A top Israeli university has found that Israel’s leaders and press have emptied the term antisemitism of meaning by using the it as a cheap tool to attack those critical of the settler-colonial state. Tel Aviv University’s global antisemitism report is truly damning — though not without its limitations in regard to Israel’s demonstrably genocidal actions. The assessment even called Israeli government and media behaviour “absurd”.

The study, titled ‘Antisemitism Worldwide; report for 2025‘, said:

Israeli politicians and media have, particularly in recent months, continuously expanded the scope of what qualifies as antisemitism, at times in absurd or hasty ways. In doing so, they do not win arguments or silence critics, as they perhaps believe; rather, they discredit a crucial fight by politicizing it and emptying it of analytic meaning.

The authors stipulated:

The label of antisemitism is harsh and should be applied only after careful consideration and based on solid criteria.

From an elite Israeli university this is particularly damning — even more so when you read the next passage:

The war crimes committed by Hamas justified an unwavering military campaign as well as
retribution against those responsible, including their accomplices. This, foremost, as a matter
of serving the cause of justice.

This historically dubious framing indicates strongly that the authors still hold to Israel’s colonialist state ideology. Claiming a genocidal assault on Palestinians is qualified by the 7 October attack as a pursuit of “justice” is beyond the pale. Yet even these scholars — with these views — concede that the Israeli press and media have diminished the term antisemitism to the level of absurdity.

Shut down the ministry!

In another section, the scholars blast the government of Israel for “draining” the term of meaning to such a degree that they caused harm to the fight against antisemitism:

The government did not carry out even a single significant and effective action and often caused harm. Israeli politicians at the highest levels steadily expanded the scope of the term ‘antisemitism,’ including through cynical and hasty declarations, drained it of meaning, and damaged the struggle against Jew-hatred.

They urged that the ministry for combating antisemitism, which has “failed in its mission”, should be closed:

and its authorities and budgets transferred to Israel’s embassies and consulates, because only ongoing contact, on the ground, with Jewish communities, law-enforcement authorities, and educators, carried out by professionals and based on attentive listening and determined activity, can contribute to the security of the communities.

There is strong sense that the report authors are liberal Zionists attacking the far-right Benyamin Netanyahu regime. But this arguably adds to its power given the withering tone of its findings. And the report also lays into the antisemitism of supporters of Netanyahu’s most high-profile backer: US president Donald Trump.

Trumpian antisemitism

The report’s framing is once again coloured by the author’s apparent commitment to Zionism. For example they say:

The Middle Eastern policies of Trump’s two administrations have so far been, as opposed to a number of careless and dangerous statements he made, by and large commendable.

By this they mean, for example, Trump’s first-term recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and his aggression towards Iran. Yet they still found:

Trump is also the president who has tolerated, as no contemporary president has, deep seated, loathsome antisemites within his camp, and continues to do so for cynical political reasons.

Adding:

The result is a new culture of everything-goes that is undermining the sense that Jews have had for decades that their future in America is secure.

The report shows us several things. One is that the Gaza genocide and Israeli aggression have caused a crisis at the heart of Zionism. Scholars like these are being forced to tie themselves in ideological knots to stay afloat. And it looks bloody obvious. Zionism’s worst enemy is itself. Because like any colonialist ethnonationalism, it cannot help but contradict itself.

Another is that, as many of us have long suspected, Zionists in Israel and their fellow travelers abroad have reduced a term which should be carefully and properly used to describe a vile form of racism to catch-all slur. And in doing so they have made it harder to face real antisemitism head-on — putting Jewish people in more danger.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Far-right propaganda outlets are salivating over a new immigration report from an investment bank – that’s mainly because it fearmongers about the Green Party, which has been surging in recent months and presenting a real challenge to Reform UK.

Because the actual report isn’t public, it can’t face proper outside scrutiny. But as a Green spokesperson insisted:

These figures are made up nonsense and we’ve been given no idea how they are calculated.

Green Party: ‘we won’t scapegoat migrants’

The report comes from Simon French, the “chief economist at Panmure Liberum”, which calls itself “the UK’s largest Independent Investment Bank”. And it claims that a Green election win in 2029 would push the country’s population from around 71.5 million to 75.9 million by 2034 (via net migration of about 900,000 a year).

French is a Times columnist who previously worked in government and “had a central role” in pushing through cuts. And he once wrote about “taking a chainsaw to red tape”. But right-wing rags hope we’ll just accept his estimates on immigration numbers without any scrutiny (as they did themselves).

The Green Party has refused to do so, though. Because a spokesperson told the Telegraph that, while it’s “not at all clear” how French got his figures, it looks like he based them:

apparently, on an ‘open borders’ approach, which is not our current policy

They stressed that:

The Greens support a fair and managed migration system – successive governments have presided over a broken and unjust system.

Responding to the Mail, meanwhile, a Green spokesperson placed the focus firmly on economic injustice, saying:

People are concerned about the impacts of immigration because of a massive affordability crisis, but unlike other parties we won’t scapegoat migrants for the unfairness created by our rigged economic system.

An investment bank wouldn’t want you railing against the economic system, would it?

Despite not knowing where French got his numbers from, we do know that even the Tories brought net migration up to 944,000 in 2023. So even if we believed French’s prediction, it wouldn’t be the kind of number the UK has never seen before.

It’s important to remember, of course, that people from other countries contribute strongly to our economy (something the Green Party has openly insisted). It’s also important to remember why immigration happens at all. Because as the Canary has previously explained, the UK has:

• An ageing population.
• Low birth rates.
• Skills shortages.
• A massive underinvestment problem.
• A longstanding addiction to destructive interference abroad which has played a big part in pushing people out of their homes in the first place.

As Green Party leader Zack Polanski has made completely clear, the focus of our rage should not be on ordinary people seeking a new life in the UK. It should be on the putrid economic system that, for at least five decades, has been decimating communities across the country via public spending cuts, with devastating consequences.

In December 2025, Polanski insisted:

We shouldn’t have a race to the bottom on migration. We should have a race to the top on public services!

He’s absolutely right. But investment banks and elitist propaganda outlets are happy with the way the current economic system works, so it shouldn’t surprise us in the slightest that they prefer to spread hate and fear rather than compassion and hope.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

Under state ownership, Iranians pay so little for oil consumption it’s actually a problem. This is somewhat amusing given it shows that nationalisation can dramatically reduce people’s energy bills. Just in Iran’s situation, the price is too low, meaning the government should take more profit and invest it in industries such as education and healthcare.

As a disclaimer for those jumping the gun, this article focuses on only this aspect of Iranian policy, it’s not upholding the overall system of an authoritarian theocracy.

Why is energy so cheap in Iran?

State ownership combined with government subsidies means Iranians pay as little as £0.021 per litre of fuel. The average global price is £1.09, demonstrating how remarkably inexpensive Iranian oil is.

Of course, the cheap oil is also partly because Iran has the third largest reserves in the world.

The issue is that such cheap energy leads to overconsumption. It’s why even under public ownership, finite resources should not be free or too cheap.

Iran’s energy intensity index is one of the highest globally. Plus, 20% of Iran’s daily consumption is made up of oil smuggled abroad and sold to other countries because of the low price at home.

Low cost energy means reduced expenditure for agriculture, delivery and for businesses and people. It’s generally a good thing. But rather than making it too low, profit can be used for public investment in other areas.

Before privatisation, nationalised energy in the UK made significant profit for the public purse, meaning the government can spend more with less risk of inflation.

Green energy over oil

That said, it’s clear that renewable energy is not only cheaper to produce but addresses the climate crisis. We need to move away from oil, no matter what the corporate and state luddites say.

In 2025, Earth Overshoot Day landed on 25 July. That’s the day when, globally, we use the amount of resources that the planet can replenish for the next year — our ecological budget.

This is largely due to consumption of fossil fuels. If we changed to 100% renewables globally, which is entirely possible, it would bring the date back six months.

But Iran does show how much state (or common) ownership can reduce prices for individuals in a society. Amusingly, it’s actually too cheap.

Featured image via the Canary

By James Wright

Source link

In the runup to the local elections, we’ve been reporting on the horrorshow that is Reform UK’s campaign. Most of our articles have focused on candidate controversies, and these stories have somehow gotten worse and worse by the day.

For the latest example of this, we present Aaron Lee Taylor:

NEW: ‘Hitler was right’, says one of Reform’s top activists, Aaron Lee Taylor

Taylor has campaigned from Reform’s head office and twice met Nigel Farage, has frequently shared material online that promotes Nazi Germany.https://t.co/om5KugSPN9

Advertisement

— HOPE not hate (@hopenothate) April 14, 2026

That’s Adolf Hitler, by the way.

The worst Hitler.

The worst person full stop, arguably.

Come and join the Reform UK Party

As Hope not Hate have reported:

Aaron Lee Taylor, who volunteered in Reform’s head office and twice met Nigel Farage has frequently shared material online that promotes Nazi Germany.

Here’s an example of the sort of thing he was posting:

This is something Taylor tweeted on 1 November 2025:

If it’s black send it back

If it’s brown shoot it down

If it’s white it’s perfectly alright (to stay in the UK)

These posts were from late last year. Earlier this year, he began volunteering at Reform’s HQ and taking pics with the top brassHope not Hate added:

His most recent post in support of Reform was on April 3rd, when he shared an Easter message from the party. We understand that he is now no longer a member of the party. What remains unclear is why Reform appealed to Taylor, an unabashed fan of Hitler.

Yes, very unclear.

We probably shouldn’t be laughing about the UK’s leading political party being up to its elbows in Nazis, but there are two things that could be described as darkly amusing:

• Reform’s laughable vetting process (which they assure us exists).
• The fact that Aaron Lee Taylor is a completely ridiculous figure.

The following image shows Nigel Farage meeting Taylor at the activist’s tanning salon:

That’s right – ultra-racist Aaron Lee Taylor has his own tanning salon.

Saying that, we suppose he’s far from the only orange supremacist in the world:

Does anyone believe Trump‘s BS explanation for posting himself as Jesus Christ?

“Well it wasn’t depicted… It was me, I did post it. And I thought it was me as a doctor and had to do with Red Cross. There is a Red Cross worker there that we support and only the FAKE NEWS could… pic.twitter.com/TwDTvSWnwe

Advertisement

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) April 13, 2026

Vetting away with it

As Hope not Hate reported, Zia Yusuf said in March that Reform have “the best vetting in the country”. Here’s a picture of Yusuf with Aaron Lee Taylor (tweet taken from Taylor’s Twitter feed):

We’re well aware that Reform’s vetting is non-existent, because we’ve reported the following:

• Reform candidate wants to ‘tear down’ the NHS.
• Reform candidate exposed as a horny nincompoop.
• Another Reform candidate has praised Enoch Powell.
• Reform UK accused of ‘nil vetting’ as another racist candidate exposed.
• Video emerges of Reform’s ‘Nazi salute’ candidate drink driving.

To be fair, ‘non-existent’ is the charitable reading of this nonsense ‘vetting’ process.

The less charitable takeaway would be that this bunch of racists are purposefully enlisting the absolute worst of the worst.

Featured image via Hope not Hate

By Willem Moore

Source link

Source link

Source link

Iran’s national football team plans to participate in the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the US despite ongoing military and political tensions.

The national team coach, Amir Ghalenoei, told the Iranian news agency, IRNA:

There is currently no reason preventing us from participating. God willing, we will participate.

He added that the Iranian Football Federation is actively continuing preparations, including playing friendly matches in preparation for the tournament.

In the same context, Iran sports minister, Ahmad Doniamali, expressed optimism about the possibility of participation, provided the ceasefire between the warring parties holds.

He said:

The more normal the situation becomes, the more likely participation is.

Doniamali added, in statements carried by IRNA on Monday, that “the more normal the situation becomes, the more likely participation is”, indicating that the decision is linked to political and security stability.

Iran prioritises player and coaching staff safety

In the same context, the national team coach stressed the need to ensure the safety of the players and coaching staff should the tournament be held in the US, given the current circumstances.

These developments coincide with direct negotiations held in Islamabad between Iran and the US at the end of last week, which failed to produce any tangible results.

The final decision regarding participation is expected to be referred to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

US president, Donald Trump, had expressed doubts about Iran’s participation in the World Cup, while reports indicated that FIFA rejected an Iranian proposal to move the team’s matches to Mexico.

Iran’s national team is scheduled to play its group stage matches against Belgium, New Zealand and Egypt in Seattle and Los Angeles.

Featured image via the Gulf Observer

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Democrats running for the Senate posted some massive fundraising hauls in the first quarter.

The most striking number so far came from Texas. James Talarico brought in an eye-popping $27 million over the past three months, his campaign announced Wednesday morning ahead of today’s Federal Election Commission deadline, including $10 million since he won his March 3 primary.

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff raised more than $14 million in the first quarter, according to his campaign. In North Carolina, former Gov. Roy Cooper raised $13.8 million. In Alaska, former Rep. Mary Peltola brought in $8.9 million, while former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown raised $12.5 million in his comeback bid.

The hauls, several of which set records in their respective states, underscore how Democrats are feeling increasingly bullish about their ability to flip the Senate. While Democrats still face an uphill climb due to the red lean of many states on the Senate map, President Donald Trump’s tanking approval ratings and the unpopularity of the ongoing war in Iran has the party feeling optimistic ahead of the midterms.

Democrats facing competitive primaries did not report as strong numbers, as donors split among several candidates. In Michigan, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow brought in $3 million, slightly ahead of Abdul El-Sayed’s $2.2 million. Rep. Haley Stevens, the third candidate in the race, has not yet revealed her fundraising numbers ahead of the FEC deadline on Wednesday. Iowa’s two Democratic candidates, state Rep. Josh Turek and state Sen. Zach Wahls, each raised $1.1 million in the past quarter.

Source link

On 14 April, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced that it had submitted its latest attempt at a ‘single-sex spaces’ code of practice to parliament. The news comes a year after the Supreme Court ruled that ‘woman’ is defined by sex-assigned-at-birth under the Equality Act.

Women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson subsequently announced that she will release the new code in May. Ostensibly, and quite conveniently, the latest delay is intended

The transphobic ‘rights watchdog’ was forced to redraft its previous guidance, which called to ban trans people from both spaces aligned with their gender and, sometimes, their sex.

Given its previous abortive attempts, the EHRC’s latest code looks likely to be another anti-trans shitshow.

EHRC: ‘a narrow set of comments’

On 14 April, EHRC chair Mary-Ann Stephenson announced that:

Progress is being made towards accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 being available to service providers, associations and those exercising public functions.

The UK government recently provided us with a narrow set of comments on the draft Code of Practice we submitted in September. Having considered this feedback alongside consultation responses and further legal analysis, we have made adjustments where they help the Code provide legally accurate, practical guidance that is useful to duty bearers.

That “narrow set of comments” presumably related to the ridiculous suggestion that service providers should guess at people’s trans status based on appearance and behavior. This was unworkable for a host of reasons, not least because there’s no legal way to establish whether or not an individual is trans.

Following the EHRC’s announcement, women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson said:

This government has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. The Supreme Court’s ruling last year brought clarity for women and service providers such as hospitals and refuges, and made clear that protections for trans people remain in the Equality Act.

That “based on biological sex” bit is a bare-faced lie. In fact, the Labour Manifesto previously pledged to make it easier to legally change one’s sex. The party quietly abandoned this promise because of pressure from the far right.

‘Getting it right’

Philipson continued:

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is the independent equality regulator and ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Their Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps service providers should take to comply with the law. We share the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring duty bearers have accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 including in the light of the recent Court rulings.

Those “recent court rulings” include a decision that it is still discriminatory to ban trans people from single-sex facilities aligned with their gender. The fact that the EHRC got this so badly wrong is also proof that Philipson’s claim that the original anti-trans ruling brought “clarity” is another lie.

The women’s minister concluded by adding that:

The government received the updated draft on 13 April. The Code will apply across Great Britain and as we are currently in the pre-election period for the devolved administrations, we are unable to make further announcements on this matter at this time. However, we are taking urgent action to meet our intention of laying the Code in May and as soon as practicable after the election period, for Parliamentary scrutiny.

We are getting it right, showing leadership by implementing the clarity the Supreme Court ruling delivers.

Before an election, ministers observe a ‘period of sensitivity‘. For the Scottish election, this began on 26 March. During this time, MPs should “carefully consider” any primary legislation relating to the devolved government. Further than this:

For Scotland and Wales it is not possible for the respective executives to seek their legislature’s consent for provisions in UK Government Bills that require Legislative Consent Motions during the election period as the legislatures will either be in recess or dissolved.

This is significant because the new code will have to be laid before parliament for 40 days before it becomes law. However, both MPs and Lords can prevent this by passing a motion to reject it.

Laughable claims of ‘clarity’

Beyond the stipulations of the period of sensitivity, the delay is highly convenient in a purely political sense. Namely, whatever Philipson actually comes out with, it’s likely to see her torn to shreds.

The deeply bigoted anti-trans pressure groups will be outraged that they’re not seeing the full bathroom ban they felt was coming. Meanwhile, queer and trans rights groups have been vocal about the fact that Philipson cannot possibly ‘get it right’, as she put it.

Alex Parmar-Yee, of the Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, put it plainly:

The only workable solution is to protect the norm of trans-inclusive provision across the country, in line with international human rights standards and Labour’s own promises to the trans community.

Likewise, trans advocacy and education group TransActual stated that:

Bridget Phillipson’s claim that the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex in the Equality Act delivered ‘clarity’ is laughable. The ruling a year ago led to mass confusion, inspired disjointed and discriminatory policies, and created a workers rights crisis for trans people by causing trans people to be outed at work, with some prevented from doing their job at all. The ruling and the draft Code of Practice both inspired institutional and vigilante harassment of cis and trans people based on their perceived gender.

Jess O’Thomson, trans rights lead at the Good Law Project, said:

The EHRC has been gaslighting us for a year, insisting publicly and repeatedly that their legal analysis was unimpeachable. Now it’s clear that they got the law wrong, and they’ve been told to fix the guidance they tried to force through last year. It shouldn’t have taken this long for the EHRC to do its job.

For now, trans communities are faced with yet another long wait. The Commons will return after the State Opening of Parliament on 13 May. It will then break for recess on 21 May.

We don’t know what Philipson and the EHRC’s latest attempt will bring. Until the code is finally published, our place in society remains balanced on a knife edge.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

If you’re remotely interested in lip tints, listen up – because I’d bet my bottom dollar that I’ve found your new favourite.

K-beauty brand Laneige launched its Juice Pop Box Lip Tints in the UK in March, to a decent amount of fanfare online.

Well, I’m here to tell you that the hype is very much warranted.

I tried the shade Mocha Remix, a semi-sheer plummy brown. While at first it goes on quite thinly, looking a bit like a wine-stain (only more chic), if you layer it up, it soon builds to a much deeper colour.

Advertisement

This is ideal for me, since it means I can wear it differently depending on my mood.

Its staying power is seriously impressive – you can couple a few layers of it, eat a good meal, and forget about it for hours before you notice your lip colour hasn’t budged.

Unlike lots of other lip products I’ve tried in my time, you can apply it on the go without looking with total ease.

Aidan trying the Laniege tip tint

And what’s more, it feels super nourishing on the lips, thanks to the ‘Water-Oil Remix Technology’, polypeptide, and ceramides boosting the tint’s moisturising and firming formula.

Advertisement

My only minor critique is that, after spending most of the day wearing it, the colour tends to sink into the natural creases in my lips, and I like to add a quick layer of some clear lip balm to even things out again.

But all in all, between the lovely shade, the tint’s versatility, and how very easy it is to use, it’s an ideal option for everyday wear.

At £20, it’s not the most budget-friendly buy in the entire world, but it’s very far from the most expensive too.

Further to that, in my humble opinion, it’s worth every penny.

Advertisement

Source link