Liberal Democrat MP and environment spokesperson Sarah Dyke has led a cross‑party letter to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). It calls on the government to bring forward mandatory, clear and consistent animal welfare labelling on meat products. And it urges stronger enforcement against misleading claims in food marketing.

22 cross-party MPs and peers signed the letter to Angela Eagle, minister for food security and rural affairs. Leading animal welfare organisations are supporting it. They include the Animal Law Foundation, Compassion in World Farming and Humane World for Animals UK.

Clarity over animal welfare

The signatories urge Defra to implement fairer food labelling without delay. They say clearer standards would reward responsible farmers, restore trust in food labels, and strengthen the UK’s reputation for high animal welfare standards. These are criteria that must sit at the heart of the government’s food strategy.

The MPs and Peers warn that misleading and inconsistent labelling is preventing shoppers from making informed choices and undermining animal welfare. Polling commissioned by Humane World for Animals UK found that two-thirds of UK consumers mistakenly believe that common labels such as “welfare assured” protect animals from common cruel practices, such as caging and gassing.

Reports from the Food Standards Agency show that over 70% of consumers care deeply about animal welfare. Yet the current labelling system offers little clarity about the reality of how animals such as pigs, cows and chickens are farmed.

The UK-EU relationship

The UK-EU agrifood trade deal, currently under negotiation, will cut red tape and ease food trade. But it could also bind the UK to ongoing alignment with EU meat labelling laws.

Charities are urging the government to secure clear carve-outs that would ensure that the UK could unilaterally adopt a method of production labelling. The agreement is expected to be finalised later this year in order to enter into force in mid 2027.

The letter cites the government’s own 2024 Fairer Food Labelling consultation. This showed overwhelming public support for mandatory method‑of‑production labelling, with 99 per cent of respondents in favour.

Defra’s impact assessment found that such measures could improve the lives of 111 million animals on farms. They could deliver a net societal benefit of £140m over ten years, and increase UK farmers’ profits by more than £46m a year.

Dyke is the MP for Glastonbury and Somerton and the Liberal Democrats’ rural affairs spokesperson. She said:

People want to buy food that matches their values, but right now it’s too easy for shoppers to be misled by vague welfare claims on meat products that are masking low-welfare practices like caging.

This is not fair on families trying to make informed choices or on farmers who are trying to improve their standards.

The government must act without delay to introduce clear, consistent, mandatory method-of-production labelling and to enforce existing consumer protection laws. Shoppers, farmers and animals all deserve markets to be driven by the truth, not marketing spin.

Advertisement

Claire Bass, senior director of campaigns and public affairs at Humane World for Animals UK, said:

Mandatory animal welfare labelling would present facts rather than marketing spin on supermarket shelves. If consumers are able to make informed buying choices that reflect their values, market forces could play a decisive role in driving genuinely higher welfare standards in farming.

But lockstep alignment with EU labelling laws will massively constrain the UK’s freedom to protect consumers and animals from ‘welfare washing’. We urge the government to prioritise SPS [UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement] carve-outs that preserve the UK’s right to mandate meat labelling in the interests of consumers, farmers and animals.

The relevant regulators and law enforcement bodies also need adequate resources and direction to ensure the enforcement of existing laws to prevent the misinformation that surrounds animal farming and animal products in the UK.

Edie Bowles, executive director of The Animal Law Foundation said:

Consumer protection, media and advertising laws exist to protect the public and consumers from being given misleading or partial information. But there is a clear compliance issue where data from The Animal Law Foundation shows 100% of supermarkets and 100% of TV shows use images and footage of healthy animals outside, yet in reality 85% are kept on factory farms.

Just as regulators are cracking down on greenwashing, we need urgent action to address ‘humane-washing’ in animal agriculture. Consumers and the public must be able to trust the claims made and authorities must ensure that those who partake in misleading practices are held to account.

Anthony Field, head of compassion in World Farming UK, said:

The vast majority of UK farmed animals are reared in factory farms, but this shocking fact is frequently hidden behind misleading food labels. Idyllic images of healthy farmyard animals, picturesque countryside or meaningless phrases like ‘farm fresh’ or ‘all natural’ provide a false sense of security and conceal the truth.

Britain is a nation of animal lovers and consumers deserve to know what really lies behind the label. The government’s own research has shown that mandatory method of production labelling would be more profitable for farmers as well as benefiting the UK economy and the welfare of hundreds of millions of farmed animals.

The government must introduce honest labelling to improve transparency and support higher welfare farmers.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

The London borough of Newham will see a direct face-off between Greens and Newham Independents in the 2026 local election. Both parties will seek to eat away at Labour’s longstanding domination in the area, and the council could realistically switch to “no overall control” — a scenario in which no single party secures a majority of council seats.

Double push against Labour in Newham

Newham Independents — who have received an endorsement from Your Party — are currently the main opposition but the Greens are close behind. Both have claimed they’re “the only party” able to defeat Labour locally.

However, in a borough where around 50 percent of residents live in poverty, why isn’t there a progressive coalition to defeat Labour outright? One possible answer is that the area is highly diverse and where the far-right has no chance. Opposition groups are fighting it out to see which challenger to the left of Labour has the best chance of prevailing in Newham.

The BBC reported earlier in April that:

The borough’s directly-elected mayor has significant powers over local services such as housing, including local regeneration schemes and affordable housing targets, planning and waste collection.

The main candidates challenging Forhad Hussain, the Labour candidate, are Newham Independents councillor Mehmood Mirza and Green councillor Areeq Chowdhury.

Mirza and the Newham independents

Mirza, a self-described socialist, has called out Labour’s wastefulness in office, asserting that:

Reform & Labour are two sides of the same rotten system that has been failing residents for decades!

Labour’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and warmongering throughout the Middle East is another burning issue for Mirza, insisting that:

Britain must stand for international law, diplomacy, and democratic accountability

Newham Independents have also emphasised the effort they’ve put into challenging Labour ahead of the vote:

The numbers speak for themselves, we will work tirelessly every day of every week of every month to serve you the people of Newham.

Vote Newham Independents on May 7th pic.twitter.com/31C7IAFp0B

— Newham Independents (@NewhamIndParty) April 17, 2026

They’ve also outlined in a manifesto the priority issues they would tackle if elected, such as:

• Freezing council tax
• Ensuring all secondary school children get free school meals
• Introducing free first parking permits
• Offering “a no-charge bulky waste collection”
• Improving public spaces like parks

Our Little Ilford park is a direct link to crime & antisocial behaviour

Neglected parks often become hotspots for:
   •   Drug use
   •   Vandalism
   •   Intimidation and loitering
This is backed by the “broken windows theory” when an area looks abandoned, it signals that no… pic.twitter.com/yQMzOhTzAf

Advertisement

— Tahir Mirza 4 East Ham (@TahirMirzaPTI) March 31, 2026

A full list of Newham Independents candidates can be accessed here.

Chowdhury and the Greens

Riding the wave of increasing Green popularity across the country, Chowdhury has called the Newham elections “a straightforward choice” between Labour and the Greens. The councillor has also been receiving high-profile support from within the party.

Chowdhury has highlighted a council house controversy surrounding Labour candidate Hussain, and called into question Labour’s reliability after the leak of its manifesto. He has also underrated and ignored the Newham Independents, despite admitting they “will do well in some wards“.

Locally, the Greens have three key missions:

to ensure we have the best possible environment to live in; to root out corruption at Newham Council; and to radically reform Newham’s housing department, so that it serves residents properly.

Their manifesto also insists that:

If elected, Green Party councillors and I will meet regularly with community groups, campaigners, academic experts, and residents to consider further ways to support our communities and achieve the three key missions.

The main plan, it stresses, is to:

alleviate poverty, drastically improve our environment, and tackle the housing crisis

The Green Party's manifesto, published today, sets out our plan to build a Newham we can be proud of.https://t.co/nxL2CpLfZl pic.twitter.com/2fpp3J5Ca1

— Areeq Chowdhury (@AreeqChowdhury) April 16, 2026

Is an anti-Labour coalition possible?

Labour seems to be fully aware of the challenge it’s facing in Newham, sending numerous high-profile figures to campaign in the borough. But it might feel the burn even more if the opposition on the left were more unified and less fractious.

As the Canary has previously reported, it’s perfectly possible for left-wing independents and Greens to collaborate and challenge Labour together via a cooperative alliance. And with some people in Newham predicting a strong result for independents, an anti-Labour coalition would certainly seem like common sense.

Newham Independents and Greens have a lot in common. But for now, they’re competing with each other to end Labour’s domination.

Hopefully, once the election results are in, there’ll be more cooperation across the left to bring the people of Newham the meaningful change they deserve.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

Israeli occupation forces (IOF) have been told to kill Lebanese civilians attempting to return to their stolen or destroyed homes in southern Lebanon during Israel’s ‘ceasefire’ with Iran.

The IOF: blaming the civilians it has displaced

According to Israeli media coverage, this is the fault of the desperate civilians, and their attempts to return home threaten the supposed ‘ceasefire’ – not the murderous actions of the occupation:

Despite IDF warnings, civilians in southern Lebanon are trying to cross into their villages, raising questions about the future of the ceasefire.

The IOF command’s orders to its troops are explicit:

IDF: ceasefire only applied North of the Litani River

This latest effort appeared to be directed at deterring Lebanese civilians who may have remained in or penetrated into southern Lebanon from nearby areas where the IDF is establishing new positions and clearing out Hezbollah weapons.

Advertisement

Although the IDF has given general orders to open fire within southern Lebanon even if an approaching unidentified person is not armed, based on the idea that there are no civilians left in southern Lebanon, this approach may be difficult to maintain over time.

Rather than denouncing it as a war crime, Israeli reports claim killing civilians is merely ‘controversial’. The IOF invaders have listed at least seventy villages in southern Lebanon where it will kill any civilians attempting to approach their homes.

Israel continues to breach the ceasefire – its classic ‘you cease, we fire’ crime – by bombing and shelling defensive Lebanese militia positions that have stood down in honour of the agreement. Israel had massively escalated its attacks on Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians, to sabotage Trump’s supposed two-week truce with Iran.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

A Green Party councillor in Reading has highlighted how his party pushed for a 10:1 pay ratio, but the Labour council found a way to avoid it.

In Reading we forced the Labour council to implement this for council employees, but now they circumvent it by hiring employees like cleaners through contractors as though they don't count. Still claim to be a 10:1 employer though. Cannot be trusted. https://t.co/UldMrmqL6x

— Cllr Dr Dave McElroy (@DaveJMcElroy) April 19, 2026

And of course telling us that they're sorry, but it's pretty much out of their control when we raise it.

— Cllr Dr Dave McElroy (@DaveJMcElroy) April 20, 2026

The Green Party is pushing for:

the introduction of a 10:1 pay ratio which would help increase wages for those on lower incomes while limiting the salaries of high-paid executives.

The party wants this popular measure in order to:

end the ‘normalisation’ of food banks and tackle the ‘affordability crisis’.

Other measures include energy bill support, free school meals, rent controls, and a customs union with the EU.

The High Pay Centre and Equality Trust have previously insisted that a 10:1 pay ratio would help:

to tackle an economy that prioritises excessive rewards at the top over sustainable investment and fair wages

New Economics Foundation project Change the Rules, meanwhile, has said such a ratio is necessary because of the:

toxic levels of inequality which damages people and imposes significant costs on society.

Green Party ‘leading the way’ in opposition on Reading Council

In 2025, Reading Council Green Party leader Rob White said in a letter that his party had “led the way” on this issue because it:

successfully pushed for the council to agree to a 10:1 pay ratio. That means the top council officer cannot earn more than ten times the lowest-paid worker. This is about fairness, respect, and recognising the contribution of every worker.

As “the main opposition party”, the Greens made a difference. And the council website states that:

We aim to maintain a ratio of no more than 1:10 between our lowest and highest paid staff.

But as Green Councillor Dave McElroy said the Labour council avoids implementing this properly:

by hiring employees like cleaners through contractors as though they don’t count.

This is a tactic Greens elsewhere in the country are familiar with too:

Yeah Labour here outsourced the toilet cleaners, longer hours and shite pay.

When we took administration out Cllrs brought them back in house and raised their pay.

— Alexander Louis Sallons (@sallonsax) April 20, 2026

McElroy stressed that the pledge to back the 10:1 pay ratio is very popular, apart from among people intent on:

leaping to the defense of the masters

This 10:1 palaver is triggering all the right people and giving hope to the rest of us.

Always stunned by the amount of people leaping to the defense of the masters they seem to love more than they love themselves. pic.twitter.com/ZxFvgxRWra

— Cllr Dr Dave McElroy (@DaveJMcElroy) April 15, 2026

Advertisement

And with a long list of Green candidates from Reading and beyond also pledging to oppose austerity at a local level, the Greens really are outflanking Labour from the left.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

According to new polling from Ipsos, more than half of Londoners are considering a switch to the Green Party. This is good news for it, but it’s also a sign that they need to keep fighting to earn every vote.

Excl: Half of Londoners are considering voting for Zack Polanski's Green Party in the upcoming local elections according to new polling by @Ipsos, shared with the @NewStatesman pic.twitter.com/p1O0lJ0kwk

— megan kenyon (@meganekenyon) April 21, 2026

And this isn’t the only positive poll for the Greens either.

The Green Party on the up

As Kenyon notes, the Gorton & Denton by-election proved to voters that the Green Party aren’t a wasted vote. That by-election showed us something else too; namely that polling tends to underestimate the Green Party.

The following was the final tally in Gorton & Denton:

Gorton and Denton by-election result:

Grn: 40.7% (+27.5)
Ref: 28.7% (+14.6)
Lab: 25.4% (-25.4)
Con: 1.9% (-6.0)
Lib: 1.8% (-2.0)

Green GAIN from Labour (26.5% swing) pic.twitter.com/s49MGW8Uom

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) February 27, 2026

In the runup to election day, some polls had the Greens in the lead, but they didn’t have them outperforming the runner up by 12 percentage points:

Final estimate for Gorton and Denton:

Grn: 31% (+18)
Ref: 28% (+14)
Lab: 27% (-24)

Green GAIN from Labour (+/- vs GE2024) pic.twitter.com/xO5zyhef02

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) February 26, 2026

While the latest poll is good news, leader Zack Polanski is urging his fellow Green Party members to keep up the energy:

This is all really promising – but there's no space for complacency at all. Nothing is certain.

We will be out campaigning for every single vote in the next couple of weeks.

Join us: https://t.co/Q27Jy5eX7z https://t.co/2MqpRPGOlW

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) April 21, 2026

The Greens have had other favourable polls too:

There’s a scenario here where the Greens gain more seats than reform on May 7th??

That would be absolutely wild. More in common polls don’t even usually put the Greens as high as other pollsters. https://t.co/iyf8mb8tMP

— Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) April 21, 2026

Advertisement

In full, the post Gardner is replying to reads:

More in Common Locals Seat Projection Scenarios:

Low Estimate:
Reform: +1,273
Green: +573
Lib Dem: +148
Labour: -1,867
Conservative: -692

Middle Estimate:
Reform: +1,437
Green: +926
Lib Dem: +327
Labour: -1,738
Conservative: -627

Advertisement

High Estimate:
Green: +1,741
Reform: +1,603
Lib Dem: +503
Labour: -1,597
Conservative: -368

Source:
@Moreincommon_
May 7 Briefing

In other words, the Greens could do well in May, or they could do really well, or they could do really, really fucking well.

The poll story

Of course, polls don’t actually predict the future, and not every poll is brilliant for the Green Party. As we reported earlier today, the latest YouGov poll presents a favourable picture for Reform, but they also had positive predictions in Gorton & Denton.

The Greens are clearly persuading voters that they’re worth considering, and that’s a victory regardless of how many seats they ultimately win.

We deserve better.

And we can vote for it on May 7th. https://t.co/SLQItLk61O

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) April 17, 2026

Advertisement

Featured image via Barold

By Willem Moore

Source link

In the retrial of six activists charged under the ‘Filton 24‘ case, the defence begins its case on 21 April. This comes after jurors have seen images of the damage caused to Israeli military equipment and weapons in the Filton site.

The prosecution alleges that the six activists caused millions of pounds’ worth of damage during an August 2024 ‘raid’ of the premises. The site is owned and operated by Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons firm.

The images form part of the jury bundle, and are viewable here.

Together, the pictures demonstrate the extent of damage caused to Israeli military drones and drone controllers, computer equipment, and facilities.

After a prior trial from November 2025 to February 2026 returned acquittals on nine charges and no verdicts on ten, the retrial commencing this week is on a reduced list of charges.

Speaking in the previous trial, defendant Zoe Rogers described having seen footage of Elbit’s ‘THOR’ drone model deployed in Gaza. This is the same drone which is shown damaged after the action at the Elbit factory. Rogers spoke about how Israeli forces use these drones in Gaza to drop explosive grenades, which shoot out pellets which bounce around in bodies, ripping through multiple organs.

The activists are facing trial on charges of criminal damage. In the first trial, all six were acquitted by jury of aggravated burglary, and three of violent disorder, with the CPS subsequently acquitting the other three of the charge. One defendant, Samuel Corner, faces an additional charge of GBH with intent for which no verdict was returned previously.

Featured image (enhanced) supplied

By The Canary

Source link

Ten years ago, Leicester City commenced building its status as the club with the most strident and uplifting story in modern football.

This sports entity that had once been marooned in League One rose through the divisions, built a team of improbable champions, and produced a Premier League title that felt like an act against the sport’s natural order. Their performance became a moment that seemed to rewrite what was known as possible in football.

Leicester wasn’t just winning; they were redefining the landscape.

Now the story is changing direction. The club that once seemed unstoppable through its ability to redefine gravity laws is now learning how fast things can fall apart.

Leicester, relegation and 2023

Leicester City’s struggle commenced with relegation from the Premier League in 2023 and having to stumble through the Championship with the weight of financial strain and a lack of institutional direction. To further the doom, they now face the unthinkable: back-to-back relegations and a drop to the third tier, marking an ending few thought would come this soon.

This is not a collapse that presented itself in a vacuum. Instead, it is the product of years of eroding circumstances, some visible and some hidden, all converging at once. Prompting the theory that Leicester’s decline is due to a series of small fractures that eventually split the club open.

The first signs of trouble surfaced in the years after the title. Leicester maintained an attempt to grow into a club built for Europe, but the margins were thin. Recruitment, which once was their greatest strength, began to misfire, causing the stream that delivered Kanté, Mahrez and Vardy to run dry.

It became a vicious circle as their success raised expectations, expectations drove spending, and spending increased the risk. When the Champions League income disappeared, their model began to falter.

Arguably, the pandemic years accelerated the decline. Leicester doubled down on a squad that was ageing, expensive and increasingly brittle. With the club’s wage bill having ballooned and margins shrunk, the slide further inclined leading to an inevitable dip in results. The entire structure felt exposed.

Prem League expectations, Championship weaknesses

By the time the 2022–23 season unravelled, Leicester became a club caught between eras: too talented to be in a relegation fight, yet too fragile to escape one.

Dropping into the Championship was meant to forward their reset. It offered the club a platform to rebuild their identity, refresh the squad and rediscover the clarity that once defined them. Instead, the second tier became a trap as financial restrictions tightened. The squad remained uneven and the pressure to return immediately became suffocating. As the season wore on, the club’s once defining confidence evaporated.

Many overlook that the Championship is a brutal environment to clubs who arrive with Premier League expectations but Championship vulnerabilities. Leicester were caught in that in-between: top-flight infrastructure, second-tier doubt. For their entity, each defeat weighed more, each error cost more, and the aura that once shielded them subsequently vanished.

What makes this moment so striking is the symmetry of the events.

Will the Foxes save themselves before they slip?

Leicester was in League One in 2008–09, emerging from administration and years of poor management. Despite predictions, they rebuilt with purpose, rose with belief and reached heights few thought possible. That climb was not incidental and was prompted by a deep sense of clarity surrounding who they were, and who they were meant to be.

The current slide feels like the opposite. Not a collapse of effort but a collapse of direction. A club that once moved with certainty now moves with hesitation. Decisions feel reactive rather than strategic. The identity that once made Leicester unique — aggressive recruitment, fearless football, a unified structure — has blurred.

If Leicester drop into League One again, the consequences will be profound: a sharp financial blow, a broken-up squad, and long-term plans torn up and rewritten. Yet it would prompt a new chance to clear the slate, return to basics and rebuild their identity with the same clarity that once carried them forward. Because beneath the noise, Leicester remain a club with real potential: a strong academy, a loyal fanbase, a stadium that can still spark and a history of resilience.

They have rebuilt before and faith must be preserved in their ability to do it again. However, the next rebuild will demand what’s been missing in recent years: alignment, patience and the honesty to accept where they truly are.

Now, with the club on the edge of another drop, the tale feels less like a fairy story and more like a lesson where it is reaffirmed that in football, nothing lasts, neither success nor failure, not even miracles.

Featured image via PA/ Yui Mok

By Faz Ali

Source link

The post Can Reform stop Britain’s decline?, with David Frost appeared first on spiked.

Source link

On 19 April, the Guardian ran an interview with Kezia Dugdale, the former Scottish Labour leader turned new chair of Stonewall. Somehow, the article contained even more pathetic ‘both sidesing’ on trans rights than the phrase ‘Guardian article about an ex-Labour leader’ would suggest.

As we await the biggest rollback of queer rights in the UK since Section 28, let’s take a look at the quiet capitulation of the head of the world’s biggest LGB(TQ+) organisation.

‘Uncompromising position’

Regarding Dugdale’s appointment to Stonewall’s commanding role, the Guardian explained that:

Dugdale, who led Scottish Labour from 2015-17, will take up the unpaid position in six months. She takes charge after a turbulent period in which Stonewall lost more than half of its income and had to make dozens of staff redundant, in large part because of its uncompromising position on transgender rights.

The article that the Guardian linked to there doesn’t support this argument. Rather, it highlights the impact of Trump’s attacks on Diversity, Equality and Inclusions (DEI) funding, along with Stonewall’s internal restructuring.

In fact, it specifically cautions against blaming Stonewall’s support for trans causes. This framing, experts stated, “misses the wider context”. So, we must ask: what exactly is the thinking leftist’s transphobic rag of note setting us up for?

‘Not top of the list’

Let’s start with the Guardian asking Dugdale about Scotland’s gender self-ID laws. Dugdale stated that “I believed in it; I still do”. However, she also stated that self-ID was “not top of the list” of priorities for Stonewall. She added:

We are an LGBT organisation, of course we’re going to be there for trans people, so that’s integral to who we are and what we do. But our priorities now are very much focused on things like securing justice for military veterans and compensation for what they’ve endured. We’re currently working very hard to ensure that there’s a ban on conversion therapy in this country, which is incredibly important.

It’s worth bearing in mind that Holyrood passed its self-ID law. The then-Conservative Westminster government then intervened to block the legislation.

It doesn’t exactly bode well that Stonewall are allowing Tories to dictate their priorities, but whatever – at least they’re still opposed to conversion therapy.

It’s ‘possible’ that things could go backwards?

The article also quoted Dugdale stating that:

I think we have to be really careful not to think that all progress that we’ve made in recent times is cemented and absolute and that all we’ll ever get is progress.

It’s completely possible in this country that things could go backwards and there are now a lot of political actors that want to take us backwards. So a bit of my motivation comes from a place of fear and a bit comes from the place of hope, knowing that these battles can be won.

‘Completely possible’ that things ‘could’ go backwards, is it? So, did Dugdale miss the UK government implementing a bathroom ban for trans people? Is that not backwards enough to count? Do we not mind, so long as it’s ‘only’ trans, intersex, butch and gender-non-conforming people being targeted?

Dugdale told the Guardian that:

I feel myself just getting slightly more nervous about holding my wife’s hand or being affectionate in public or wondering what other people’s reaction to us is going to be, and I don’t like that feeling.

This, sadly, isn’t an unfamiliar sentiment. However, that hostility against lesbians has actively increased because of the turn against trans people in UK politics.

Transphobia and homophobia are both bigotries against people who reject the social script of out assigned sex – whether in who we love or how we present ourselves. Opposition to those forces must also be united, or it is doomed to failure.

On JK Rowling

The utter tone-deafness of Dugdale’s comments makes a good deal more sense when taken in the context of the praise she heaps on occasional writer and hobbyist bigot JK Rowling.

The Guardian asked Dugdale whether she understood trans people’s characterisation of Rowling’s rhetoric as “cruel and dehumanising”. The newly minted Stonewall chair replied:

I understand that and I’ve also heard JK Rowling and other people who hold a different position on these issues to me describe with a similar rawness how they’ve experienced being opposed for their views. And I just think, the days of these culture wars, about sitting in polar extremes from each other, should be behind us now.

If you listen closely, you can actually hear the Overton window shifting. Is the chair of Stonewall planning to decry the ‘rawness’ felt by homophobes next? Isn’t it terrible that Anita Bryant got a pie in the face just for calling gays “an abomination of god”?

Asked about JK Rowling’s opposition to trans rights, Dugdale said:

I have a huge respect for JK Rowling. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting her before and I think her story and how she came to be this prolific, incredible children’s writer in this city as a single mum writing in a cafe is phenomenal and an inspiration to so many women across the world.

I think she’s been a really powerful political advocate [for] improving the lot of single mums, making a case for tackling poverty and inequality in all its forms, and there is absolutely a place for her in public life to share her experiences and tell her story and make a difference.

LG(B)(…TQ+)

Rowling is actively funding anti-trans groups and lawfare against trans-inclusive organisations. So that ‘tackling inequality in all its forms’ is only true if you don’t give a shit about trans inequality.

Likewise, it’s not just trans people that Rowling has targeted. She’s also posted vehement tirades against asexuals and Intersexuality Awareness Day, as reported in Them: 

Rowling denigrated the day of awareness – founded by community advocates in 2021 – as “International Fake Oppression Day” while sharing an image in recognition of the day from the U.K.-based LGBTQ+ support line Switchboard. In replies to her supporters, Rowling proceeded to describe ace folks as “straight people who don’t fancy a quickie,” wondered at how an asexual person would know if they are gay (it’s almost like sexual and romantic attraction are different things, Jo!), and “joked” that she would like to observe an international “Bored of This Shit Day.”

Similarly, Rowling has made a habit of attacking sportswomen over their perceived trans or intersex status.  Algerian boxer Imane Khelif filed a complaint against Rowling for one such harassment campaign. Rowling repeatedly called the boxer “he” and insinuated that she enjoyed brutalising women.

Rowling is only a warrior against inequality if you consider the trans, intersex and asexual communities she has attacked as being beneath your notice. This is precisely the kind of shit we’ve come to expect from Labour politicians, but it’s deeply disappointing from the chair of fucking Stonewall.

Stonewall, at least in theory, is an LGBTQ+ advocacy organisation. Dugdale would do well to remember that there are more letters after the first couple – and that we’re stronger when we stand together, in full voice.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

This article is part of a series looking at the British media’s smear campaign against the Green Party in the May 2026 elections

On 15 April, we reported that Labour gasbag Steve Reed was accusing the Greens of antisemitism. This was despite the antisemitism smear perpetrated by the Labour right having lost any impact. It was also despite Reed having antisemitism accusations of his own.

Since then, Reed has doubled down on the slanderous accusations. The result has been more criticism of Reed and still no impact on the Greens:

Steve Reed would not be allowed to join the Green Party due to known past antisemitic views. https://t.co/3ogOSN7LTY

— Dr Iain Darcy (@doctoriaindarcy) April 20, 2026

Smear merchant

To be clear, when we describe Reed’s actions as an ‘antisemitism smear‘, what we mean is that he’s concocting allegations for political purposes.

In the video above, an unsettlingly wide-eyed Reed talks about an alleged antisemite who was “exposed” by the Spectator – a right-wing shitrag.

According to Reed, this candidate posted a meme which featured a venomous snake wrapped around the world. Reed highlights that this snake had the Star of David on it. What he fails to mention is that the snake is actually wrapped in the Israeli flag – a flag which prominently displays the Star of David.

Reed fails to mention this, of course, because there’s obviously a big difference between criticising Israel and criticising Judaism.

A person can still take offence with criticism of Israel if they like, although fewer are choosing to do so. This is especially the case since Israel kickstarted the war on Iran, with disastrous consequences for the global economy.

Reed faces pushback

People laid into Reed for his latest intervention, anyway. Ex-BBC employee David McNab said:

Still banging the ‘any criticism if Israel is antisemitic’ bs I see. Just like WW1 generals, the Labour Party have run out of ideas and are going to die on that hill.

Journalist Richard Sanders said:

Steve Reed embodies a particularly distasteful feature of Starmer’s Labour Party – non-Jews who believe they have a God-given right to designate Jews they disagree with about Israel antisemites.

The Fraud details how he led a purge of left wing Jews shortly after Starmer became leader.

If white people roamed the Labour Party expelling black people as Uncle Toms we would be absolutely appalled. When and how did this become acceptable?

You can read that passage on Steve Reed in The Fraud here.

Lads the corrupt racist who backs a genocide and is linked to Labour pedophiles is trying the antisemitism smears agst a Jewish man

Not happy with sabotaging their own side. They want to try and do it to @ZackPolanski https://t.co/SQFpulg2B0 https://t.co/EtfnZpP9ju

— jan (@smerkinkones) April 21, 2026

Media smears

As people highlighted, the Spectator has been pulled up for concocted antisemitism accusations before:

The Spectator? Isn’t that the rag once edited by Alexander de Feffel Johnson whose novel is dripping with antisemitic tropes and which had to pay compensation to a man falsely accused of antisemitism in an article by its journalist who was cited in Anders Breivik’s manifesto? pic.twitter.com/eU1K4kmRGC

— Carl Freeman (@carljfree) April 21, 2026

In fact, the entire British media has been pulled up for this shit.

The fact that these smears no longer work is a positive development, but they still need calling out wherever we see them.

Featured image via Steve Reed

By Willem Moore

Source link