Source link

On 28 February, the US bombed a school in the opening stages of its unprovoked attack on Iran, killing more than 150 people, many schoolchildren.

The UN condemned the attack:

A strike on a school represents a grave assault on children, on education, and on the future of an entire community. There is no excuse for killing girls in a classroom.

Now, Sky News and Forensic Architecture prepare to debut their documentary about the tragedy that shocked the world.

Iran: Children of Minab film

The US tried to deny it had bombed the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school at the time. US president, Donald Trump, said:

No. In my opinion and based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.

They’re very inaccurate, as you know, with their munitions.

However, the US has since admitted to the atrocity and may have used military AI to carry out the attack.

The one-hour documentary, Children of Minab, will air in July and shed light on the “devastating US missile strike”.

…on the first day of Operation Epic Fury, one of the US military’s largest civilian casualty incidents for decades.

It will examine:

The factors behind the high death toll, including the building’s collapse onto the boys’ school below and a missile strike on the area where many children were sheltering.

Death toll contested

Iran maintains that 168 people died in the attack. The national football team, which is playing in the 2026 World Cup, has renamed the team after those killed.

Iran National Football Team with the name "Minab 168" plays in the World Cup 2026 on US soil; in memory of the fallen angels of Minab School. pic.twitter.com/Er1AIlzdgP

— I. R. Iran Embassy in Serbia (@IraninSerbia) June 15, 2026

Sky News‘ data and forensics team has managed to confirm the identities of 152 victims — “the highest verified number of victims identified so far”.

This includes 120 students (73 boys and 47 girls, aged from six to 13) and 26 teachers.

Confirmation that significantly more boys were killed than girls, despite it being widely reported as a strike on a girls’ school.

Advertisement

The news outlet was given “exceptional access” to Iran for the documentary.

International affairs editor, Dominic Waghorn, said:

It is incredibly important to ensure that accurate reporting on this devastating moment continues to be at the forefront of the news agenda.

He added that Sky News will “continue to demand answers and justice for the people of Minab”.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

5 min read45 min

It is time for political parties to be brave and honest. Our welfare spending is not sustainable.

Advertisement

Britain’s finances are not sustainable. Our debt levels are the highest they have been for over 60 years, our taxes are at record levels, and we cannot currently find the resources necessary to protect our national security. Something has to give.

A serious analysis of the situation will conclude that we need to look again at welfare expenditure.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), total welfare spending is forecast to rise from £314.7bn in 2024-25 to £406.2bn in 2030-31. As a share of GDP, total welfare spending is forecast to increase from 10.8 per cent in 2024-25 to 11.2 per cent by 2030-31. If we look only at spending on health and disability benefits, it will rise from £76.8bn in 2024-25 to £109bn in 2030-31. This increase in health and disability benefits alone is broadly similar to the entire Home Office budget. Or, to put it another way, it is comparable with the revenue raised by 3 or 4p on the basic rate of income tax.

Pointing this out is easy, however. The hard task is identifying precisely what to do about it. In that context, Prosper UK has set out detailed proposals as to how we can control the welfare bill.

Advertisement

Prosper UK is a centre-right political movement that believes in facing up to the real choices the country faces. This means accepting the trade-offs and being transparent about the tough decisions that need to be made. Labour failed to do that in opposition, and the populist right – in the shape of Reform UK – is doing that today.

So what would Prosper UK do? We have set out a series of proposals that would control public spending but still provide support for those most in need. We would tighten up access to health benefits with more face-to-face assessments and a greater focus on a “work first” approach; bring back a reformed two-child benefit cap; raise the savings cap in universal credit so that this system is not unduly harsh on those who have a relatively small amount of savings; increase the sharing of data across DWP and HMRC; and use data analytics and AI to reduce fraud and improve personalised support.

All of this can make a difference in controlling spending on working-age benefits (for example, we think we can save net £6.4bn on health and disability benefits while providing substantially more support in getting claimants back into work). But none of the political parties is brave enough to confront any aspect of the £150bn we spend on one very large part of the welfare budget – and that is the state pension. That is an approach we can no longer afford.

Advertisement

In truth, our proposal is very modest. It is not to cut the state pension. Indeed, we are making the case that the state pension should not only be protected in real terms (ensuring that it always increases at least in line with inflation), but that over time it will increase in line with average earnings, which is generally higher than inflation. In other words, this is still a system for increasing the state pension that is more generous than what was in place from 1980 to 2011, when it increased merely in line with inflation.  

What could be more reasonable than that? But, at present, no party is prepared to commit to the policy because it means the end of the triple lock through which the state pension increases by the higher of inflation, earnings or 2.5 per cent. It has a ratchet effect that is particularly strong in periods of economic turbulence and, since its introduction in 2010, has been far more expensive than anyone had expected. One cannot be certain how much it might cost (because it depends on what happens with inflation and earnings in future years), but the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that it might be as high as £40bn by 2050. That is additional expenditure we simply cannot afford.

Would it be politically brave to abandon the triple lock? It is all too tempting for those seeking office to go round making easy but expensive promises (just as Andy Burnham did last week, promising compensation for the entirely unmeritorious case of the WASPI women), but it is time for politicians to be brave and honest. We need to find savings, and a government with the capability and determination to do so would be rewarded by the bond market that currently prices our debt more expensively than other countries because of that failure to face up to the realities. Deliver savings in one area, and the credibility won should result in a fall in our debt interest bill as well.

All the political parties have to get serious about our public finances. That means controlling our welfare bill and, in doing that, scrapping the triple lock must be part of the plan.

Advertisement

 

David Gauke is Vice Chair of Prosper UK and a former cabinet minister

Source link

Mike Tapp is the Labour parliamentary under-secretary of state for migration and citizenship. On 15 June, he put out a celebratory post after a court ruled that the government was okay to brand Palestine Action a ‘terrorist’ group:

Supporting Palestine
Supporting Palestine Action

Don’t support terrorists.

— Mike Tapp MP (@MikeTappTweets) June 15, 2026

Advertisement

Well, Labour – what should a terrorist look like?

As Skwawkbox reported for the Canary:

The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of home secretary Shabana Mahmood’s appeal against the High Court’s ruling that the ‘terrorism’ ban on Palestine Action was unlawful. The appeals court decided that the ban was a proportionate infringement on UK human rights and did not exceed the government’s powers.

The judge in question ruled that Palestine Action cannot be compared to the suffragettes because they caused serious damage. As Skwawkbox noted, though, the suffragettes literally used bombs – something which is markedly more extreme than anything Palestine Action did.

When Zack Polanski pointed out that the ruling will mean branding peaceful old women ‘terrorists’, scumbag Tapp asked the following:

Tell me, Zack, what should someone who is convicted of a terror related offence look like? I’m intrigued.

— Mike Tapp MP (@MikeTappTweets) June 15, 2026

To be fair, the above isn’t an unfair question. Once you have terror laws, the state gets to decide what is or is not a terror offence. And as we’ve long warned, this can lead to the sort of authoritarian creep we’re now seeing.

All that aside, I think we can agree that if we do have to have terrorism laws, then a terrorist should look like someone who just committed an act of extreme and murderous violence – not someone who was sat down holding a piece of cardboard with words written on it.

A government of cowards

It says a lot that Tapp is terrified of the older woman pictured above. Tapp is an ex-soldier, too, which explains a lot. And while we’ve nothing against cowards living full and wholesome lives, they shouldn’t be dictating government policy.

Featured image via Dan Kitwood (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

FIFA’s discrimination monitoring team has called for World Cup VAR official Shaun Evans to be removed from duty after he appeared to make a hand gesture resembling a white supremacist sign during Germany’s 7-1 win over Curacao.

The moment was captured on the official broadcast when cameras cut to the VAR booth. Evans, an Australian official assigned to the match, briefly formed an “OK” gesture with his right hand near his leg, a symbol that has been co‑opted by white extremist groups. 

The gesture was quick, but it was enough to trigger immediate concern from FIFA’s anti‑discrimination unit, which monitors all matches for offensive behaviour. The monitor formally requested that Evans be stood down from further involvement in the tournament pending review. 

FIFA response

FIFA has not yet announced disciplinary action, but the governing body confirmed that the incident is under assessment. The organisation’s discrimination monitoring system, expanded for the 2026 tournament. 

This is what it was designed to flag, any behaviour that could undermine the sport’s commitment to inclusivity. The call for Evans’ removal came directly from this unit, which has the authority to recommend sanctions or suspensions. 

The match in question, Germany’s emphatic opening win over debutants Curacao, had already drawn attention for its lopsided scoreline. But the focus quickly shifted from the pitch to the VAR booth once the footage circulated.  

The broadcast clip showed Evans standing alongside fellow officials as the camera panned across the VAR team. His right hand formed the “OK” sign this is the thumb and forefinger touching, three fingers raised. 

The discrimination monitor’s concern centred on the potential interpretation of the gesture rather than any confirmed intent. There has been no public comment from Evans as yet, and FIFA has not indicated whether he has been interviewed as part of the review.

Wider context at the World Cup

The 2026 World Cup has already seen several officiating‑related talking points, including the use of advanced VAR technologies such as connected ball data and waveform detection, systems that played a role in other matches across the opening days.  

But this incident has added a different layer of scrutiny. FIFA’s anti‑discrimination protocols were strengthened ahead of the tournament, with monitors assigned to every match and empowered to escalate concerns immediately. Their recommendation to remove Evans underscores the seriousness with which the organisation treats any gesture that could be interpreted as discriminatory or extremist.

The footage spread quickly among fans and analysts, prompting debate about intent, context and the responsibilities of match officials on the world stage. 

While some argued the gesture may have been innocuous, others stressed that officials must avoid any action that could be misinterpreted, especially during a global event watched by billions.

Sky Sports’ reporting emphasised that the discrimination monitor acted swiftly, reflecting FIFA’s zero‑tolerance stance. The request for Evans’ removal is not a final ruling but a procedural step designed to protect the integrity of the tournament while the matter is reviewed.  

Will FIFA do the right thing?

FIFA’s next move will determine whether Evans continues in his role. The organisation typically reviews broadcast footage, interviews involved parties, and consults its anti‑discrimination experts before issuing a decision. If the monitor’s recommendation is upheld, Evans could be replaced for the remainder of the tournament.

The incident also raises broader questions about training and awareness for officials. With global audiences and heightened sensitivity around discriminatory symbols, governing bodies face increasing pressure to ensure that all match personnel understand the implications of gestures, language and behaviour.

The World Cup is built on the idea of global unity, and FIFA has repeatedly emphasised its commitment to combating discrimination in all forms. Any incident that threatens that image, especially one based on a gesture openly declares ‘white power’ becomes a real risk.

By moving quickly, the discrimination monitor has signalled that vigilance is non‑negotiable. The coming days will reveal whether FIFA agrees that Evans’ continued involvement poses a risk to the tournament’s integrity.

The call to remove Shaun Evans marks one of many major off‑field controversies of the 2026 World Cup. While the investigation continues, the incident highlights the intense scrutiny placed on officials and the importance of maintaining clear, unambiguous standards of conduct.

FIFA now faces a decision that will set the tone for how it handles similar issues throughout the tournament, a reminder that, in the modern game, you won’t be accepted for being racist.

Featured image via Ian Walton/Getty Images

By Faz Ali

Source link

The UAE has denied it paid Iran to stop bombing the country as the Iran-US ceasefire began, calling allegations “false and unfounded”.

The UAE’s payments may point to another US humiliation if found to be true.

Last week, Reuters reported:

The United Arab Emirates has agreed to unlock billions of dollars for Iran, four sources said, ​in a tactical shift after weeks of Iranian attacks on the wealthy Gulf Arab state during the U.S.-Israeli war with the Islamic Republic.

***

Word of the move, which has not ‌been previously reported, coincides with the final stages of broader negotiations between Tehran and Washington on ending the war, talks that diplomats say could involve the release of tens of billions of dollars in Iranian oil revenues frozen in foreign banks under U.S. sanctions.

The UAE released a statement denying the claims:

The United Arab Emirates has categorically denied reports published by certain international media outlets alleging the transfer of funds from the UAE to the Islamic Republic of Iran, including allegations concerning USD 3 billion.

In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed that these allegations are entirely false and unfounded, stressing that no frozen Iranian funds have been released, transferred, or facilitated through the UAE.

The Ministry also called on media outlets to exercise accuracy, rely on official sources, and refrain from publishing or circulating unverified information and unfounded allegations.

UAE wrangling and declining US influence

However, an unnamed UAE official told Reuters:

The UAE’s foreign policy is guided by promoting de-escalation ​and reducing tensions across the region, while advancing lasting peace and stability.

The UAE supports efforts, including those undertaken by the United States, to protect the peoples of the region from the repercussions ​of conflict.

Advertisement

The outlet could not establish:

…whether the funds earmarked for the transfers belong to the UAE or originate in long-blocked Iranian accounts in the ⁠UAE banking system, or elsewhere.

The White House did not comment and an Iranian source said the transfer was “directly linked to ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz”.

One source told Reuters that the agreement would be a way for Iran to obtain the payoff it sought in return for a ceasefire, while allowing the Trump administration to claim it did not pay.

This would tally with Trump’s (very optimistic) goal of ending hostilities without admitting to having failed.

Details of UAE’s behind-the-scenes wrangling as the war intensified have also emerged.

Middle East Eye reported:

The UAE joined the US and Israel in conducting dozens of strikes on Iran during the war. It also tried to prevent Pakistan from mediating an end to the conflict.

Saudi Arabia had to supply a fresh loan to Islamabad after the UAE called in its debt obligations as punishment for hosting talks.

Peace deal with a side of US failure

A peace deal has now been announced by the US, Iran and peace-broker, Pakistan. Legacy media reported that the terms were finalised and would be signed on 19 June.

The US and Israel attacked Iran first on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time.

The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran, Meanwhile, the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, has said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

The US has achieved none of its original war aims. Iran predictably closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil channel which once attacked,k created a global energy crisis.

Far from being defeated, Iran has said the war will continue until “the enemy’s inevitable and permanent humiliation, disgrace, regret, and surrender”.

Donald Trump came to power on an anti-war ‘America First’ ticket. He now faces worldwide humiliation.

Much is unclear, but whatever security umbrella the US once offered to its Gulf dictator allies seems much less credible in the wake of the failed US-Israel attack on Iran. Not least because one of those dictatorships may have cut its own deal with Iran in the interest of self-preservation.

Featured image via Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Digital rights group Access Now have published an open letter demanding AI is removed from military kill chains. Hundreds of activist and human rights organisations have signed up. They oppose the rapid penetration of AI technology into the military killing machine.

Access Now is an NGO which:

defends and extends the digital rights of people and communities at risk.

A kill chain is described as:

the military process of finding, fixing, tracking, targeting, engaging, and assessing a threat — abbreviated F2T2EA.

Their new joint statement, signed by hundreds of groups, expressed deep alarm at:

the rapid militarization of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.

Access Now warned:

AI systems embedded into military kill chains are accelerating the speed and scale of military assaults in a manner that creates significant new risks for accountability in conflict and risks facilitating violations of international criminal, human rights, and humanitarian law.

The UK state has become deeply entangled with AI firms, including the far-right AI corporation Palantir, in recent years.

The UK should divest from military AI

As the Canary has reported:

The UK military is currently locked into a multi-billion pound contract with Palantir. The statement makes no mention of Palantir, despite the genocide-linked firm’s role being the source of most controversy.

The UK military, police, NHS and, allegedly, the Telegraph have started using Palantir technology. The firm maintains a permanent desk in southern Israel, and is deeply involved in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, as well as Trump’s paramilitary immigration operations, ICE, whose officers use the firm’s gear.

Advertisement

The firm’s founders are open about their far-right politics. Palantir’s vision was exposed as fascistic in a 22-tweet ‘manifesto’ posted on X.

Access Now called:

for tech companies and states to halt the provision of AI systems for use in the military kill chain and to take all steps to ensure that other AI systems they provide do not cause or contribute to violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL).

The group said their call applied to all:

AI decision-support systems, including target generation systems, remote biometric surveillance, and multimodal AI models, including large language models (LLMs).

Adding that:

AI-accelerated warfare is rapidly becoming a means of rubber-stamping killing at speed and at scale, and currently no technical or procedural fixes can effectively prevent the lethal and devastating consequences that stem from the fundamental challenges it poses to international law.

Access Now is correct. AI is a new frontier of imperialist warfare and state repression. The UK and other states have wholeheartedly embraced AI in their military, security and even civilian infrastructure. The UK should pause this process. At best, as the UK commons technology committee has argued in the case of Palantir, it should be divested from.

Featured image via Getty/Sean Gallup

By Joe Glenton

Source link

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is wasting money by reassessing amputees in case their condition has improved.

A damning report by anti-poverty charity, Z2K, has uncovered that hundreds of thousands of disabled people endure unnecessarily gruelling Personal Independence Payment (PIP) reassessments, despite their conditions being lifelong or progressive.

The Prove It Again report found that 86% of amputees were given fixed-term PIP awards, meaning they’re required to undergo regular reassessment. These reassessments determine whether someone’s disability or condition has changed.

Other conditions given fixed-rate awards include 62% of claimants with cerebral palsy, 73% with learning disabilities, 61% with Parkinson’s disease, 89% with multiple sclerosis and 83% with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Samuel Thomas, senior policy advisor at Z2K, said:

Disabled people should not have to keep proving the same thing over and over again when their condition is not going to improve. Routine PIP reassessments are causing needless anxiety, hardship and bureaucracy, with little evidence that they are saving money.

DWP tries to force disabled people off benefits

The reality is, the DWP wants to know whether someone’s condition has improved so they can reduce their benefits.

It’s absolutely absurd that amputees are being forced into demeaning reassessments to see if there’s been any ‘improvement’. Someone’s leg isn’t going to grow back.

The charity also found that 74% of reassessments resulted in no change to someone’s benefit entitlement. But for many, they couldn’t actually get more money as 28% of disabled people whose award stayed the same already received the highest level of PIP. Therefore, all that happened was that severely sick or disabled people were put under even more stress. 

DWP PIP increases have nosedived since Labour took over. Between November 2025 and January 2026, less than one in 15 PIP claimants saw an increase in benefits after reassessment.

The PIP process

There are two types of PIP awards: fixed and ongoing. Anyone who receives an ongoing award is left alone for 10 years, then has to complete a six-page form to say whether their condition has changed at all.

Anyone on a fixed-term award must be reassessed every few years and fill out the initial form again, which is more than 40 pages long.

Forms aren’t kept on file, so you can’t just comment ‘No change’ — you must detail your condition in excruciating detail, including whether it makes you incontinent. You then will be reassessed by an often unsympathetic assessor, who is often not trained in safeguarding.

One disabled person told Z2K that the review process made them feel like they were in a criminal court.

…like I was being charged with crimes against being a disabled person or impersonating a disabled person.

They added:

It leaves me feeling like less of a person. Another reminder of everything I can’t do. Instead of being allowed dignity to live my life as I know how, I’m put through an ordeal.

DWP ignores guidance to force people into work

The DWP’s own guidance states that anyone who identifies with these descriptions should be given ongoing awards and spared reassessment:

• A level of functional ability which is not likely to change in the long-term
• High levels of functional impairment which are only likely to increase

However, just 7% of new claimants receive an ongoing PIP award.

Whilst PIP isn’t an out-of-work benefit, people fear that without an ongoing award, they could be forced into unsuitable work. This is a valid concern when the government constantly includes PIP claimants into out-of-work statistics.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) found that PIP claimants are less likely to try to work because they’re scared it will be used against them.

A JRF survey on barriers to accessing work support revealed that 70% of people receiving work-related disability benefits were worried that starting work would trigger a change of circumstances for PIP.

A DWP memo confirmed that while entering work won’t trigger an award review, decisionmakers can decide to do one if they fancy.

Recommendations from Z2K

One good thing is that the DWP is extending the reassessment period from two to three years, increasing to five at a person’s next review.

However, this isn’t for the claimant’s benefit. No. It’s because the DWP can’t handle the amount of reassessments it must complete.

Z2K has recommended that any claimant whose main disability or health condition is lifelong or progressive should be given an ongoing award.

The charity also says there should be a more streamlined reassessment process. If someone’s condition or needs haven’t changed, they shouldn’t be subjected to a review.

These are great recommendations, but it’s highly likely the DWP will completely ignore them. It’s too busy pretending that disabled people are being included in its farcical review to actually do anything that would benefit them.

Featured image via Ron Lach

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

4 min read1 hr

The UK would regret turning down the opportunity to sit at the table.

Advertisement

The key to unlocking more defence investment lies in the former defence secretary’s resignation letter. John Healey argued that in a more dangerous world, we need credible ways to meet the defence funding challenge by working multilaterally with our allies. He was right.

For too long, our defence debate has focused on percentages of GDP and Treasury settlements. But unless we get that capital moving across our supply chain, it won’t be enough. Budgets do not build factories. Industrial capacity does. 

That is why I have spent the past 18 months leading the campaign in Parliament for the UK to co-found the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB).

At next month’s NATO summit, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and our allies are set to sign the Charter establishing the DSRB. If they do, it will be one of the most significant institutions in transatlantic security for a generation. Britain should be at the table.

Advertisement

Some have portrayed the DSRB as little more than an SME finance initiative. That misses the point. The Bank may begin with SMEs, but its purpose is to strengthen the whole defence industrial ecosystem, from start-ups and specialist manufacturers to prime contractors and governments. Its mandate spans research and development, industrial expansion, credit guarantees, private capital mobilisation and sovereign lending.

In short, it is designed to turn political commitments into industrial output.

Across the defence sector, companies face two linked challenges: access to capital, and confidence in future demand. Without finance, firms cannot expand. Without demand, they will not. Initiatives like the Multilateral Defence Mechanism can help coordinate procurement and signal demand with allies, but they do not solve the finance problem. The DSRB does.

Advertisement

Britain needs both: clearer demand, and the capital to turn it into real defence capacity.

Together, they create the conditions for more factories, jobs, exports, innovation and resilient supply chains. That is not merely defence policy. It is industrial policy.

The DSRB is being created by sovereign nations for sovereign nations. Its financing will be directed towards companies based within participating member states. Countries contributing capital will see that capital supporting jobs, investment and growth in the nations that join.

The risk for Britain is obvious. If we are left outside this institution, British companies could be shut out of a growing pool of allied defence finance. Factories, production lines and technologies financed through the Bank will increasingly be concentrated within member nations.

Advertisement

At a moment when the government is searching for growth, excluding British firms from this new ecosystem of allied defence investment would be an extraordinary decision. It is one we would regret.

Britain’s frustration with limited participation in the European Union’s SAFE programme should serve as a warning. When new institutions are created, the rules are shaped by those at the table.

The terms are favourable. Britain’s contribution would be €1bn over three years, around €500m below what it would have been under the standard GDP-based formula, following a G7 discount secured during the Charter negotiations.

Participation in the DSRB is an investment. Britain would be purchasing equity in a new multilateral bank designed to finance allied industrial growth, defence production and economic resilience. The UK’s paid-in contribution could be provided through the National Wealth Fund in exchange for an ownership stake, with no need for further departmental cuts or additional borrowing to fund our capital contribution.

Advertisement

The DSRB also creates something different from borrowing more through the gilt market: a AAA-rated multilateral borrowing platform backed by multiple allied governments. It gives Britain access to another source of long-term capital, with more options, more flexibility and potentially lower financing costs.

If we seize this opportunity now, Britain could secure real influence over the Bank’s direction, reinforce London’s role as a global financial centre, and support the defence industrial base our Armed Forces depend on.

The question is not whether Britain can afford to participate.

It is whether we can afford not to.

Advertisement

 

Alex Baker is the Labour MP for Aldershot

Source link

People gathered in Trafalgar Square to commemorate Jo Cox MP the week after her murder in 2016 (Stephen Chun/Alamy)

7 min read41 min

Kim Leadbeater MP delivered the 2026 Jo Cox memorial lecture at Pembroke College, Oxford, on 8 June, in which she reflected on her sister’s legacy 10 years after her murder in 2016. Excerpts from her lecture have been shared with The House magazine

Advertisement

Jo was genuinely one of the nicest people you could hope to meet. She brought a unique combination of hard-headed pragmatism and deep compassion to the job of an MP. She was a politician, but she was first and foremost a passionate humanitarian – and a realist at the same time, always looking for solutions that were practical and achievable – and ways to bring people together, not drive them apart. Qualities we need now more than ever.

Jo fought for justice, equality and for the rights of those less fortunate than herself. She was full of kindness and a deeply held determination to make a difference. After working in the voluntary sector for over 15 years, Jo moved into politics here in the UK, but her main objective remained the same – to make a difference to the lives of those around her – and from Bosnia to Batley and Syria to the Spen Valley, this is what she did. 

She knew how lucky we had been in life to have two wonderful parents who loved us unconditionally, and to have each other, along with a wide network of family and friends, enough food to eat and a safe environment in which to live. Through her humanitarian work, she had sadly seen many people who were not so fortunate.

Advertisement

Jo also knew, as I do, the power of diversity, and the beauty of difference in human beings. We were both always incredibly interested in other people and always had lots of questions whenever we met someone new. From a young age we took great pleasure in hearing stories of people from a wide range of backgrounds. The differences were not a focus, but nor were they invisible – they were something to be cherished and celebrated.

It was a big decision to put herself forward as MP for Batley and Spen in 2015 as her children were so young. But it was a job she loved and she had already started to make a huge impact in the role, both nationally and locally. But everything was torn apart – and changed forever – when Jo was murdered while going about her duties in the constituency.

Jo was murdered on 16 June 2016, just one week before the Brexit referendum, and a week before her 42nd birthday. She had worked in some of the world’s most dangerous countries, but she was killed not in some distant place, not a warzone, but on the streets of her constituency while carrying out her democratic duty as an elected representative. Ten minutes from where we live. 

Advertisement

It shocked the nation. It horrified the world. It left our family utterly bereft. And it left two small children without their mum.

We must be honest about the atmosphere in which Jo’s murder took place. The Brexit referendum was one of the most divisive periods in modern British history. People were encouraged to see each other not as neighbours with differing opinions but as enemies. 

Public discourse became increasingly toxic. Fear was weaponised. Anger became political currency. Complex issues were reduced to slogans, and compromise was portrayed as weakness. 

Of course, disagreement is part of democracy. Debate is healthy. Passion in politics is natural. But what developed around Brexit went beyond disagreement. It became something darker. 

Advertisement

Social media amplified outrage. Politicians and commentators often chose confrontation over understanding because division attracted attention. Entire communities became fractured. Families argued. Friendships broke down. Trust in institutions collapsed. In that climate, hatred found oxygen. 

To say that Brexit was responsible for Jo’s murder would be simplistic and untrue. One individual committed that heinous crime – a far-right neo-Nazi whose evil act was his and his alone. But things don’t happen in a vacuum, and we cannot ignore the broader social and political atmosphere that surrounded it.

Toxic rhetoric, nationalism pushed to extremes, conspiracy, scapegoating and the dehumanisation of opponents all contributed to a society under immense strain. The language we use in politics matters – because language shapes culture, and culture shapes behaviour. 

When people are constantly told that others are traitors, enemies, invaders, or threats to the nation, eventually some individuals begin to believe that hostility and violence are justified. That is why remembering how and why Jo was killed matters so deeply. If we reduce her death to an isolated act, we learn nothing. 

Advertisement

If we refuse to examine the environment of anger and polarisation that surrounded it, then we fail both her memory and our democracy. And sadly, a decade later, many of the same forces are still with us – perhaps even stronger. 

Today, polarisation dominates public life. Across politics, media and online platforms, people are increasingly pushed into opposing camps. Nuance disappears and every issue becomes a battle. Every disagreement becomes moral warfare. 

When people are constantly told that others are traitors, enemies, invaders, or threats to the nation, eventually some individuals begin to believe that hostility and violence are justified

Advertisement

We see a growing blame culture in Britain. When the economy struggles, when public services fail, when communities feel left behind, someone must be blamed. 

Migrants are blamed. Politicians are blamed. The poor are blamed. The wealthy are blamed.

The young blame the old. The old blame the young. Cities blame rural communities. Rural communities blame cities. And through all of this, we risk losing sight of our shared humanity.

So much has been done over the last 10 years to remember Jo and ensure her name and her values are never forgotten – but there is undoubtedly more to do. And I believe we can – and we must – all play our part.

There is no doubt that we face some challenges as a country, and it can be hard to stay positive. But I do remain optimistic – because it is also true that we have a country full of inspirational people who – day in and day out – show the very best of us. And it is their stories that need to be told.

Advertisement

Whether it is the litter pickers, the sports coaches, the library volunteers, the doctors, nurses, teachers, charity workers or the scout and guide leaders. The people who seek to unite us, not divide us, and who show compassion, empathy and unity every day.

And surely we must all choose compassion, empathy and unity over hatred and division. Empathy is not weakness. Compassion is not naivety. Understanding another person’s fears does not mean abandoning our principles. 

Jo understood this better than most. She believed deeply in human dignity. She believed people from different backgrounds could live together peacefully. She believed Britain was strongest when it was open-hearted rather than fearful. 

That belief cost her her life. But it must not die with her. 

Advertisement

If there is one lesson we should take from her legacy, it is this: hatred grows when good people become indifferent to division. The answer to polarisation cannot be more polarisation. The answer to fear cannot be more fear. The answer must be courage. 

The courage to listen. The courage to speak responsibly. The courage to reject extremism. The courage to defend democratic values even when emotions run high. And most importantly, the courage to remember that we belong to one another. 

Do we want a society defined by outrage and suspicion? Or one defined by compassion and solidarity? Do we want future generations to inherit division? Or do we want them to inherit hope? The choice is ours. 

And perhaps the greatest tribute we can offer Jo is not merely to repeat her words but to live by them, and show that we really are “far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”. 

Advertisement

Kim Leadbeater is the Labour MP for Spen Valley

Source link