role’ of the body, and dogwhistles about ‘slippery slopes’. This is why many view transphobia and homophobia as inextricably linked. Quite apart from anything else, no-one ever stopped to check if I was a flamboyant gay or a trans femme (hint, it’s both) before yelling abuse at me.

    Likewise, when Cherry attempted to slip in a casual insinuation that lesbians were being “forced to include men in our groups and our dating pool” to date trans women, Eagle was having none of it:

    I do not recognise anywhere in the Equality Act that there is a mandate on anyone’s dating pool and who should be in it.

    Cherry relied on her fellows disbelieving trans women. She referred to them as “men” and conjured up the spectre of coercion. Eagle, quite correctly, called it out for what it was – a ridiculous exaggeration of the law.

    Who speaks for whom?

    I would ask why Cherry and her side have to rely on such exaggerations – deliberate or simply mistaken – in order to make their point. If it is such astoundingly common sense, why lie or reach?

    In answer, I’d point out that they – the trans-denying – are attempting a linguistic trick. It’s they who are trying to speak for everybody, who are denying the sexualities of trans-inclusive lesbians, gays, and straights. They have to appeal to the idea of the predator because they need their audience to fear trans people. If we are feared, it’s easier to ensure that we are not believed when we say who we are.

    Cherry and her side – those who argue in favour of trans-denying lesbians – don’t need to prove that they exist. That much is clearly true. What’s more, their sexuality isn’t being denied.

    What Cherry’s side needs to do is prove that trans-affirming lesbians don’t exist, or at least, why it is the trans-denying lesbian alone who deserves protection under the law.

    Until they can, their arguments will be obvious in their weakness. What’s more, they’ll continue to be rejected by the community they try so desperately to speak for.

    In part three of this series, I’ll speak on the appeals to fear and silencing in the Equality Act debate.

    Featured image via UK Parliament/YouTube

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • UK government funding environment-wrecking extractive projects with histories of human rights abuse

    The UK government recently came under scrutiny for using development aid to fund projects which have violated the human rights of communities in the Global South. Research by the Canary however, suggests that this could be a systemic issue.

    On 6 June, a House of Commons Select Committee convened for an inquiry session to review the work of the UK government’s international development corporation. The International Development Committee is a parliamentary body which scrutinises the activity and spending of the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office (FCDO).

    The meeting examined British International Investment (BII), the UK’s national development finance institution. The FCDO owns 100% of the shares in the company. BII invests UK aid funding in programmes and businesses throughout lower and middle income countries across Africa, Asia and the Caribbean.

    As reported by the Guardian, UK taxpayer’s money has financed projects in Africa where citizens have leveled serious human rights allegations. In Kenya for instance, hospital staff detained patients who could not pay their medical bills. Speaking to the committee, the UK minister for development, Andrew Mitchell said that the issue had since been addressed.

    Meanwhile, the committee also highlighted a palm oil plantation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The project had exposed workers to dangerous chemicals and polluted the local environment with untreated industrial waste. Mitchell confirmed that the UK has since exited this investment.

    However, the Canary has found that BII has active investments in multiple extractive and industrial projects where communities have raised rights concerns.

    Extractive industries known for human rights abuse

    The Canary looked at British International Investment’s (BII) company database. The research explored a range of projects in key extractive sectors known for human rights abuses. BII is financing large agribusiness, logging and mining companies across the Global South. For a number of these, media outlets, non-profits and researchers have identified that projects had caused violence against local communities.

    Notable among the projects is a multimillion-dollar investment in Zambeef, Zambia’s largest beef producer. The company operates cattle, maize, soy, wheat and palm oil on five estates spanning 100,000 hectares. On three of Zambeef’s estates, communities have reported land disputes with the company.

    The UK’s Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) – now BII – has also held investments in the 46,874 hectare Mpongwe estate since the 1980s. It has done so through a joint venture with the Zambian government. Mpongwe has been at the centre of local community land conflict and court battles against Zambeef since 2003.

    Despite these land disputes, the UK’s CDC made a $65m investment in the company in 2016. BII lists this financing as ongoing.

    Forestry plantations and violence

    While BII has exited its investment in the palm oil project in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), it maintains active investments in palm plantations elsewhere.

    In Thailand, a BII-funded palm oil company has been implicated in the attempted murder of a community land defender. An employee of United Oil Palm Industry Public Co.Ltd (UPOIC) attempted to assassinate land rights defender Dam On-muang in October 2020. The UPOIC employee has since been convicted.

    Meanwhile, reports of violent evictions of 10,000 villagers from a forest reserve did not stop BII investing in the company responsible. In 2002, Global-Woods AG cleared community forest lands for a 12,182-hectare saw log and fuel wood plantation in Uganda.

    In 2019, environmental thinktank the Oakland Institute released a damning report on Green Resources, a tree plantation company. It presented evidence that Green Resources had forcibly evicted villagers for a carbon credit plantation forestry project in Uganda. Despite these allegations, as recently as October 2022, BII announced the acquisition of Green Resources. It acquired the company alongside Norway and Finland’s development aid agencies and a private investment partner.

    Abuses missed and unreported

    Additionally, the Canary has also previously revealed that UK development aid financed at least 16 renewable energy land grabs in the Global South. BII has financed 11 of these projects through various funds and companies.

    Of course, these examples of BII project-related human rights violations are non-exhaustive. What’s more, it’s also possible that much abuse goes unreported and missed.

    The committee chair raised her concern that BII had failed to identify the issues at the projects in Kenya and the DRC. Moreover, she highlighted that instead, media and nonprofit organisations had uncovered these violations. Speaking to the UK’s development minister, she asked:

    In both of those examples, from memory, it was charities or journalists that uncovered the failings that were going on, which led to the action being taken. Does it not concern you that it was not FCDO officials or BII that sent up the canary?

    Mitchell replied that the DRC project was “always a fraught and difficult investment.”

    In response, the chair concurred that:

    Things go wrong. It is about having the safeguards in place to pick it up at an early enough stage, isn’t it?

    Yet this missed the point. When “things go wrong”, individuals and communities experience attempted assassination, violent evictions, and the wholesale decimation of their livelihoods. Moreover, Mitchell had cursorily admitted that in the DRC case, the UK had been aware of the potential for risks. In spite of this, it didn’t stop the government channelling development aid to the project.

    The Canary contacted the FCDO for comment but hadn’t received one at the time of publishing.

    BII has not faltered in maintaining active investments in other projects with publicly available reports of human rights violations. This speaks to the nature of development aid itself. Its priority is and always will be to open up markets and opportunities for big business and private capital. Crucially, if it harms communities along the way, it’s only a problem when it gets found out. And sometimes still, not even then.

    Feature image via Adityamadhav83/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Palestine activists call new anti-boycotts bill an ‘attack on democratic rights’

    The government is pushing a new bill designed to stop public bodies’ involvement in boycott campaigns. Palestinian activists described it as an ‘attack on democratic rights’ and have pledged to fight it.

    ‘Attack on democratic rights’

    On 19 June, the government tabled the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. Middle East Eye reported the bill is aimed at investment decisions:

     made by managers of “local government schemes for which a pension fund is maintained”.

    Meanwhile, procurement decisions refer to the purchase of goods, or the procurement of services by public bodies.

    Such public bodies include local councils and universities. Although it has a general application, the bill singles out campaigns connected to Palestine and Israel.

    Campaign group Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA) said the bill is an “attack on the democratic right of public bodies in the UK to make ethical choices”. And its head of public affairs, Shamiul Joarder, said:

    This is a grave attack on our human rights and our ability to defend human rights – not just in Palestine but around the world.

    In a press statement, a coalition of 68 groups including FOA and led by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC) expanded on the bill’s restrictions:

    The bill includes a ‘gagging clause’ restricting the freedom of public authorities to advocate for boycott or even talk about the prohibition – forbidding all those subject to the proposed new law from even stating that they would support taking a moral stance if it were permissible to do so.

    A history of trying to repress boycotts

    The bill is reminiscent of Thatcher-era attempts to end the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against South Africa. The PSC-led statement also drew comparisons with “disgraced” former US president Donald Trump’s 2019 announcement that the US no longer recognised West Bank settlements as illegal. This is because the bill mentions the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Occupied Golan Heights as “territories that the law categorically protects from [BDS] initiatives”.

    The coalition statement also pointed out that the new bill is an attempt to re-introduce previously-defeated legislation. The government tried to stop BDS campaigns affecting local government pensions in 2017. It lost the right to do so in court in 2017. It then lost its appeal against that decision in 2020.

    Deeply connected to other crackdowns on our rights

    Friends of Al-Aqsa said the bill is part of the Tories‘ “wide-ranging crackdown on the right to expression”. This was echoed by the broader coalition statement:

    The anti-boycott bill is part of a range of politically repressive legislation that impedes rights to protest including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, the Public Order Act, and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) bill.

    At the same time, Unite the Union general secretary Sharon Graham pointed out that:

    This is yet another assault on workers by a government keen to suppress the right to protest. The targeting of the Local Government Pension Scheme is particularly outrageous. This is not the government’s money. It represents the deferred wages of our members, and they have every right to say how they want it invested and to demand divestment from companies complicit in attacks on workers and communities.

    As a result, the coalition is demanding the government stops pursuing the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. FOA has asked people to contact their local MPs to protect the right to boycott.

    Featured image via Takver/Flickr

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Cameron and Osbourne to face questions about their ‘brutal’ austerity agenda

    Between 2010 and 2016, then-prime minister David Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne used the 2008 recession as a rationale for their austerity programme – a programme which brought deep cuts to vital public services. Fuad Alakbarov, human rights defender and photojournalist, described austerity as “theft, the greatest transfer of wealth from poor to the rich since the enclosures”.

    Meanwhile, others have argued it was a key contributing factor to disenfranchised British voters opting for Brexit. Some have also said that austerity left us needlessly unprepared for the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. And it’s on this matter that the Covid-19 Inquiry will question Cameron and Osbourne on 19 and 20 June.

    Deep cuts

    In a press release, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) said that austerity impacted “four key pillars of pandemic preparedness”:

    1. Safe staffing levels in public services
    2. Public service capacity and resources
    3. A strong safety net through the social security system
    4. Robust health and safety protections at work

    The TUC also claimed that the greater part of the damage was done from 2010 to 2016 in the Cameron years. It said:

    For example, between 2010 and 2016 the real value of typical nurse’s annual pay was cut by ÂŁ2,400 based on CPI inflation and ÂŁ3,800 based on RPI inflation. The challenges this posed for recruitment and retention meant that when the pandemic hit there were 44,000 nursing vacancies in NHS England – equivalent to 12% of the nursing workforce. …

    Cameron and Osborne claimed that funding cuts would put the public finances on a stable footing and help create strong economic growth. This was disputed by the TUC and many others at the time on the grounds that:

    • Borrowing was sustainable, as the Treasury could access long-term loans at low rates of interest;
    • Cuts would reduce economic demand, which would hold back growth and restrict revenue flowing into the Treasury; and
    • Cuts would leave important social and economic needs unmet, creating a long-term drag on economic growth and productivity.

    By 2016, these concerns had been realised. Economic growth had been much slower than the forecast George Osborne presented in his 2010 budget. This meant less revenue, so he had borrowed £200 billion more than he first planned. And the UK had experienced its slowest recovery from an economic downturn in more than a century – including the Great Depression.

    The TUC says that the UK paid multiple costs for austerity. It not only decimated public services, but also weakened the economy, led to higher public debt, pushed millions of people into poverty, and led to the worst pay crisis for two centuries.

    It also produced a full-length report that goes into more depth on the data.

    Questions to answer

    The TUC said in its press release that “working people and the public need honest answers from Cameron and Osborne about the choices they made to cut services and support that are vital to preparedness and resilience”. Questions it particularly wants the inquiry to answer include:

    1. Failure to act on warnings: Why did they not act on the warnings of experts, including health experts, disaster planners, economists and workplace representatives on the harm being done by austerity and how it was weakening the UK’s resilience in case of a national emergency?
    2. Risks from pay cuts and understaffing: What consideration did they give to the risks of a staffing crisis in the NHS and social care due to real pay cuts? Why did they not have a workforce strategy that included capacity for dealing with national emergencies?
    3. Risks from underfunded and overstretched public services: What consideration did they give to the impacts of cuts to public services such as the schools, fire services, social care and public transport on preparedness for a national emergency and civil contingencies?
    4. Risks from decimating health and safety enforcement and public health: What consideration did they give to the impacts of cuts to the Health and Safety Executive and public health budgets on enforcement of rules and protections in workplaces, and the tracking and tracing of infections, in the event of a pandemic?
    5. Risk from social security cuts and greater poverty: When making social security cuts, what consideration did they give to poverty and health outcomes, including increased exposure and transmission, and greater vulnerability and susceptibility to serious illness, in the event of a pandemic?

    Paul Nowak, TUC general secretary, said:

    David Cameron and George Osborne have serious questions to answer. Make no mistake, austerity was a political choice – and one that left the UK hugely exposed to the pandemic.

    Their policies weakened the foundations of our society by hollowing out our public services and shredding our safety net.

    Cameron and Osborne imposed brutal – and unnecessary – spending cuts in the face of widespread opposition and warnings from experts. And for what? They spectacularly failed to deliver on their promises of stable public finances and strong economic growth.

    Many other countries took a different approach – protecting public services and using public investment to achieve a stronger economies and fairer societies. If the UK had followed the same path, we would have been much better prepared when the pandemic hit.

    Unending austerity

    The Canary has reported extensively on Conservative-led austerity and was founded in part as a reaction to its impacts. In October 2022, Canary writer Steve Topple wrote:

    It’s widely known that increased public spending and income equals decreased excess deaths. However, the Tories ignored the evidence, anyway. By the winter of 2016, they knew that excess deaths were at their highest since 1976. They also knew in 2015 that their policies has already caused the highest number of people to take their own lives in 15 years. Yet still, they continued to cut spending – and haven’t stopped.

    In this decade, the Tories are already slashing at least £10bn from social security in real terms. With Liz Truss and her Tory ministers now planning to cut benefits even further, they will certainly kill even more people – as will theirs and the Bank of England’s failure to control inflation. The Tories do literally have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on their hands – and to blame it on the policies, rather than the perpetrators, absolves these killers of responsibility for their crimes.

    Featured image via Ideas Abu Dhabi/YouTube

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Michael Gove dodged commenting on partygate gongs, and Laura Kuenssberg let him off the hook

    A new video has emerged showing staffers at Tory HQ dancing their little black hearts out despite the pandemic measures their own party implemented.

    While we’re all used to the sight of rule-breaking Tories revelling in their own piss-taking, one thing stands out. Some of those pictured have just received honours – despite the new partygate video. So, enter Michael Gove to defend them, and Laura Kuenssberg to, well, do what she always does.

    Two of the Tory revellers will be getting gongs:

    In response to the footage, so-called ‘levelling up’ secretary Gove has slithered out to defend these rule-breakers. He argued they should keep the honours which disgraced former prime minister Boris Johnson recently bestowed upon them.

    The partygate-to-peer pipeline

    The recently released partygate video features several Tory staffers partaking in what’s alleged to be ‘dancing’:

    This display would be sickening enough even if they weren’t sticking two fingers up to all those who followed the rules or had to let loved ones die alone – not to mention all those who died as a result of Tory pandemic fuck-ups.

    Those honoured include former London mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey, who we already knew had broken the rules from photographic evidence. According to the Independent, Bailey attended an “apparent lockdown Christmas party at Conservative Party headquarters in 2020”. With the release of this latest video, it really couldn’t be much more “apparent”.

    Carol Vorderman drew attention to the other man receiving honours. Although it may be optimistic to think the right-leaning groups employing him have a sense of honour she can appeal to:

    Gove: ‘I respect due process’

    So why does Gove think it’s appropriate for these dishonourable partygate elites to retain their elite honours? According to the man himself:

    I have to – and I do respect due process – so we’ll all have our personal feelings about who was on [the honours] list. The decision about who was on that list was Boris Johnson’s… that’s the nature of the process.

    Rather than digging into this wishy-washy response, Kuenssberg said those five little words that every political interviewee wants to hear:

    let’s talk about something else

    Despite Kuenssberg’s famous instincts, it seems there’s actually quite a lot to talk about. Firstly, we can’t help but notice that Johnson, the man bestowing the honours, had to resign in disgrace as both PM and an MP. This is the guy who gets to decide who is and is not honourable?

    Usually, when you get shit-canned for gross incompetence, you don’t get to retain one of your job’s greatest benefits. To be fair, however, being prime minister isn’t so much a ‘job’ as a ‘hobby’. One that keeps Oxbridge graduates busy for a few years between their various scandals – be they financial, sexual, partygate, or worse.

    Secondly, the matter of ‘personal feelings’. While it’s true we all have feelings on the matter, what we don’t all have are seats in government. Are we supposed to believe there’s nothing anyone can do to block this “due process”? If so, where was the due process when these people were partying like it was Covid-1999? Are we to understand the only rules Tories can’t break are the ones which personally benefit them?

    Oh, and speaking of due process, would you be surprised to learn that Gove won’t be voting on the Johnson partygate report?

    You could argue he has every right not to vote. A more enlightened person, however, would argue he’s a slippery little shit who will say and do anything to get ahead. And the only ‘due processes’ he seems interested in are those in which he’s able to wrangle yet more undue power and influence:

    The sick, the bad, and the incompetent

    Arguably, Kuenssberg couldn’t have done more than she did to haul Gove’s feet over the coals on partygate. That isn’t to say anyone couldn’t have – a chimp with a hangover could have done a better job. It’s just that in reality, the BBC doesn’t exist to ask the government hard questions. They may hint at a harder question from time to time, but once the minister being questioned has bullshitted their way through, it’s time to – in Kuenssberg’s own words, “talk about something else”.

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer – screengrab

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A former UKIP candidate in the BBCQT audience? Nothing really changes.

    BBC Question Time (BBCQT) has been up to its old tricks again. Viewers spotted the show giving the mic to an audience member who, by all accounts, is far from a regular Joe Bloggs – not that that should surprise anyone.

    BBCQT: up to its old tricks again

    On Thursday 15 June, BBCQT was in Deeside, on the Welsh/English border. For regular viewers (who must have a cast-iron stomach to put themselves through this week-in, week-out) the panel was hardly surprising: A Tory minister, a Blairite Labour former minister (not a current MP), a former Tory aide, a journalist for Times Radio – and an SNP MP clearly posing as the token left-winger. The point being, the panel was hardly balanced. There was no voice from anything outside the centre or centre-right of politics present.

    Moreover, given the show was in Wales, you’d think BBCQT producers would have given a Plaid Cymru representative a slot on the panel. As one Twitter account pointed out:

    But as one eagle-eyed viewer spotted, a former UKIP candidate was also in the audience. Host Fiona Bruce gave him the chance to perform a mindless diatribe, too:

    As the National wrote, this little guy is Cain Griffiths:

    who stood for Ukip in a by-election last year for the City of Chester.

    The seat was won by Labour’s Samantha Dixon, with Griffiths gaining a total of 179 votes.

    Apparently, he’s now a fan of Reform UK – the successor to UKIP’s dishonourable, racist throne. Clearly, BBCQT‘s producers thought it fine to have someone with an active political background in the audience. During 15 June’s show, he said:

    I’m not a fan of Boris. I think he told too many lies, you know a pathological liar.

    But I think Boris could make a comeback and it’s not because he’s particularly special but it’s rather because of the inability of the establishment politicians to tap into what people want.

    Boris had his faults, but at least he spoke in plain English. He had a bold and clear vision, unlike his successor, Rishi Sunak, who is just a conveyer belt politician.

    Griffiths’ preposterous notion that Eton alumni, former Telegraph journalist, and career politician Boris Johnson isn’t an “establishment”, “conveyer belt” MP is straight out of the populist playbook. However, for many people, the main issue with Griffiths’ appearance was the fact BBCQT let him on in the first place:

    Failing as a political programme

    As the National wrote, the BBC defends its audience selection by saying:

    Question Time selects local audiences which reflect a broad range of political views.

    It also vets audience members by asking:

    questions on their previous voting record and future voting intentions, whether they have party political membership and also how they voted in the EU referendum.

    However, as the Canary has documented, this isn’t the first time a former political candidate has got into the BBCQT audience. For example, back in 2019, another former UKIP candidate made an appearance – after appearing at least once before. As SNP MP John Nicolson said at the time:

    This is the point. The BBC, and specifically BBCQT, has an inherent bias toward the government of the day, as well as mainstream political opinion. Moreover, though, and as the two UKIP audience interlopers show, often those the show selects are hardly ‘ordinary people’.

    If BBCQT was to ever act as a functioning political programme, it would have a true cross-section of the public in the audience who are free from political connections – as well as a balanced panel. Currently, it does neither of those things – and is a programme still best avoided.

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Equality Act debate served to highlight a deep division in UK politics and society

    On Monday 12 June, MPs gathered to debate changing the definition of ‘sex’ in the equality act to mean ‘biological sex’. This was in response to e-petitions 623243 and 627984 – for and against the change, respectively. Both received over 100,000 signatures.

    As I’ve already reported for the Canary, the potential change would remove a swathe of legal protections from trans people. And, as UN independent expert Victor Madrigal-Borloz recognised, it would offer the government:

    a formula through which it could carry out discriminatory distinctions currently unlawful under UK law, and that will remain so under international human rights law.

    In part one of this article series, I want to talk about three things that are hovering behind this current culture war – honesty, belief, and complexity. In turn, these inflect and inform a great deal of what was said in the debate.

    ‘Trans men are men’

    First, a bit of background. I’m trans. I’ve always been trans – a core part of me, even before I had the words to articulate it properly. This meant that people looking at me, assuming I was a man, and treating me as such were incorrect. The deep distress this causes is part of what we call gender dysphoria.

    My transness is, fundamentally, something that I can’t prove to you. There’s no objective test. I can only tell you that I’m not a man, and this is central to my knowledge about myself. In my day-to-day life, everybody I know takes my word for it.

    In the Equality Act debate, several MPs began by stating some variation on ‘trans men are men, trans women are women’. Transphobes and gender critical people have referred to this as a mantra or as dogma. This is incorrect.

    Rather, it’s a statement that takes trans people, and their information about their experience of themselves, at their word. It doesn’t discount the other person’s belief about themselves – you still have your gender, I still have mine. Instead, it broadens it, adding new ways in which a person can be a given gender.

    Equality Act: Confronting complexity

    When someone hears about trans people for the first time, they’re faced with complexity where there was simplicity. Something that they previously held to be true – the body is identity – is now apparently false.

    A person can then take the trans individual at their word in their description of their own internal life – a trans woman is a woman, she’s described herself. The world has cis women and trans women – it’s complex.

    Again, this isn’t conclusively provable. That’s not to say it’s not hugely important, though. Our society and our interactions as people run on these unprovable statements about ourselves. For example, I have no way to prove to you that I’m gay, but most people are inclined to take my word for it, perhaps influenced by their observation of the way I live my life.

    This assumes that people are, for the most part, honest when they tell you about who they are.

    However, if you choose to reject my statement that I’m gay, there’s nothing I can really do. Maybe you think no gay people exist, or that I’m a liar. You’re simply incorrect. What’s more, a society which pretends that one can test whether someone is actually gay is likely to do something horrific – see the UK government’s foul and invasive treatment of queer refugees, for example.

    Rejection and consequences

    Alternatively, someone can reject this newfound complexity. They insist that the world is as simple as it was previously assumed to be – people are who they appear to be at birth, and always will be. 12 June’s debate was full of this kind of rejection. For example, Tory MP Jonathan Gullis insisted that:

    Someone is not assigned their gender at birth; they are born male or female. A man is an adult human male and a woman is an adult human female. We should not be disputing those facts in the 21st century—these are the basics of biology that we talk about in our classrooms.

    This, then, carries several assumptions. The trans woman who stated that she is a woman is one of two things: deeply deluded, to the point of apparent insanity, or else for some reason deliberately lying.

    The former, here, is deeply infantilising. Other people can be trusted to make statements about themselves, but a trans person can’t. If you categorically insist that trans people can’t exist, then the simple assertion that I’m trans becomes proof that I’m deluded or insane, even if I give absolutely no other signs.

    This relies on a circular assumption – people are always who they appear to be born as, so anyone who believes otherwise must be deluded. But then, the assertion that trans men are men is equally circular. However, and crucially, the assertion that trans people can’t exist is someone else making a claim about my life, whereas the opposite isn’t true.

    Lying

    Alternatively, if the trans person isn’t assumed to be deluded, then they must be lying about themselves. In this case, the belief is that the trans woman ‘knows’ that she is a man, and is simply lying about it. Then, suddenly, hostility and paranoia set in. If the trans woman is lying, she must to trying to achieve something nefarious.

    It was abundantly clear that this was a central assumption of many of the speakers in the Equality Act debate. And, although Tonia Antoniazzi opened by calling for “respectful, adult conversation”, the tone was frequently anything but. Several MPs casually insinuated, or else outright stated, that trans women are predatory in nature.

    The Conservatives’ Miriam Cates contended that:

    While academic elites cave in to aggressive and misogynistic trans activism, ordinary women are frightened to go to hospital, ordinary men fear for the safety of their daughters in public toilets, ordinary children are subjected to a psychological experiment in which they are told they can choose their gender, and ordinary toddlers are used to satisfy the sexual fetish of adult men dressed as eroticised women.

    Likewise, Tory Nick Fletcher implored:

    Let us do what we need to do to clarify the Equality Act and ensure that no biological male can enter that six-year-old girl’s changing room. To me, that would be excellent legislation, and a must—a near miss reported to stop tragedy happening.

    In both examples here, the central assumption is that a trans woman is a man. More specifically, she’s a man who should always be assumed to have a predatory nature.

    Deeply held ideologies

    Going forward into part two, the assumptions listed above will inform my coverage of the debate on the potential change to the Equality Act. People either react to trans people’s statements about themselves with either acceptance or rejection. Rejection, in turn, means that the trans person can’t be trusted – either they’re deluded, or lying.

    The Equality Act debate was about whether ‘sex’ in the Equality Act should always mean ‘biological sex’. However, it was clear that the division in the House was not purely legislative. Instead, it became a matter of deeply held ideologies. As Cates blustered:

    It is extraordinary that in 2023—a time of unprecedented knowledge—we are arguing about the definition of something that has been known since the dawn of time. The most contentious question of our day has famously become “What is a woman?”—a question that no previous society has felt the need to answer.

    Of course, this pretends that the world is always as simple as we want it to be. Societies are frequently wrong, paradigms shift, knowledge of the world about us expands. It’s fundamentally conservative – small ‘c’ or capital – to see a world that is complex and messy, and despise it for failing to lie still in its proper place.

    Personally, I believe that complexity is part of being human, and beautiful too. I can’t prove that to you, but my life is all the richer for it.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/David Woolfall, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, resized to 1910*1000

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • The three people who stopped the 2021 Jamaica deportation flight have been acquitted

    A jury at Lewes Crown Court acquitted three anti-deportation campaigners of causing a public nuisance this week. The three took direct action in November 2021 to stop a deportation flight bound for Jamaica.

    The verdict followed a two-and-a-half weeks long trial.

    Direct action

    In November 2021, the defendants locked-on in the road outside Brook House detention centre at Gatwick airport. Their intention was to stop coaches taking people to Birmingham airport for deportation from leaving.

    SOAS Detainee support tweeted at the time:

    In the end, the state was only able to deport four out of an intended 50 people.

    Their action had far-reaching consequences. Campaigners made a freedom of information request about the 50 people the flight intended to deport. The response, published May 2023, showed that 41 out of the 50 people are still in the UK.

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) initially charged the three with aggravated trespass. However, the CPS later changed its mind and put them on trial for the potentially more severe offence of causing a public nuisance.

    Buying time

    During the trial, the defendants told the jury about what it’s like inside Brook House detention centre. A recent Panorama undercover investigation exposed the conditions inside the centre.

    They listed to the jury how many of the people scheduled for deportation had been living in the UK since they were children. They also detailed how the Jamaica deportation breached many of the Home Office’s own guidelines.

    The defendants gave evidence that they had intended to delay the deportation vans, in order to create time for last-minute legal challenges by lawyers representing those facing deportation.

    A press release by campaign group Stop Deportations explained:

    This is why direct actions like these buy people life-changing minutes to fight their deportations through the courts.

    Judge rules out evidence of Brook House detainee

    The judge refused to allow the jury to hear evidence from a witness who was being held in Brook House at the time of the action, and who was scheduled to be deported to Jamaica. On top of that, the defendants were not allowed to present expert evidence about the illegality of the deportations.

    Despite all this, the jury finally decided in the defendants’ favour. It found all three not guilty.

    Defence solicitor Hussain Hassan, of Commons Solicitors, commented on the politically charged atmosphere in which the case took place:

    This trial has taken place against a backdrop of increased state repression of those who engage in direct action, not only by legislative changes but also by an increasing tendency by the Crown Prosecution Service to overcharge those alleged to have committed criminal offences in the context of political protest.

    Detainees were resisting too

    The three defendants made a joint statement after the verdict. It read:

    We took action to prevent people from being ripped away from their families, communities and loved ones, and from the places and communities they live [in].

    But it wasn’t just their action that stopped the deportations. People were resisting inside Brook House too. The defendants continued:

    At the same time as we blocked Brook House detention centre, people inside were also resisting deportation. This prosecution was an aggressive attempt by the state to criminalise our act of solidarity.

    Stop Deportations made the following statement:

    The verdict today shows the power of collective action, resistance and solidarity. The actions of the Brook House 3 helped to stop 41 people from being violently torn away from their families.

    The group continued, reaffirming their commitment to resist deportations. They said:

    We will not sit idly by and watch the Home Office deport people to their deaths and away from their lives in the UK, we will continue to resist deportations and the broader hostile environment despite this attempt to intimidate us and deter civil resistance.

    You can follow Stop Deportations here.

    Featured image via London Evening Standard/Facebook screenshot

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Boris Johnson has a tantrum as Privileges Committee confirms what we all knew

    The Privileges Committee have found that Boris Johnson deliberately lied to MPs about lockdown-breaking parties during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. The committee, which probes breaches of House of Commons rules, found that Johnson was guilty of:

    repeated contempts (of parliament) and… seeking to undermine the parliamentary process.

    In a scorching report, the committee said:

    The contempt was all the more serious because it was committed by the prime minister, the most senior member of the government.

    There is no precedent for a prime minister having been found to have deliberately misled the House.

    He misled the House on an issue of the greatest importance to the House and to the public, and did so repeatedly.

    The committee is made up of a majority of Conservative MPs. They’re able to recommend sanctions on rule-breakers. However, MPs must vote to ratify the ruling. On this occasion, the committee chose to sanction Johnson with a 90-day suspension. However, in a characteristic fit of fuckwittery, Johnson resigned as an MP just days before the report came out.

    “Kangaroo court”

    Not only did Johnson quit as MP, he did so by claiming that he was stitched up by political opponents in what he called a “kangaroo court.” And, once the report itself was actually released to the public, he doubled down. He called the report “deranged” and the 14-month inquiry into his statements to parliament a “charade”.

    He insisted that his attendance at the Downing Street parties in question was “lawful, and required” by his job. This sits in stark opposition to the fact that Johnson resigned as prime minister in the summer of 2022 after facing pressure over partygate and a string of other scandals.

    Of course, in the wake of partygate the police fined Johnson and dozens of government officials for breaking social distancing laws which the government set to curtail the spread of coronavirus. Months of newspaper revelations about alcohol-fuelled gatherings caused widespread public outrage.

    Johnson’s behaviour in relation to the Privileges Committee itself, however, came in for swift censure from the committee themselves.They said that his critical comments about the committee lengthened his suspension as they ruled that he was:

    complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee.

    We came to the view that some of Mr Johnson’s denials and explanations were so disingenuous that they were by their very nature deliberate attempts to mislead the committee and the House, while others demonstrated deliberation because of the frequency with which he closed his mind to the truth.

    Revealing details of some of the report’s conclusions last week before it was published was also “a very serious contempt”.

    Unrepentant as always

    In an angry and lengthy statement Johnson showed, once again, that basic facts have little impact on his conduct. He wrote:

    This is a dreadful day for MPs and for democracy.

    Barring invasion from a Global South country coming to put us out of our misery and install democracy for us, what else does Johnson think is going to happen here? Now, let’s get to reactions from people who are likely sick of having to respond to Johnson’s constant bullshit.

    Jeremy Corbyn, rather than seeing this as a dreadful day for democracy, urged reflection:

    Biologist Kit Yates dismissed Johnson’s apparent fury:

    Dr. Shola Mos-Shogbamimu explained exactly who Boris Johnson is:

    Amongst all the political infighting, scientist Christina Pagel pointed out something that will matter to many bereaved families:

    Send in the clowns

    Of course, Pagel rightly points out what this whole partygate business is really about. It’s one thing to have lying politicians – that’s sadly normalised in our political system. It’s quite another to have one set of rules for the public and another set of rules for politicians.

    Johnson being the man that he is, he won’t take any of this with anything approaching grace or humility. The real death knell for our political system, however, is that clowns like him are exactly what you get from an elite system that privileges the moneyed few and appoints them to run the country.

    There are plenty of politicians like Boris Johnson – more’s the pity.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image by Jannes Van den Wouwer/Unsplash

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Leaked US No-Fly List contains 98% Muslim names

    Leaked by a Swiss hacker, the FBI’s No-Fly List contains 98% Muslim names. The revelations shows the degree to which Muslims continue to be discriminated against as part of post 9/11 ‘counter-terror’ measures.

    A new report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) looks at the implications of what many have long suspected. The FBI has treated innocent Muslims as an enemy, profiling them indiscriminately as potential terrorists.

    UK terror expert Dr Rizwaan Sabir tweeted that the leak showed how Islamophobia has driven state security policy:

    Secret FBI Watchlist

    CAIR’s new report, titled ‘Twenty Years Too Many: A Call To Stop the FBI’s Secret Watchlist’, is withering in its assessment of the list:

    For now over twenty years, the FBI has detained, surveilled, harassed, and destroyed the lives of innocent Muslims. The public record amply documents how these abuses, inflicted via always-expanding FBI powers, led not to a reduction in terrorism, but painful, farcical, and often dangerous abuses of Muslims.

    The Council listed various indignities and abuses suffered by Muslims since 2001. These included everything from pat-downs of babies and handcuffing mothers and fathers at gunpoint in front of their children, to interrogations and house raids.

    The authors said:

    All of this injustice comes from a list. This list goes by various names—the terrorist watchlist, the Terrorism Screening Database, or as the FBI recently rebranded it, the Terrorism Screening Dataset. The No-Fly List is equally famous, but rather than an actual list, the No Fly List is simply a designation some people on the watchlist get, singling them out for the additional punishment of being unable to fly.

    Punishing the innocent

    For CAIR, the leak has confirmed what they have long-suspected. It is arbitrary and an authoritarian assault on innocent people:

    It has long been clear to the Muslim community itself that the FBI’s list is nothing more than a list of innocent Muslims.

    Referencing far-right extremism, the authors pointed out the blatant discrimination in the makeup of the list:

    The consequences of being on the FBI’s list are borne almost exclusively by Muslims, and even individuals who openly espouse political violence generally do not find themselves similarly targeted so long as they themselves are not Muslim.

    The Council studied nearly 1.5mn names on the list. 98% of them were Muslim names:

    We estimate that more than 1.47 million of those entries regard Muslims—over 98 percent of the total.

    Second-class citizens

    There have been no good outcomes of the War on Terror. Signally, the wholesale destruction wreaked upon Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere are devastating consequences. Guantanamo is another key example.

    But there are quieter forms of violence too. The FBI’s racist watchlist is one of these. Indeed, it has made second class citizens of Muslims – and left millions of innocent people alienated and unsafe.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Micheal Ball, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC0 1.0

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Anti-racists target company refitting Cornwall’s controversial prison ship

    Anti-racists have targeted A&P, the company refitting the Bibby Stockholm prison ship. The Tories previously announced they want to use the controversial barge to imprison 500 male refugees off the shores of Falmouth. They also said that more of these floating prison ships are planned.

    The Bibby Stockholm is being refitted in Falmouth, before being moved to Portland Port in Dorset.

    Redecorated

    Anonymous campaigners ‘redecorated’ A&P’s premises in Falmouth with red paint this week. The Canary has, thankfully, not heard any reports of arrests after this direct action.

    Dorset Eye tweeted:

    Campaign group Cornwall Resists has vowed to stop the ship becoming operational. They called for a week of action, culminating in a mass protest on 18 June.

    They celebrated the redecorating of A&P on Twitter:

    Campaigners also held a protest at the docks, close to where the Bibby Stockholm refit was taking place:

    Cornwall Resists pointed out the danger of imprisoning people on ships like the Bibby Stockholm.

    The group reminded us that one person has already died as a result of being detained on the barge. The Dutch government used the ship to lock up asylum seekers in the 2000s. Rachid Abdelsalam suffered heart failure in 2008, and died on board.

    Cornwall Resists maintains that A&P, by refitting the Bibby Stockholm, is complicit in the violence and racism of the border regime:

    A&P are not only complicit in border violence, by working on this floating prison, they are actively perpetrating it. One person has already died on the Bibby Stockholm. How many more people have to be killed before we say enough is enough and take action to prevent it?

    Rachid’s wasn’t the only death aboard the Dutch prison ships. Ahmad Mahmud El Sabah died aboard another Rotterdam detention barge the same year after he suffered an infection of the liver. He was diabetic. Witnesses say that he was only taken to hospital when he collapsed.

    Resistance continues

    Cornwall Resists called on supporters to jam the phonelines of A&P on Wednesday 14 June. At the time of writing, the group is calling on campaigners to drop banners wherever they are in support of the struggle to stop the Bibby Stockholm. On 16 June, campaigners are planning a day of outreach to the workers of A&P, and there’s a mass protest planned for Sunday.

    Find out more about Cornwall Resist’s Week of Resistance here. You can also donate to support their campaign by through this link.

    Featured image via screenshot, YouTube

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • He knows what he did, we all know what he did, but maybe he was framed!

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Climate campaigners outraged at Shell maintaining oil production levels

    Shell has announced that it plans to maintain oil production levels until 2030. Green campaigners were outraged at the news from the British energy giant. Climate activists were also aghast at the company’s massive payout for shareholders.

    In 2021, based on output from 2019, Shell flagged a crude output reduction of between 1 and 2 % per year. This was supposed to be part of its carbon neutrality plan. However, on the 14 June the company said that production would remain stable until 2030. The Guardian reported that:

    Shell will invest $40bn in oil and gas production between 2023 and 2035, compared with between $10bn and $15bn in “low-carbon” products.

    A Shell spokesperson argued that this wasn’t a u-turn, saying:

    Our target of a reduction in oil production by 2030 has not changed. We’ve just met it eight years early.

    Of course, meeting a target to reduce oil production ahead of schedule is no reason to then maintain oil production. If Shell were actually committed to tackling the climate crisis, they’d make sure oil production continued to slow down.

    ‘Climate-wrecking U-turn’

    Campaign group Global Witness labelled Shell’s announcement a “climate-wrecking U-turn”. Instead, they want Shell to invest far more in cleaner energy.

    Shell’s net profit rose to a company record $42.3bn last year. Jonathan Noronha-Gant, senior campaigner at Global Witness, said:

    Record profits, off the back of the energy crisis should be boosting up green investment.

    Instead, it’s shareholder payouts and a doubling down on climate-wrecking fossil fuels. It will always be profit over people and planet for polluters.

    Shell also revealed it would pay out at least $5bn in share buybacks in the second half of this year following huge profits.

    Shell insisted that its overall goal to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 remains intact, despite fierce criticism from environmental pressure groups.

    Greenpeace UK senior climate advisor Charlie Kronick said:

    From wildfires in Canada to drought and flooding in East Africa, the effects of climate change are already devastating lives and livelihoods around the world.

    Yet Shell and their competitors remain determined to squeeze every last drop of profit from their dirty oil and gas operations.

    ‘Death sentence’

    Activist Greta Thunberg warned that failure to end use of fossil fuels will be a “death sentence” to millions worldwide. Thunberg urged politicians to take more ambitious action. She told a press conference:

    It will be impossible for us to stick to the 1.5-degree limit without a rapid, equitable, fossil fuel phase-out.

    She was referring to the 2015 Paris Agreement, where world leaders pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to prevent the Earth’s annual temperature rising by more than 1.5 to 2 degrees Celcius. It’s hoped that such an agreement will curb the most devastating effects of global warming.

    Think tank Common Wealth’s director Adrienne Buller told openDemocracy:

    Our energy system is geared toward extracting wealth, rather than sustainably meeting our energy needs. It needs to be radically reimagined.

    Horrifyingly, Shell’s CEO Wael Sawan said:

    Performance, discipline, and simplification will be our guiding principles as we allocate capital to enhance shareholder distributions, while enabling the energy transition.

    The “energy transition” Sawan refers to here is just one of the many measured needed to halt the climate crisis which will decimate life on Earth as we know it, if left unchecked. Sawan is living a fantasy if he believes shareholder profits can go hand in hand with solving global warming. Once again, energy companies are putting profit over people and the planet.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Ben Wicks/Unsplash

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • And now we debate which lives are worth rescuing at sea

    ALT TEXT: A newscaster in white shirt and blue tie stands in front of an image of an overcrowded dinghy in water. Underneath the image, the caption reads: ‘SHOULD RNLI SAVE PEOPLE?’ A speech bubble above the newscaster’s head says: “Now, in totally normal Britain, we debate whether lifeboats should save drowning people”.

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On the sixth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire this country doesn’t care if poor Black and Brown people die

    14 June marks six years since the Grenfell tower tragedy. As with every year since the tower burned down, survivors and activists are coming together to mourn the lives lost and rally in response to the deep injustice still keenly felt. In 2017, a fire broke out and spread quickly in Grenfell tower. A number of failures in housing regulations and other catastrophic errors meant 72 people died. As the BBC reported, the plastic cladding surrounding the building was central to understanding what happened:

    In his report to the public inquiry, Professor Luke Bisby said evidence “strongly supports” the theory that the polyethylene material in the cladding was the primary cause of the fire’s spread.

    Many of the victims were Black and Brown people, a fact undoubtedly impacting how the tragedy has been treated over the years.

    Stay put order

    Since the fire, a public inquiry has been ongoing. However, the process has been beset with cruel politicians and terrible policy standards from the government.

    Former Cabinet minister Eric Pickles got the death toll from the tragedy wrong. In 2022, Pickles referred to the victims as the “nameless 96 people”. The actual total was 72. His mistake typified the reaction from ministers who bumbled through speeches about Grenfell and showed no regard for the victims or their families.

    Appallingly, Jacob Rees-Mogg – who was leader of the House of Commons at the time – said in 2019 that victims didn’t use “common sense” to leave the building. He later apologised for his comments. Regardless, it was a callous thing to say – especially given the fact that at the time of the fire, the London fire brigade ordered residents to stay put.

    Indeed, as the Guardian reported:

    Sir Martin Moore-Bick, who is leading the Grenfell inquiry, said that more lives could have been saved if the London fire brigade dropped its stay put policy sooner as they tried to tackle the blaze.

    As for the inquiry itself, people have questioned its integrity. The Fire Brigades Union general secretary Matt Wrack rightly asked why politicians were only questioned for a few days compared to firefighters who were questioned for weeks:

    Individual firefighters and control staff did not put cladding on Grenfell Tower – politicians created the regulatory system that allowed it.

    The stay-put policy employed by firefighters at the tower has been heavily questioned as the Home Office released new papers which continue to state that in case of a fire at certain buildings, people should stay put and wait for firefighters rather than leaving the building. As such, this is a question of policy at state level.

    ‘Misplaced and abused trust’

    Jason Beer QC, who represented the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, told the inquiry that the public trusted the government to use proper cladding materials. He commented:

    The Department greatly regrets that it took the Grenfell Tower tragedy to lay bare this misplaced and abused trust.

    The fire detection system in the tower was “defective” and, in fact, a local councillor tried to warn officials back in 2009 that fire safety measures in tower blocks were inadequate. After an onslaught of evidence showing a culture of carelessness, what did MPs do? They voted against amendments to a fire safety bill which would have placed a greater duty of care on those who own or manage multiple buildings.

    Organisations like INQUEST often have to do the work of accountability when public inquiries and political systems fail to address the needs of communities:

     

    Hesham Rahman was one of the people who died in the fire. His nephew Karim Mussilhy said of the lack of justice and accountability:

    This is torture, we are being tortured. We can’t move on. We can’t grieve.

    We can’t rebuild, as much as we’re trying to.

    Community grief

    Grenfell United shared that 14 June marks 72 months since the survivors and their families lost 72 loved ones:

    United Families and Friends Campaign, a coalition of families and friends affected by police violence, promised to attend the silent memorial walk:

    Jeremy Corbyn noted that this was a preventable tragedy:

    One person shared their anger at the failings that killed so many people:

    Author Nooruddean Choudry stressed to the urgency of the situation:

    The Hillsborough Survivors Support Alliance also acknowledged the injustice:

    Nothing has been learnt

    Research from Inside Housing found that six years since the Grenfell Tower tragedy nothing much has changed.

    They reported that:

    New data gathered by Inside Housing reveals that of 1,768 social housing blocks owned by 37 housing associations and councils across the UK, just 334 (18.9%) have sprinklers fitted and 217 (12%) have a block-wide fire alarm.

    Of the sprinklers, 181 have been fitted in a ÂŁ93m programme by Birmingham City Council, meaning that in the rest of the country the figure drops to just 8.6%.

    Six years on from this tragedy, it’s clear that successive governments – there have been many since 2017 – are choosing to ignore basic fire safety standards. How can anyone believe that politicians or managers of social housing even care about their residents being safe from fire in the face of overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise?

    Many of the victims of the Grenfell fire were poor Black and Brown people. This country doesn’t care if poor Black and Brown people live or die. Overwhelming evidence of institutional failings that caused the fire has been ignored. What’s taking so long?

    There’s been no justice and no accountability because Britain is a white supremacist country that can only rally itself into action if rich white people are at risk. What else would you call a country that dishonours, demeans, and denies the realities of the Grenfell victims?

    The Grenfell Silent Walk will commence from 6pm on Wednesday 14 June at Notting Hill Methodist Church.

    Featured image via Unsplash/the blowup

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The DWP’s invasion of the NHS continues: GPs can now refer disabled people for voluntary work placements

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has announced further plans for co-working with the NHS. The proposals will allow GPs to refer chronically ill and disabled people to “employment support“. Currently, the scheme will be voluntary. However, the programme represents yet another move by the DWP to get its claws into NHS settings. Moreover, it further pushes the false narrative that ‘work is good for your health’.

    DWP: getting more disabled people back to work

    The DWP said on its website that:

    More than 25,000 people with health conditions will be helped to start and stay in work thanks to over ÂŁ58m in new government funding.

    As the Daily Record reported:

    Those on the scheme, called the ‘Individual Placement and Support in Primary Care (IPSPC)’ programme, will be given employment support alongside their normal health treatment. The support will cover 12 areas across 41 local authorities in England, and participants will be referred to the service by healthcare professionals such as GPs.

    Outsourcing more NHS contracts

    Details are still sketchy, as the DWP only started the scheme in April. It says the Individual Placement and Support in Primary Care (IPSPC) programme will be “providing on-the-job “place and train” employment support and advice”. The scheme is voluntary, and it’s open to people NHS professionals identify as eligible. Participants don’t have to be claiming benefits. However, they do have to meet certain criteria. The DWP says people can either be:

    Out-of-Work Participants who require assistance and support to move into sustainable employment, [or] In-Work Participants who are employed and either off sick or struggling in the workplace due to their disability.

    Of course, the scheme isn’t actually being run by the NHS. Local authorities are applying for funding from the DWP. Then, they can use the cash to outsource the running of IPSPC to private companies or charities. For example, Greater Manchester Combined Authority has already done this. These new organisations will then integrate into the NHS.

    Private providers once again getting public sector contracts in the NHS is privatisation, in everything but name. But aside from that, the DWP’s IPSPC scheme is littered with problems.

    IPS: hardly a resounding success

    First, and the DWP has based IPSPC on a US model of healthcare-based employment support – the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) programme. This was designed for people living with serious mental health issues – not chronic illness or physical impairments. The DWP and NHS already implemented IPS for people living with mental health issues in the UK.

    The creators of IPS claim it’s evidence-based. However, one study found IPS only got people into work for a limited time. After six years, there was not a significant gap in employment outcomes between IPS and people who had standard psychiatric treatment. Moreover, the success of IPS in the UK is questionable, too. Between January 2016 and March 2019:

    • 31% of IPS participants started a job.
    • 22% kept that job for at least six weeks.
    • 12% kept that job for at least six months.

    Hardly a resounding success. It’s debatable whether outcomes for chronically ill and disabled people would be any better.

    Then, there’s the issue of the DWP once again invading the sanctity of the healthcare environment. The IPSPC scheme ‘integrating’ “employment support and advice… with [a patient’s] normal health treatment” is wholly inappropriate. As professor Helen Stokes-Lampard previously told the Independent regarding the DWP wanting to access patient’s medical records:

    We are doctors, whose first interest is the care of our patient: we are not border guards, and we are not benefits assessors.

    Work is good for you, apparently

    However, perhaps the most damaging part of the DWP’s IPSPC plans is its central claim that work is somehow good for you.

    The DWP says that the basis of the IPSPC scheme is:

    Recognising employment as an important driver of health and wellbeing

    Likewise, the founders of IPS claim:

    Work is the best treatment we have for serious mental illness (i.e., people with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar, or depression)… Being productive is a basic human need. Working can both be a way out of poverty and prevent entry into the disability system. Competitive employment has a positive impact on self-esteem, life satisfaction, and reducing symptoms

    Most of this is demonstrable nonsense. For example, saying work is a ‘way out of poverty’ is untrue in both the US and UK – as in-work poverty rates show. But it’s the IPS’ founders’ key claim that work acts as a health treatment that’s most damaging – and it’s a claim that the DWP also repeatedly makes.

    Fulfilling the capitalist dream

    The idea that working is good for your health is simply not true – especially in the UK. As researcher Kitty S Jones wrote, the DWP itself helped create this fallacy:

    There is plenty of evidence that indicates government policy is not founded on empirical evidence, but rather, it is ideologically framed, and often founded on deceitful contrivance. A… [DWP] research document published back in 2011 – Routes onto Employment and Support Allowance – said that if people believed that work was good for them, they were less likely to claim or stay on disability benefits.

    So a political decision was made that people should be “encouraged” to believe that work was “good” for their health. There is no empirical basis for the belief, and the purpose of encouraging it is simply to cut the numbers of disabled people claiming… [benefits] by “helping” them into work.

    Clinical psychologist Dr Jay Watts previously told the Canary that by saying work is good for your health the DWP is reinforcing:

    the message work is the central goal of a meaningful life. This increases the shame, guilt and anxiety disabled people already feel. Even more so under a welfare system that equates worklessness with worthlessness. It is exacerbating mental health problems. The goal of mental health services has always been to improve quality of life and reduce distressing symptoms…

    This ‘back to work’ obsession places huge demand on patients to fulfil the neoliberal dream. One whereby health is linked to how much one can contribute to the public purse. But this is foreclosing the reality of long-term disability. We do not, would not, hear that chemotherapy is worth funding because it helps the public purse through getting people back to work.

    The DWP and NHS: pushing a lie

    While the DWP’s IPSPC said to be voluntary, this ignores the reality of chronically ill and disabled people’s lived experience. If a medical professional tells you that something may help you feel better, you’re likely to believe them and accept it. We’ve seen this before with the disease myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and exercise therapy. This treatment actually made patients worse when they carried it out – yet because of dishonest research, doctors were pushing it onto patients anyway.

    However, the bigger picture here is that once again, the DWP is manipulating both patients and some medical professionals into thinking that engaging in what will likely be low-paid work is somehow good for chronically ill and disabled people. As is often the case, it’s doing this to cut costs.

    In reality, it’s a lie that work is a blanket solution to chronically ill and disabled people’s problems. What they need is proper medical care, a social security system that doesn’t penalise and stigmatise them, and a society that is fully accessible. The DWP is none of those things – nor is this latest scheme.

    Feature image via the DWP – YouTube and the NHS – Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 50 organisations sign a public call for an amnesty for Ely rioters

    Over 50 organisations have signed a letter calling for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to drop the charges against the Ely rioters. Riots broke out on 22 May in Ely, Cardiff, following the deaths of teenagers Kyrees Sullivan and Harvey Evans. 20 people have now been arrested.

    Kyrees and Harvey were killed in a road accident, after police chased them. The two boys had been riding an e-bike. The police initially denied having chased the boys, but CCTV later emerged of a police van following them just before the crash.

    Riots broke out after heavy police presence provoked a crowd of 150 mourners who had gathered after the collision.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has confirmed that gross misconduct notices have been given to the two police officers who chased Kyrees and Harvey. However, these notices do not necessarily mean that the officers will face disciplinary proceedings.

    Drop the charges

    The Canary Worker’s Co-op has signed the letter, along with over 50 researchers, organisations, and individuals. The signatories include celebrated Hollywood director Boots Riley, Chumbawumba’s Alice Nutter, several academics and organisers, and local community organisations from Cardiff.

    The letter calls for Mark Drakeford, the first minister of Wales, to make a statement seeking an amnesty for the young people. They also call for the CPS to drop the charges. Many of the people under arrest are below the age of 18.

    According to the authors of the letter:

    Handing serious charges to children and young people will impact the course of their whole lives. Going to court or even prison will harm their current and long term mental and physical health, access to work, education, and support, and could see them face up to 10 years in prison, altering their lives forever.

    The authors point out that these are by no means the first deaths at the connected to police in Cardiff in recent years. Mohamud Mohammed Hassan died after being detained at Cardiff Police station in 2021. Leighton Jones died after South Wales Police restrained him the same year.

    Statements of support

    Welsh language publisher Cyhoeddiadau’r Stamp, a signatory organisation, made the following statement in solidarity with the people of Ely:

    We cannot ignore what the community in Ely are going through at this time, and we stand in solidarity with them in their loss. We hope, by signing this open letter, we are adding another voice in support of the calls to prevent further loss from a community which is already experiencing terrible grief, and to prevent further unnecessary harm to the young people there.

    Dr Dan Evans, a lecturer at Cardiff University and another of the signatories, wrote:

    Criminalising these frustrated young people will solve nothing. It will simply perpetuate social exclusion and marginalisation

    An ‘understandable emotional reaction’

    The open letter itself reads:

    Dear Mark Drakeford and the Crown Prosecution Service,

    First of all, we stand with, and send our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Harvey Evans and Kyrees Sullivan in the wake of this terrible tragedy. The pain of losing these boys so young is unimaginable, and we hope you know that we wish to support you in any way possible as you seek justice.

    The letter points out that the riot was an “understandable emotional reaction” to the actions of South Wales Police:

    The unrest seen in Ely was an understandable emotional reaction to a tragedy that may or may not have been directly caused by the actions of South Wales Police.

    It calls for an amnesty for all those arrested:

    We call for an amnesty for these young people and an end to the criminalisation of the community of Ely in the wake of these riots.

    The lives of the family, friends and wider community of the kids who have lost their lives have been changed forever. There is no way to bring them back.

    There is no need to inflict more suffering on this community by locking up its young people.

    The authors of the letter invite individuals affected by the police repression in Ely to reach out to them at diffrwyscriafol@gmail.com.

    Organisations and individuals can also continue to sign up to the open letter via the same email.

    Read the full letter here.

    Featured image via screenshot / BBC

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The jailing of a woman for her abortion exposes the misogyny at the heart of modern state surveillance

    On 12 June, a judge sentenced a 44-year old woman to 28 months in prison for aborting a ‘late-term’ pregnancy. The woman, a mother-of-three, allegedly received abortion pills through the “pills by post” scheme introduced during the first coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdown in 2020. 

    Abortion: criminalised under an archaic act

    The legal case for the prosecution was possible because the woman pleaded guilty to an offence under the Offences against the Person Act (OAPA). This is an archaic piece of legislation from 1861 which is supposed to ‘protect children in-utero’ by making abortion a criminal offence if a woman:

    with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing”. 

    In the UK, abortion is only legal up to the 24th week of pregnancy. However, coronavirus changed this.

    People who were pregnant could receive a remote consultation with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). The woman followed this process to obtain the pills. Prosecutors say that she ‘misled’ the BPAS by suggesting she was earlier than 10-weeks pregnant. They alleged she ‘believed’ she was closer to 28-weeks. However, much of this claim seems to come from internet searches made on Google.

    Google searches as evidence

    In the sentencing remarks, the judge – Justice Pepperall – said:

    Messages found on your phone indicate that you had known of your pregnancy for about three months on 1 February 2020. By mid-February, you were conducting internet searches on ways to induce a miscarriage. By the end of February, you were searching for abortion services. Your search on 25 February indicated that you then believed that you were 23 weeks pregnant. Your internet searches continued sporadically through March and April 2020. On 24 April, you searched “I need to have an abortion but I’m past 24 weeks.”

    The assertion that the evidence of searches on Google proves her dishonesty reveals the thorny overlap between data privacy rights and abortion rights – the right to privacy and the right to choose. 

    Searches for health information online, regarding abortions or any other health-related matter for that instance, have no business being admissible evidence in law. However, conglomerate tech companies have normalised the collection and storing of data, along with web trackers and targeted ads. So, the economic underpinning of companies like Google results in fresh surveillance opportunities for law enforcement. 

    The burden of proof

    In the US, we can see this intersection more recently in the overturning of Roe V Wade.

    US law enforcement can subpoena data collected by period apps. Then, they can use that data as ‘evidence’ of a terminated pregnancy because of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe, along with states’ subsequent criminalisation of abortion. The issue here is with Google searches being considered indicative of knowing exactly how far along someone is.

    I use Google to search for all kinds of things. I have often searched “how to know if you are pregnant” or “what to do if your period is 7-days late.” If I was pregnant at the time, this doesn’t prove that I know exactly how many weeks along I am. Nevertheless, it seems as though the woman’s search history influenced the sentencing.

    Pepperall went on to say:

    On 9 May, you took mifepristone. That same day you conducted internet searches suggesting that you were 28 weeks pregnant.

    What we search, click, and share online is not private. We make use of private companies to manage our personal lives. However, because of this we have no protections when it comes to online privacy, law enforcement, and in this case the criminalisation of abortion.

    Legalising misogyny via state surveillance

    You may think that the government is not legally allowed to track private citizens. However, there are legislative provisions under the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act that do in fact enable it to do so. Liberty, the UK’s largest civil society organisation, noted that this:

    Act grants [the government] wide-ranging powers to scoop up and store all of our emails, texts, calls, location data and internet history. They can also hack into our phones and computers and create large ‘personal datasets’ on us – all without needing to suspect us of any criminal wrongdoing.

    Our online lives are not separate from our offline lives. Women and other marginalised genders already suffer from the chilling effect that online harassment and abuse causes. This readily results in them choosing not to participate in social media.

    The criminalisation of abortion, and the use of search histories as surveillance, set a disturbing precedent for safe access to abortion for British citizens – and feed directly into misogynistic attempts to silence and control women. 

    Featured image via Mikayla Mallek on Unsplash

    By temi lasade-anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.