Aphra Brandreth MP is Member of Parliament for Chester South & Eddisbury.

Unlocking Opportunity: Why the Commonwealth Matters in a Changing World

Britain has slipped to fourth place in the 2026 Global Soft Power Index, behind the United States, China and now Japan. One explanation often offered for this decline is that Britain has adopted a more isolationist foreign policy since leaving the European Union. Yet this interpretation does not stand up to scrutiny. In reality, under the previous Conservative government, the United Kingdom expanded its engagement with new markets and emerging opportunities beyond Europe, seeking to strengthen ties with regions that will play an increasingly significant role in the global economy in the decades ahead.

One clear example of Britain working in partnership with countries around the world is the Commonwealth, the largest and oldest transnational association of nations. Its membership spans every continent and represents around a third of the world’s population. The modern Commonwealth is sometimes mistakenly viewed as a continuation of the British Empire, but this characterisation is outdated. Today it is better understood as a voluntary family of nations committed to shared principles including development, democracy and peace, where every member state has an equal voice regardless of size or economic strength. The fact that the four most recent members have no historical ties to the British Empire illustrates how the Commonwealth has evolved into a forward-looking partnership rather than a legacy institution. Britain is just one of 56 countries working together through this network of cooperation and shared values. In an increasingly unstable world, the importance of such partnerships, and of working as equal partners, should not be underestimated.

The modern Commonwealth was established in 1949, in the years since the world has changed dramatically. Today with war on our doorstep in Europe, and the Middle East in chaos, it is clear that the international system is becoming increasingly multipolar, uncertain and, at times, dangerous. In this environment, networks that bring countries together around shared values and encourage dialogue between diverse nations matter more than ever – highlighting the enduring importance of the Commonwealth.

Yet Britain today faces a clear soft power challenge. In an increasingly unstable and volatile world, strengthening our hard power remains essential. However, influence in the modern era is exercised in many ways. Too often discussions about global competition focus solely on military capability, whether measured by the size of navies, the strength of air forces, or the number of soldiers in our armies. These capabilities remain vital, but soft power, expressed through our cultural influence, diplomatic networks, educational institutions and economic partnerships, can be just as significant in shaping global influence. This year’s Commonwealth Day offers a timely opportunity not only to celebrate one of the world’s most enduring transnational networks, but also to look ahead. Its theme, “Unlocking Opportunities Together for a Prosperous Commonwealth,” reflects the potential of this partnership to expand cooperation and create new opportunities for its member nations. For Britain, it is an opportunity to deepen collaboration with partners across the Commonwealth and to work together to unlock the opportunities that this unique network provides.

Recent developments illustrate how Commonwealth relationships could help shape the global dynamics of tomorrow. Last week, Canada’s Conservative Party leader, Pierre Poilievre, outlined a vision in which the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand deepen their cooperation in areas such as defence, trade, mobility and skills. Greater collaboration between these nations would not only generate economic, cultural and social benefits, but would also strengthen our collective voice at a time when speaking with clarity and conviction on the international stage matters more than ever.

Of course, it would be unrealistic to replicate a CANZUK-style framework across the entire Commonwealth.

The diversity of its membership, spanning every region, culture and stage of economic development, makes such an arrangement impractical. Yet that diversity is also one of the Commonwealth’s greatest strengths. While deeper integration may be possible between some members, there remains significant scope to expand cooperation across the wider network wherever it is mutually beneficial. Whether through trade, education, diplomacy or development, the Commonwealth provides a unique platform through which its 56 members can strengthen partnerships and unlock new opportunities for growth and collaboration.

Britain must recognise a simple reality.

In today’s world, influence is rarely exercised alone. Power is more widely distributed, and the ability to shape events increasingly depends on the strength of partnerships and alliances. That challenge has been compounded by the current Labour Government’s hesitant and ineffective response to the crisis in the Middle East, which has done little to reinforce Britain’s credibility on the global stage. Networks such as the Commonwealth therefore become even more valuable. If Britain approaches this partnership with ambition, humility and a clear sense of purpose, it can help deepen cooperation between member states while strengthening its own global influence in the process.

By working alongside Commonwealth partners to expand opportunity, strengthen connections and address shared challenges, Britain can help ensure that this remarkable network remains a force for stability, cooperation and prosperity in an increasingly uncertain world.

A team of 32 experts has published a paper proving there is no evidence that ADHD is overdiagnosed — a big fuck you to the Labour government pedalling this dangerous lie.

Government departments unite against disabled people

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has launched reviews into the strain of ‘overdiagnosis’ of neurodivergent and mental health conditions has on the NHS.

Meanwhile, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) is in the process of reforming PIP. One of the main things the disability benefits cuts protests stopped last year was them limiting eligibility. This would’ve especially affected people with conditions such as ADHD. Streeting’s reviews would give them the ammunition to do that.

And it’s not just those departments that are ramping up hatred. Prime Minister Kier Starmer has also stated that there’s a “moral case” for changing PIP eligibility. Moreover, I don’t think we should be taking morality lessons from those enabling genocide.

Experts debunk overdiagnosis myth

With the media complicit in benefits hate, it’s so important that medical experts are standing up and proving the government to be liars.

32 experts came together to publish ADHD (over) diagnosis: fiction, fashion and failure in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The report overwhelmingly rules that

There is no evidence that ADHD is over-diagnosed in the UK

The authors state that, in fact, just 5.4% of children and 3.3% of adults are estimated to have ADHD. They also explain that while health records do show a rise in diagnosis between 2000 and 2018, it is nowhere near what it should be.

While the administrative prevalence of ADHD has increased over time, available pre-pandemic data suggest that it has remained substantially below the ADHD population prevalence in the UK, providing no evidence at present that ADHD is over-diagnosed at a population level.

They said this increase in diagnoses could be because more people know about ADHD than in the past. In the last few years, for instance, far more older women have discovered they have ADHD. This was missed in childhood.

Labour’s lies are a barrier to ADHD diagnosis

The report states that, if anything, it’s still massively underdiagnosed, largely because the NHS isn’t funded enough to support people with ADHD.

Beyond the controversy around over- or under-diagnosis and over-medicalisation of ordinary behaviours or emotions, the main issue is that UK clinical services cannot adequately support individuals with ADHD who need help.

It also skewered the pervasive narrative that ADHD is overdiagnosed, coming from the media and politicians

There is a risk that the narrative claiming ‘ADHD is over-diagnosed’ could be used to deny people with properly-diagnosed ADHD the care they deserve.

Which, funnily enough, is exactly what Labour plans to do.

It’s clear to see that Labour doesn’t actually care if ADHD actually is overdiagnosed; they just want to strip disabled people of vital support. But hopefully, with the overwhelming evidence against them, they will be called on their bullshit.

Featured image via the Canary

A criminal barrister has demolished Justice Secretary David Lammy on social media for his terrible ability to understand the law and its impacts on ordinary people.

This intervention came after Lammy posted a propaganda clip from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which compares the incomparable. Apparently, the MoJ believe that having a jury of peers decide a defendant’s guilt when sentences are less than three years is akin to demanding to see an NHS consultant after scraping a knee.

This has been condemned by criminal barristers on X, highlighting just how out of touch our political elite are. Some have said that Lammy’s insistence on curbing our right to a fair trial and attempts to minimise its impact should see the Justice Secretary resign.

The Secret Barrister certainly didn’t mince his words:

Joanna is politer than I am going to be.

For the Justice Secretary – a former barrister – to suggest that being wrongly accused of a crime and imprisoned for three years is just like “scraping your knee”, should be a resignation matter.@DavidLammy owes the public an apology. https://t.co/pN7Rq59TjO

— The Secret Barrister 🦋 (@BarristerSecret) March 8, 2026

Lammy needs to listen: the right to a fair trial includes right to a trial by jury

Once again, the UK government is shown to be woefully inept with cabinet ministers unable to even exercise their supposed specialised knowledge. Lammy, a qualified barrister and first black Briton to study at Harvard, seems incapable, or unwilling, to be honest about the likely impact of his penny-pinching policy to remove jury trials in some criminal cases. This will be applied to ‘either-way’ offences which would see a sentence lesser than three years.

Our own Alex/Rose Cocker wrote in December about the open letter signed by over 100 lawyers slamming the decision to withdraw jury trials through Lammy’s Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD). We wrote:

The letter listed many compelling reasons that the CCBD would be unworkable. It would require significant recruitment of magistrates – a judge and two lay magistrates for most offences. However, the magistracy has been in decline, and there’s serious doubt over whether enough could actually be recruited at all. As such, magistrates and support staff would likely be drawn from the pool staffing Crown Court and magistrates’ courts.

Diverting judges from sitting Crown Court jury trials would not reduce the backlog. Likewise, if there’s money to pay new judges, it should be going to the Crown Court as it currently exists. Similarly, the CCBD need deliberation rooms, office space, waiting rooms, cells and docks. If there’s money for these new facilities, it should go towards reducing the backlog of the existing Crown Court.

However, this new video which compares someone scraping a knee and insisting on a consultant’s attention to our right under the ECHR to a trial by jury is tasteless and out of touch. It also shows that Lammy has refused to heed the warnings from other legal professionals. This freedom exists to protect citizens against state overreach, ensuring that citizens are judged with the oversight of a jury of their peers maintaining transparency and accountability.

Lammy is a qualified lawyer, so he should know better.

Apples and oranges

The offending video from the Ministry of Justice can be seen here:

It’s time to set the facts straight 👇 . pic.twitter.com/sQ27gzps41

— Ministry of Justice (@MoJGovUK) March 8, 2026

Another criminal barrister has also politely highlighted the obvious – a scraped knee is not the same as ending up in prison for up to three years:

Your local friendly criminal barrister here! 👋

I need you to know that anything up to a three year prison sentence imposed without a jury trial is really not the same thing as scraping your knee without seeing a consultant. pic.twitter.com/zwIvUhFfLu

— Joanna Hardy-Susskind (@Joanna__Hardy) March 8, 2026

Advertisement

Joanna Hardy-Susskind elaborated:

A three year prison sentence will destroy your life, ruin your job, almost certainly wreck your mental health, it will impact your relationships, your children, your parents, your prospects of work, having a home, your good name – and you can’t stick a plaster on any of that.

Adding:

They use an example of stealing a bottle of whisky deliberately, you see. Because it sounds lightweight & silly. But either way offences with sentences less than 3 years will include some sexual assaults, some ABHs, some s20 GBHs & some frauds.

It’s not about whisky.

Or knees.

Advertisement

Hardy-Susskind finished by pointing out the obvious:

I’m not sure which bit is worse. The comparison to hospital, to triage or the gutting of the presumption of innocence.

The trial is there to determine *if* someone has stolen. But the hospital, hopefully, isn’t staring at a bloody knee & asking *if* it’s hurt.

The Secret Barrister further reminded just why we have the right to a trial by jury, and just who it will hurt when taken away:

Every time you read one of these disingenuous – no, strike that – outrageously dishonest propaganda pieces from @DavidLammy and @sarahsackman, remember that the freedoms they wish to curtail are designed to protect people wrongly accused of criminal offences.

And the barrister reminds ‘it could be you’ next:

Advertisement

Every time they distract you with absurd and misleading claims about abolishing juries being necessary to get “offenders” and protect “victims”, what they are trying to hide is that innocent people end up in criminal courts.

It could be you.

It is your rights they are attacking

Finishing:

David and Sarah want to give *you* – the wrongly accused – a lower quality of justice whenever you face up to *three years of your life* in prison.

And they don’t even have the decency to make their case on the evidence.

Advertisement

Just bluster, distraction and, I’m afraid to say, lies.

This account on X possibly highlights just where Lammy’s Freudian slip comes in where he refers to those affected as ‘offenders’. So much for innocent until proven guilty:

What nonsense.

First, they are defendants, not offenders, as they are innocent until proven guilty (a schoolboy error for the Justice Minister)

Second, a defendant electing a Crown Court trial is a legal right, and cannot be dismissed as “choosing to delay”.

Advertisement

The REAL facts are… https://t.co/8GLqUgTg0w

— Daniel ShenSmith (BlackBeltBarrister) (@dshensmith) March 8, 2026

Even Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has spoken up against curbing this necessary civil protection:

Labour’s Justice Minister has already given the game away.

This is not an emergency measure. Labour would do it anyway.

Advertisement

Trial by jury is a cornerstone of British justice. It should not be hollowed out by Ministers who think our ancient liberties are an inconvenience. https://t.co/vJPVweYAUO pic.twitter.com/oJNruEbcyn

— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) March 8, 2026

Labour MP Karl Turner confronted Lammy on how life-destroying these sentences can be and highlights those who always seem to evade justice:

If you nicked a bottle of whiskey, Dave. Being convicted for that when you have a good defence would ruin your life. Why doesn’t it ruin the lives of others accused and wrongly convicted of dishonesty. SUB-POSTMASTERS? 🤷🏼‍♂️ https://t.co/iisygtJMrT

— Karl Turner MP (@KarlTurnerMP) March 8, 2026

Advertisement

Shame on David Lammy

Once again, those in power expect the British public to accept a decline in our quality of life, food, opportunity, and healthcare while our costs continue to rise. Now David Lammy wants to save money by stripping protections from those at the bottom of the ladder. After all, ordinary people do not have access to expensive lawyers and can often be pressured into extremely difficult situations.

All the while this government refuses to look to the wealthiest to cough up fair taxes against their obscene riches. Let alone the fact that it is well known that inequality increases the likelihood of both violent and property crime, so ordinary people will be punished for conditions beyond their control.

Introducing these changes at a time when cases of sexual assault are increasing is also deeply concerning. As the barristers highlighted, the proposal would apply to any case where the potential sentence is less than three years. If prisons become overcrowded, could judges face pressure to impose non-custodial sentences instead? Without the oversight provided by juries, that risk for women and girls becomes far more likely.

We need jury trials: the accused need to be judged by their peers not the elite. We cannot allow the risk for politics, prejudice, and discrimination to gain more ground in our legal system.

Featured image via the Canary

On International Women’s Day 2026, a group of aggressive far-right men openly harassed MP Hannah Spencer in Manchester. The situation was so concerning that she had to take refuge in a police car.

The new Green MP for Gorton and Denton had been speaking at an anti-fascist event in the city. But a far-right group went from shouting during speeches to actually following her through Piccadilly Gardens.

The far-right agitators were aggressively pushing Spencer on trans questions in particular. And members of the group were clearly itching for a fight. Because there were a number of scuffles around Spencer as police escorted her away from the scene.

Full solidarity with Hannah Spencer, this is absolutely disgraceful behaviour.
This is a direct attack on our democracy, Hannah is an elected MP that has the right to walk free in the city she represents without these extremists behaving like thugs https://t.co/qEdCYKd7ba

— Mothin Ali (@MothinAli) March 8, 2026

Advertisement

The police, meanwhile, seemed mostly to take a hands-off approach. This is despite local authorities apparently knowing exactly who some of the agitators were. As one attendee said:

The cops let the known far right roam in and out of the crowd. They let them back in again after they harassed an MP.

I was there. The cops let the known far right roam in and out of the crowd. They let them back in again after they harassed an MP. The anti-fascists dealt with it.

— Sue V (@suevictorian) March 8, 2026

Even after the far right went for Hannah Spencer, the cops let them BACK into the dispersing group to cause more trouble. GMP has a LOT of questions to answer. Why do they enable the far right over and over?

— Sue V (@suevictorian) March 8, 2026

Everyone.. and cops… knows the names of those threatening Hannah Spencer. Thing is, GMP doesn’t care

— Sue V (@suevictorian) March 8, 2026

Advertisement

Solidarity with Hannah Spencer & all who had to deal with fascist thugs today in Manchester.
No surprise that it is fans of ‘Tommy Robinson’ who attacked @unisontheunion members…on #InternationalWomensDay2026!@AntiRacismDay @Searchlight_mag pic.twitter.com/b0BN5cHFRs

— Unite Against Fascism (@uaf) March 8, 2026

The YouTube fascists, she said, had been “harassing all afternoon“. Nonetheless, police preferred to have a laugh with them and:

let the far right to the front

Oh they let the far right to the front. They told a steward off for blocking them. Steve James, the short arse with the sign, was at the front. All the camera freaks were harassing all afternoon. GMP like them…

— Sue V (@suevictorian) March 8, 2026

The scumbags were calling Hannah Spencer a terrorist when she was speaking, and much, much more. We ignored them.

— Sue V (@suevictorian) March 8, 2026

Advertisement

Judging by the footage, @gmpolice @GMPCityCentre were utterly useless.

Let a group of men chase Hannah through Piccaddilly gardens, throwing punches at the people around her.

These people are known to the police, yet still allowed to do it?

— Aaron. (@Stuff_by_Aaron) March 9, 2026

Far-right voices have tried to gaslight people into thinking Spencer’s team was somehow responsible for scuffles. But if you watch the footage, you can see exactly the type of aggression Spencer and her entourage were facing.

They all do it. Go and antagonise like their hero Tommy, wait for a reaction and then film themselves as a victim. Set of useless dossers who can only grift. The way they use victims of grooming gangs to excuse the fact they soread hate on all Muslims. They don’t care

— Victoria (@Vmartine1905) March 9, 2026

The fascists weren’t there for women. “They were there for intimidation.”

As journalist Femi Oluwole said:

these men were wearing signs that said that they don’t want men in female spaces. Yet they are violently and aggressively pushing their way into a female MP’s personal space. No trans woman has ever made Hannah Spencer feel as unsafe as those men just did, which just shows that they weren’t there because they actually believe in their cause. They were there for intimidation.

No woman should have to face such disgusting far right thuggery like Hannah Spencer did yesterday!
Her face speaks volumes.

Love & solidarity to her.
We have to ensure the extreme right are pushed back.
Be on @UKTogetherAll march, March 28th.@AntiRacismDay@Searchlight_mag pic.twitter.com/y1HjfueAUQ

Advertisement

— Unite Against Fascism (@uaf) March 9, 2026

Many people felt the same, highlighting the hypocrisy of the agitators:

Wow, it was men with placards claiming to protect women’s spaces who were harassing her and pushing others.

— Bonnie Evans-Hills (@EvansHills) March 9, 2026

The ones harrassing Hannah Spencer kick, punch, harass ALL of the time. Always go for women. They are vile creatures.

— Sue V (@suevictorian) March 8, 2026

Advertisement

Green MP Hannah Spencer is forced into a police car after anti-trans protesters fight in front of her in Manchester.
I feel SICK watching this. Hannah must have been petrified.
No MP (esp a woman) should ever EVER be in danger like this because of their views. pic.twitter.com/fUiZpa1X9r

— Narinder Kaur (@narindertweets) March 8, 2026

As Sue V insisted, the agitators have a record. And police need to take their threat to democracy and public safety seriously:

Worth noting that the camera far right harassing Hannah Spencer were in Gorton and Denton on election day harassing and intimidating people. Over and over. They need a banning order.

— Sue V (@suevictorian) March 9, 2026

As long as authorities fail to deal with them, though, it’s on all the rest of us to protect each other as best we can:

Yes. Same ones attacking Hannah Spencer. Same ones who kicked someone in the face on the 21st. GMP do NOTHING. So its down to us, now. https://t.co/KfKlywSgvO

— Sue V (@suevictorian) March 8, 2026

Featured image via the Canary

In collaboration with Women Against the Far Right, author Blair James has organised a protest event in response to multiple recent events. These include:

Supported by numerous women-focused and feminist groups, the coalition will lead a rally in St Peter’s Square, outside Manchester Central Library. It will take place on Thursday 19 March, starting at 6:30pm.

The rally will feature speeches and readings from organisers, public figures, and artists. Speakers include Harriet Williamson, commissioning editor and reporter from Novara Media and Steph Pike from Stop the War. Stalls from local feminist and women-focused groups are welcome in the rally area.

To mark the beginning of the march, organisers will lead one minute’s silence for victims, followed by a collective “primal scream” in which all attendees will be asked to scream simultaneously to symbolise the reclaiming of women’s voices.

The march will then begin from the rally space and head to:

• Rise Up, Women, the Emmeline Pankhurst statue.
• Over to the Manchester City Centre Police Public Enquiry Counter on Mount Street.
• Around to Manchester Town Hall on Albert Square.
• Down to Manchester Crown Court.
• Through The Avenue in Spinningfields.
• Onto Deansgate.
• Through Jackson’s Row and Bootle Street.
• Over to the Peterloo Massacre Monument on Windmill Street.
• And finally back across to St Peter’s Square.

The route will pass these places to signify our demand for accountability and change. Organisers will then gather marchers back to the rally area and give closing remarks.

Bringing women together

The goal of the event is to bring women together to express their abhorrence of the misogynistic corruption going on today and to create action which is peaceful yet unique, meaningful, and effective.

The event is intersectional and inclusive of all women, non-binary persons, and children. The purpose of the scream is to give a voice to women and survivors and to break the silence which upholds enabling systems, demanding accountability; safeguarding; transparency; and ending abuses against women and children.

The march is held in the evening purposefully to demand women’s safety akin to Reclaim the Night style work.

Speaking about the urge to create the event, James said:

The problem is that men are never really going to be interested or motivated to change systems that support them. Women need to step forward.

Dr Jilly Kay is senior lecturer in Communication and Media at Loughborough University. She specialises in feminist media and is co-convenor of the cross-institutional Media and Gender research group. She called the protest “an important event.”

Adele Dolan from Intersectional Uprising said:

An incredibly powerful event! We look forward to marching alongside you all in solidarity!

Bioengineer, author, and researcher, Ojochide Obidi, called the event a “beautiful initiative.”

Ash Sarkar from Novara Media also said that this is “an important event.”

Steph Barney, CEO of Girls on the Go said that the event is:

incredible and so important – such a meaningful event for the community. We will definitely be sending our team to attend in person and show our support on the 19th. It’s an incredibly powerful initiative and we’re glad to be a part of it.

James, Women Against the Far Right, and all collaborators invite all women from near and far to join the rally and march. More speakers and supporters will be announced in the run up to the event.

Featured image via

3 min read42 min

Protecting What Matters, a document outlining Labour’s new cohesion strategy, was officially unveiled by the government this evening after its contents were leaked to The Spectator on Friday.

The paper identifies Islamism and Islamists as the “predominant” threat to civil society and outlines a plan to crackdown on extremism. Powers will be granted to allow government to close extremist charities and suspend members with hate crime convictions, as well as strengthen monitoring of extremism in higher education.

An extra £5 million will be given to the Common Ground Resilience fund, which will tackle divisions in communities and finance interfaith programmes and youth projects to reduce isolation and strengthen social ties.

Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, said: “We will not allow hatred to destroy the lives and life chances of those who are targeted. 

“Right now, Muslim communities are facing shifting levels of abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels, and they now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes, way out of proportion to the size of our Muslim population.”

Reed added that people have grown up in a country which by global standards is “remarkably cohesive”.

He said: “Cohesion underpins our economic strength, our democratic freedom and our national security. It is a fundamental part of the Britain we love. We have made our choice in place of division, we choose unity, and we know the people of Britain have made the same choice.”

Last week it was reported a special representative on anti-Muslim hostility would also be central to the government’s plans. The plan will include measures to tackle religious hatred and racial discrimination and clamp down on extremism in charities and universities.

A definition of anti-Muslim hatred – in conjunction with the report – was also published this evening after months of anticipation. PoliticsHome was the first news outlet to reveal the full draft definition.

The non-statuary definition focuses on anti-Muslim hostility as “violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated” towards Muslims. The government backed away from including a clause which would identity Muslims as a race or perceived to be a race.

Reaction from across the political spectrum has been mixed.

Lord Young of Acton, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, told PoliticsHome he was concerned the plan will be used to “enforce radical progressive dogma”.

He said: “First, I worry that free speech will be curtailed in the name of promoting social cohesion – that it’s a synonym for social control. Second, I worry that measures designed to counter extremism will be applied to the Right but not to the Left, which is what’s happened with Prevent.

“The risk is that this plan will be used to enforce radical progressive dogma.”

Lord Walney, Co-chair of APPG on Defending Democracy, told PoliticsHome he believed it was good news the government was acting on his recommendations to beef up powers to “tackle extremists who run bogus charities”. However, he said genuine change will require political leadership and not “just a glossy document.

“In particular, ministers must monitor closely whether the new definition of anti-Muslim hatred has a further chilling effect on people’s ability to speak up on the problem of Islamist extremism in Britain.”

Meanwhile Wajid Akhter, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, told PoliticsHome: “Social cohesion cannot be built on suspicion or securitisation, it must be built on trust, equal citizenship and democratic freedoms.

“At a time when anti-Muslim hate crime is rising, and online disinformation is fuelling division, cohesion requires leadership that builds trust rather than deepens suspicion.

“Building a more cohesive society is something we all want to see. We welcome steps by the government that brings communities together rather than divide them further.”

Iran’s branch of the Red Crescent have sent a letter to the International Criminal Court (ICC) requesting an investigation into war crimes committed by the US and Israel. Providing an exhaustive list of the civilian infrastructure and damage to emergency response vehicles, they highlight how civilians are being targeted rather than combatants.

This comes whilst the US and Israel are waging an illegal war of aggression on Iran, which was unprovoked and initiated whilst all parties were at the negotiating table. However, given the criminal warrants already issued for Israel’s genocidal leaders for their longstanding crimes against Palestinians, it is hard to imagine Western leaders will suddenly sit up and listen. After all, this simply marks another act of complicit aggression in Western government’s expanding list of failures.

BREAKING

The Iranian Red Crescent urges the International Criminal Court to investigate US and Israeli war crimes against Iran’s civilians:

6,668 civilian structures
5,535 homes
14 hospitals
65 schools
The list goes on..

Advertisement

Trump and Israel are bombing civilians, not combatants. pic.twitter.com/8UNNzuk7IP

— sarah (@sahouraxo) March 8, 2026

Iran Red Crescent: ‘to the honorable prosecutor’

The letter from the Iranian Red Crescent reads as follows:

Dear Prosecutor,

I write on behalf of the Iranian Red Crescent Society, in the discharge of its humanitarian mandate and in reliance upon the binding principles and rules of International Humanitarian Law, to formally submit our protest and request for criminal examination concerning a series of military attacks carried out against civilian objects within the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Advertisement

According to field reports from relief workers, operational documentation, and data recorded by the Iranian Red Crescent Society, a wide range of residential areas, medical facilities, schools, humanitarian facilities, vital urban infrastructure, and public places were directly or indiscriminately targeted during the recent military attacks.

Based on consolidated recorded data:

• 6,668 civilian structures have been damaged
• 5,535 residential units have been destroyed or damaged
• 1,041 commercial units have been damaged
• 14 medical centers have been affected
• 65 schools have been damaged
• 11 facilities affiliated with the Iranian Red Crescent Society have been targeted
• 3 emergency response vehicles have been damaged
• 7 Iranian Red Crescent relief workers have been killed or injured

Widespread reports describe US-Israeli attacks against Iran that have caused mass-casualty incidents and killed innocent civilians. Most disturbingly, on the first day of this illegal war, bombs struck a school twice, killing 165 schoolchildren and their teachers. The attack has understandably triggered deep grief across Iran, bringing people closer together in the face of what many see as an existential threat from the West.

Western hypocrisy

For those in the West, we have learned since Iraq and since October 7th 2023 that if leaders want to ignore flagrant law breaking, they will. After all, legality isn’t a concern for the powerful, instead their priority is what they can gain from law breaking. We wrote recently about the silence seen after the strike on the school:

If it emerges that the United States deliberately struck a girls’ school, killing scores of defenceless children, will it admit responsibility? Israel’s continued refusal to acknowledge its crimes against Palestinians raises concerned that Washington may display the same level of indifference towards Iranian lives.

At the time of the school girls’ funeral, a time of inextricable grief and mourning for their families, China-based US journalist, Jason Smith, questioned the deafening silence from Western media, saying:

Advertisement

“This should be on the front page of every Western newspaper. Ask yourself: Why isn’t it?”

Given the spinelessness and collaboration in genocide of the UK media and political (and Epstein) class, it’s no surprise at all — but no less appalling for that.”

One week into the US-Israel war on Iran, more than 1,300 Iranians have been killed, with children accounting for 30% of the dead.

US–Israeli strikes hit civilian sites, including at least 20 schools and 10 hospitals, according to UNICEF. Al Jazeera’s Fintan Monaghan reports. pic.twitter.com/JncreuhIVS

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 8, 2026

Advertisement

It comes as no surprise that our leaders seem unable to locate their moral compass or basic humanity. Especially when we remember we are wholly complicit in the war on Iran despite the semantics and maneuvering of the UK government. After all, facilitating bombers makes you just as guilty as sending bombers yourself. Your Party MP Zarah Sultana has been a staunch critic of our involvement in the genocide on Gaza and now the war on Iran, writing on X:

American B-1 bombers are landing on British soil before flying off to bomb Iran, yet Keir Starmer gaslights the nation by claiming the UK isn’t at war.

These aircraft are dropping 2,000lb bombs on schools, hospitals and homes in Iran, where the death toll has already surpassed… pic.twitter.com/btrDZXp0Fd

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 7, 2026

American B-1 bombers are landing on British soil before flying off to bomb Iran, yet Keir Starmer gaslights the nation by claiming the UK isn’t at war.

These aircraft are dropping 2,000lb bombs on schools, hospitals and homes in Iran, where the death toll has already surpassed 1,300.

Advertisement

If this illegal war is being launched from our bases, then the UK is directly involved.

70% of the public oppose these attacks.

The Prime Minister needs to grow a spine: stop the bombers landing and kick US troops out of UK bases.

Replying to the letter from the Red Crescent, NHS Doctor Dan Goyal gave his damning indictment of the West in how it conducts its ‘wars’ on X:

There’s a cowardice and arrogance at the heart of all these offences. The rules of war are too inconvenient- easier just to bomb targets that cause the most pain. The rules don’t apply to them anyway. It’s a position we cannot and must not accept.

Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian women and girls in its genocidal war on Gaza.

On International Women’s Day, we look at the number of women and girls Israel killed in Gaza in 2025.#Infograph pic.twitter.com/aCbyls8J2d

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 8, 2026

Another account on X spoke to the existential threat faced by Iran and what we have learned by watching the genocide unfold in Gaza:

A repeat of the Zionist Israeli actions, with the help of Zionist USA and others, against the people of Iran.

It is clear that the American and Israeli governments are in breach of International and humanitarian law and that their actions in Iran are unlawful.

Advertisement

The attacks on Iran, because they fail under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting the use of force against another state except in two circumstances.

A country is permitted to act in self-defence after an armed attack.

Military action is permitted when authorised by the UN.

Neither apply in this case.

Advertisement

The Zionist American actions in Iran copy and mirror the Zionist Israeli actions in Gaza and the OPT.
Any action following the illegal war on Iran is by its very nature illegal also.
The genocide is likely to have already started and the Zionist Israeli and USA humanitarian crises created by these illegal and unlawful actions are rightly to be condemned by all right thinking people.

‘Epstein Coalition’ of war criminals

Law and morality should be fixed: killing children is wrong, no matter where they come from or how powerless they are. However, Trump’s ties to Epstein indicate there has been precious little morality under consideration by either of these arrogant brutes in their lifetimes.

But more and more ordinary people wake up to this reality every day, applying more pressure against the powerful.

That pressure must grow until the tide turns in favour of humanity, as opposed to the greedy egos of the powerful.

The US/Israeli Epstein Coalition should be condemned as War Criminals by all who respect International Law. Failure to do so makes one complicit in their War Crimes… https://t.co/t7cgyP6IU6

— Mick Wallace (@wallacemick) March 8, 2026

Featured image via the Canary