The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan has been suspended from his duties following an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct. Khan has now been referred to disciplinary proceedings which will see a vote by all 125 ICC member states, with the upcoming vote set to decide his fate.

However, prior reports regarding the investigation suggested that three judges found that the evidence was not conclusive, despite a UN probe initially finding a “factual basis” for the allegations of sexual misconduct raised by a female aide.

Khan has refuted the allegations levelled against him as a “politically motivated smear campaign,” stating:

The decision is unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence.

As a result, fresh concerns are raised as to why this has now resulted in a member-state vote which could kick Khan out of the ICC.

Moreover, this grows particularly concerning in light of threats and sanctions imposed by Western states towards Khan and the court itself following his decision to issue arrest warrants for genocidal Israeli leaders.

BREAKING: ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan has been suspended pending a vote by member states after a probe found he committed serious misconduct.

Khan denies the allegations and faces a possible removal vote.

More on https://t.co/5H0QqpfIYw pic.twitter.com/mmSG5phi1t

— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) June 8, 2026

Advertisement

ICC: Khan denies any wrongdoing, and evidence is inconclusive

Khan will now face a vote by all 125 member states, but further disciplinary action will require at least 65 states to decide against him. Nevertheless, prior reports surrounding the allegations, which prompted Khan to take a voluntary leave of absence when first raised, suggest that there is not conclusive evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claims are valid and legitimate.

Despite that lack of evidence, the bureau – the executive committee of the court’s oversight body – has chosen to refer to a member state vote after making its own decision regarding Khan’s disciplinary proceedings. Frustratingly, the executive committee has not offered an explanation for why it chose to formally suspend Khan, despite reports from Reuters and the Associated Press that a three-judge panel selected to assess the case found that the evidence was not conclusive enough to support the allegations.

However, any faint prospect of understanding the rationale behind such a strong rebuke of the ICC prosecutor will be challenging, given that the Bureau has stated:

The decision of the ⁠Bureau and the related documentation will remain confidential.

In contrast, Khan has come under significant pressure, receiving threats and sanctions by leaders of Western states following his principled decision to issue arrest warrants for genocidal Israeli leaders, PM Benjamin Netanyahu and former minister of defence Yoav Gallant. Since charging the pair with war crimes and crimes against humanity seen in Gaza, the ICC and its prosecutor have faced widespread political pressuring to withdraw the warrants.

Defiantly, and in keeping with his stated commitment to upholding international law, Khan has stood by his position and resisted attempts by pro-Zionist governments and political actors in the West to pressure him into silence.

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan remains defiant and set on justice for victims of genocide, as US sustain sanctions on him and his family

By @MaddisonW92 https://t.co/xF9OGt5Hlu

Advertisement

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) June 3, 2026

Sanctions and threats from Western pro-Zionist leaders

Khan has condemned the decision taken as a politically motivated smear campaign. A majority of 21 diplomats sitting on the executive committee recommended the finding of ‘serious misconduct’ despite three judges finding no real evidence of wrongdoing. Given the lack of evidence and the strong position taken by this executive body, the suggestion of sinister political motivations being at play is hard to discount.

After all, we know that then-foreign secretary David Cameron threatened Khan in an attempt to intimidate him into refraining from issuing arrest warrants, saying that the UK would withdraw from the ICC if he didn’t. Khan did not back down, and we are still a member of the ICC – but resistance to holding Israel accountable for its flagrant war crimes, abuses, and crimes against humanity is still going strong as the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) ‘lost’ all recorded evidence of Israel’s crimes.

Furthermore, and likely relevant to his subsequent character assassination, a British-Israeli lawyer acting on Netanyahu’s behalf reportedly warned Khan in May 2025 that, unless the ICC abandoned the case against the Zionist, genocidal leader, they would “destroy” both the prosecutor and the court itself. Such a warning is surely designed not merely to influence a legal proceeding, but to intimidate the very institution charged with upholding international law.

This state-led intimidation should be illegal

The law rightly treats the intimidation of jurors as a serious offence because it undermines the integrity of the judicial process. In the same way, attempts to pressure or coerce an international court and its officials should bring equal criminality. But that principle only holds if Western leaders are, in practice, prepared to defend the rule of law consistently and without fear or favour.

Nonetheless, this principled, moral leadership certainly won’t come from the US. We wrote recently about Khan’s dogged resistance to the US’ abusive, maligned pressure – which saw unfair, and arguably illegal, sanctions applied against himself and his children by US President Trump:

Khan opened up about the coercive agenda at play to intimidate him as he pursues justice and accountability for the tens of thousands of victims of flagrant war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In response, Khan defiantly centered those who have lost everything as a result of imperialist aggression, saying:

Advertisement

“.. it’s not about us. It’s about victims and their right to justice.

They’re not worthless. They’re not numbers. They’re not abstract concepts.

They’re people that have lost their babies, their wives, their husbands, their grandparents.”

Sanctions didn’t work – now they’re weaponising disciplinary processes

Therefore, Khan argues that this may be yet another attempt at intimidation and silencing by the powers he believes dominate the West—Israel and its closely aligned allies in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Regardless of the cynical and potentially subversive agenda that may be driving these actions against him, the member states will ultimately decide any further steps through a vote. International law must matter. Without it, the world risks descending into barbarism, where the most powerful actors remain untouchable and can act with complete impunity. In such a status quo, no one can truly be safe.

Featured image via Getty/Michael M. Santiago

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

Keir Starmer has launched the latest crap policy that he thinks will save his failing premiership: an AI jobcentre advisor – because that’s exactly what the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) need.

DWP and AI needs to walk the plank

The Prime Minister announced at London Tech Week that the DWP had developed the new ‘AI work assistant’. Starmer called the tool a ‘jobcentre in your pocket’ and said it would help unemployed people find work and help build them CVs.

Science editor at The Times, Tom Whipple decided to give it a go, with a twist.

He wrote on Twitter:

I tried the government’s new AI “Jobcentre in your pocket” chatbot. Could it write me a CV? It could.

It also suggested that I should consider employment law and whether I’ve been discriminated against.

Key detail: I’m a parrot.

As Whipple wrote, he asked the robot to ask him to not help him, but Long John Silver’s faithful parrot from Treasure Island.

The journalist details that the AI told him repeating a phrase over and over (‘pieces of eight’) wasn’t an issue. This simply made him an expert in verbal communications. The parrot didn’t just sit on Long John Silver’s shoulder cracking wise, he was responsible for ‘supporting senior figures in client-facing work’.

The AI did flag up that the parrot (real name Captain Flint, according to the book) did have one issue, a significant gap in employment. But that tends to happen when the book you’re in was written in the 18th century, doesn’t it?

Despite the ridiculousness, the AI did produce a CV for the parrot, it even included a glowing endorsement from his previous employer:

Who’s a pretty boy, then?

-Former employer, Maritime industry

Let’s be clear, whilst this was hilarious, it was a rather smug middle-class approach. All this really proves is that the AI is indeed a robot that can’t identify context clues and so set on its directive, it won’t deviate from it. This side-quest of Whipple’s doesn’t really drill down into how sinister using AI to push someone into work is.

What will the AI force disabled people into?

As the Canary’s Hannah Sharland has previously reported, the DWP has previously funnelled £1.5 million into AI companies. As Sharland explained, the department is weaponising AI against disabled people to force them into work:

What we have is AI spying on sick people in work, and AI spying on sick people not in work. Ultimately, this new DWP AI guff is just the government’s latest dodgy gambit to bring sick and disabled people under the thumb of the exploitative capitalist market.

It’s especially hypocritical that the department continues to use AI when it previously demonised disabled benefits claimants for using AI to complete needlessly traumatic and long PIP forms.

Back in March, the I paper ran with:

‘Dangerous’ over-dependence on AI tools leaves disabled people using wrong or irrelevant information on their forms, say benefits advisers.

The real story here was that the DWP was refusing to release PIP assessor training manuals, but the department covered that up by claiming that they could be fed into AI. And while they don’t want people using AI to fill in the forms, they use AI to make benefits decisions. This is despite findings that AI use is much more likely to target vulnerable claimants.

The DWP has designed an AI that will manipulate people into work no matter what. Sure, in this case it’s a fictional parrot, but what happens when a disabled person who would desperately need support at work starts talking to it, will the machine pinpoint this safeguarding issue? Or will it twist the claimant’s words and massage them to make them more desirable to employers?

Whilst disabled people are being forced into employment without the support they need, a tool like this is dangerous and just another way the DWP will make disabled people’s lives harder.

Featured image via Getty/Justin Sullivan

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

Palantir has begun the process of suing London mayor Sadiq Khan for blocking a £50m deal to supply AI criminal investigations software to the Metropolitan Police.

The US tech firm has also provided services to such illustrious clients as Israel’s genocidal military and Trump’s racist border regime. As if that wasn’t enough reason to drop Palantir, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) pointed out that: 

the Met only engaged with one potential supplier, Palantir. It also did not present their procurement strategy to the deputy mayor for approval as required. The process followed by the Metropolitan Police Service for the award of the contract has not adequately ensured, or demonstrated, value for money.

The news of the lawsuit also happens to follow less than a week after the UK’s cross-party Science, Information and Technology Committee called Palantir’s increasing power over the UK state an “unacceptable weakness”. The committee went so far as to urge the government to:

exercise the 2027 break clause in the NHS Federated Data Platform Contract with Palantir and either develop an in-house replacement or seek an alternative UK provider.

So, we’ve got: procedural violations, ethical concerns, and security concerns in play. Remind us again why this is even up for debate?

Conservatives egged Palantir on

Following Khan’s veto, Palantir’s European-branch chief – Louis Mosley, grandson of the famed fascist –told Times Radio that:

I think the mayor is putting politics over public safety. He talks about values but I think what Londoners’ value is not being mugged, not being raped by a serving police officer, and that’s really what the focus here should be.

Like the obedient lap dogs of big business they are, Conservatives figureheads were quick to jump on Palantir’s bandwagon. Ex-attorney general Michael Ellis characterised MOPAC’s move as:

no doubt [that] Palantir has an extremely strong case for judicial review of Khan’s decision, to get it overturned. I strongly encourage Palantir to do that.

‘A subjective assessment’

It now appears that the authoritarian AI company has decided to do just that. Palantir’s lawyers wrote a pre-action letter to MOPAC stating that they’ll challenge Khan’s decision in court.

Defending his position in City AM, Khan echoed public concerns about the AI companies being handed control of sensitive personal data:

They want to know: what are the guardrails? What are the rules when it comes to us using the technology? How can we use it?

We can’t be blind to it. That’s why I’m not evangelical about AI to the extent where I don’t understand the importance of the guardrails and having rules in play.

Campaigning organisation 38 Degrees recently promoted two anti-Palantir petitions which attracted almost 230,000 signatures. The first urged Labour to end all public contracts with the firm. The second called on then-health-secretary Wes Streeting to axe the company’s £330m NHS patient data contract

Regarding the impending lawsuit, a source from within Palantir argued that Khan made a “subjective assessment”, adding:

We don’t take this decision lightly but we cannot stand by if procurement of our software is being politicised in this way.

A truly pathetic argument right there. ‘Sure, maybe we’re evil, but you still have to buy our software or we’ll sue’.

On top of that, Palantir didn’t seem to mind ‘politicising’ procurement when Epstein-linked ex-ambassador Peter Mandelson was handing out introductions between the company and government. And let’s not even get into the fact the tech company was a client of Mandelson’s consultancy at the time…

This lawsuit is a monumental waste of public time and money – the best of luck to Londoners in the ongoing fight to keep this evil company from sinking its claws any deeper into their city.

Featured image via Getty/Leon Neal

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

Source link

The Reform-led council in St Helens has instructed all local libraries to take down displays promoting or funding anything relating to Pride or Refugee Week.

This Orwellian – and bigoted – move comes just as Refugee Week is set to commence, between the 15th and 21st June, and shuts down the long-seen practice of libraries highlighting resources which increase understanding and compassion towards marginalised communities.

At the same time, the council have afforded £200k of taxpayers’ money to pay a consultant to ‘educate’ elected Reform councillors on the inner workings of the council over four years. This follows a comment made by a newly elected Reform councillor, George Woodward, in their first council meeting that they are:

enthusiastic but politically inexperienced.

Nevertheless, many newly elected councillors begin their terms with gaps in knowledge around policy and procedure, which is why councils already employ paid officers to support and advise them. However, Reform councillors are more than happy for lofty taxpayer funding for specialist political education delivered by consultants of their choosing, while simultaneously imposing cruel cuts to funding for community libraries.

Reform bigotry

This now-deleted post by St Helen’s Reform Councillor Mal Webster states it is a decision based in equality, because equality is of course the pretense that other groups just don’t exist.

Once again, white supremacy and bigotry is on full display by Reform UK.

Reform ;no longer support performative celebrations’

The Canary has seen an anonymous report from a library worker in St Helens who has spoken out saying “most if not all staff are horrified by this and we don’t have any outlet to disagree or speak out”.

Stating they are a ‘concerned member of the community’, they told us:

I don’t want my name used because I will lose my job. But I want people to know that Library management has told staff not to support Pride Month or Refugee week. I personally had to take down my Refugee Week display and Pride book display. This has not come from Reform, the libraries, which are supposed to represent the community, are covering themselves to cozy up with the new administration.

All Libraries in St Helens have been told not to support Pride Month or Refugee Week

Quote from Management – “We’re not recognizing Pride as a particular event this year”

Actions taken –

The calendar is being updated to remove references to Pride. Any leaflets mentioning Pride or Rainbow events “need to be pulled” and not distributed.

Advertisement

Rebranding Events: Events originally advertised as “Pride” or “Rainbow” events are being rebranded as “creative crafts.”

“Pride book displays are to be removed.”

Quote from Management – “The council’s position is that they’re not supporting Refugee Week this year.”

Actions taken

Advertisement

Removing Displays: Staff have been instructed to “bring down” Refugee Week exhibitions.

Modifying Educational Content: The “empathy school visits” has been updated specifically to “remove” references to Refugee Week.

We have since learned that the Reform council leader and cabinet directed this decision, with Newton-le-Willows Library issuing an “official response” stating that:

The council will not be involved in promoting or funding both Pride and Refugee Week.

Now with a clear need to replace the displays with something else, they’ve decided that Christmas comes twice this year – of course, this can’t possibly be called a performative display for one group, can it?

Money for “sympathetic” policy advisers, but not for inclusive libraries

Subsequently, the Reform council has stated its decision is about ensuring public money is not used for what it describes as “performative celebrations of one group”. However, the fact remains that it has seen fit to pay a consultant £50k a year on a four-year contract to inform Reform’s newly elected councillors, despite the council already having paid council officers who are more than able to inform on council policy and process for all who require it.

Therefore, it seems Reform is more than happy for taxpayer funds to go to the ‘performative’ benefit of one group, so long as it’s ‘theirs’. As a result, their far-right agenda becomes ever clearer, as they decide that it is not in the public interest for local people to have resources to help them understand and empathise with refugees and fellow citizens in their local LGBTQ+ community.

Once again, Reform show they want to restrict access to factual information that doesn’t suit their political narrative – because it goes directly against their gross, bigoted and ego-driven political motivations to divide our communities and increase hate in our towns and cities.

Since the council imposed the policy this week, local residents have been deeply unhappy with this development, with many across St Helen’s contacting their local libraries for answers and some going down to their library to see the ‘lack’ of displays for themselves.

We also tried to contact a number of local libraries in St Helens, but they would not confirm or deny whether they have taken down their displays. Instead, they directed us to speak to Reform Councillor Long for information regarding this cruel, anti-humanitarian ban.

Only one group matters to Reform – white supremacists

This disgusting policy decision, which in turn will leave communities without the educational resources to better understand issues surrounding refugees and our own LGBTQ+ community, is indicative of Reform UK’s commitment to white supremacy.

Their own leader Nigel Farage has done little to hide his disdain for marginalised people, as he recently sought to use the tragic death of Henry Nowak to whip up “pure cold rage” amongst fellow racists. Subsequently, we saw white riots in Southampton, which terrorised local residents.

Now, Reform is making clear that they want to leave communities in the dark and withhold vital resources which could help to bring down barriers, decrease fear, and increase understanding towards embattled people in the UK.

Where this will lead in St Helens awaits to be seen. But nothing good ever comes from fear, and education is the only way we can counter ignorance.

Reform is now actively taking that education away from our communities.

Featured image via Getty/Bruno Vincent

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

To celebrate Nigel Farage’s 50th day without a hosting press conference, Labour have published 50 pressing questions that both Parliament and the public would like him to answer.

By coincidence, the publication also coincides with the approval of Farage’s planning application for to extend and renovate his latest house purchase.

After the Guardian broke its story about Nigel Farage’s undeclared, untaxed ‘gift’ from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne, the Reform leader has maintained an unusual level of radio silence. Instead, he’s made ’emergency broadcasts’ which incited a riot from the middle of a field.

Cooking up a white-supremacist riot is certainly one way to divert attention from massive (alleged) corruption. Unfortunately for the UK’s racist ringleader, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner probably hasn’t forgotten that he’s currently investigating Farage.

Neither, for that matter, has Labour chair Anna Turley.

Farage ‘Shifting accounts’

On 7 June, the Labour Press account published the full letter on social media. Addressed directly from Turley to Farage, it listed 50 pressing questions for the Reform leader to answer. What’s more, many of them even came with helpful quotes from Farage himself… and contradictory quotes, likewise.

On the subject of Farage’s many conflicting stories about the £5m gift (or was it donation?) for security (or possibly Brexit, but it definitely wasn’t political), the letter stated that:

Rather than providing clarity, these shifting accounts have raised further serious questions about whether you have broken Parliamentary rules, about potential conflicts of interest, and about whether you have told the truth.

You have refused to answer questions from journalists about the extraordinary sum of money you recieved. That is not acceptable.

Advertisement

Turley got in a quick jab about reporting Farage’s alleged ‘Russian hack’ to the police before coming to the matter at hand:

Below are 50 unanswered questions – one for each of the 50 days since you held a press conference. You must now set out the answers, clearly and in full. The public deserves the truth.

Lets play 50 questions

In a markedly helpful fashion, Turley arranged her questions into eight similar headings. Of course, we’d love answers to the lot, but the following are some of out favourites. We’re starting fairly easy with the basic details:

Was the “gift” received into your personal bank account or crypto-wallet, or that of a company you control?

Surely Farage can remember that one, unless ‘Moscow’ deleted his records on its way out,

Next up, a group of questions on the fact that Farage didn’t bother to declare the £5m. Labour asked what kind of legal advice led the Reform leader not to bother with that one. Likewise, the party also wondered whether the undeclared £5m came up during Farage’s other recent parliamentary investigation:

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards opened an inquiry on 30 October 2025 into your breaches of the MPs Code of Conduct, and on 20 January 2026 concluded that you had breached the rules 17 times by failing to register financial interests totalling £384,000 within the 28-day limit. […] Did you discuss with the Commissioner the £5 million “gift” or any others given before the 2024 general election?

Private gift or political donation?

Turley then moved on to the reasons behind the ‘gift’. At just two questions, this section was rather short. However, we felt the following was particularly pressing:

You said that the £5 million from Christopher Harborne “was given to me so that I would be safe and secure for the rest of my life”, […] that it was “purely private”, “wasn’t political in any sense at all” and “an unconditional, non-political personal gift” […], and that “it was given as a reward for campaigning for Brexit for 27 years”. […] Which of these is true?

When is a political gift not a gift? When somebody’s telling great big fibs.

For that matter, the letter also pressed Farage on whether he’d taken similar undeclared ‘gifts’ from anyone else. Likewise, Turley was also curious whether Harborne had handed money over to any other Reform stalwarts.

That said, highlighting that Reform promptly began shilling for crypto is probably the biggest ‘gotcha’:

On May 29, 2025 at the Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas, you announced Reform had put together a proposed ‘Cryptoassets and Digital Finance Bill’ […]. Did Christopher Harborne or representatives of his business advise you or any other Reform-UK-linked figures on matters related to this bill in advance of its publication?

Well, a house is a kind of security…

Given that Farage originally claimed that the £5m was for ‘security purposes’, Turley devoted 10 whole questions to the subject. In particular, she pointed out one major disparity:

Christopher Harborne reportedly became “concerned about what little protection Mr Farage has access to” following an incident in 2019 […]. Why was there a five-year gap between his becoming concerned and giving you £5 million for your security?

We at the Canary had it that Harborne’s inciting incident was watching Farage get hit by a milkshake. We know billionaires are out-of-touch, but a raincoat is probably a cheaper fix than £5m there.

Of course, the fact that Farage and his partner bought/extended several houses up front, within months of the ‘gift’, also featured heavily. Turley singled out the dubious sourcing of those funds:

Reform UK has said that this house purchase was funded not by the Harborne gift but by the fee from your appearence on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! but you have previously said this fee was paid to your production company, Thorn in the Side Ltd. And Thorn in the Side’s company accounts suggest that the fee remained in the company account after the house purchase. How did you pay for the Surrey house in May 2024?

In our opinion, I’m a Celebrity owes the public money for subjecting them to Farage, but whatever.

Last but not least: Moscow

Inevitably, given Turley’s recent history with Farage, she finished up with a question about the Reform leader’s claim to have been hacked by Russia:

According to the Mail on Sunday report, following the disclosure of the £5 million “gift” you “decided to submit [your] mobile phone for forensic analysis by counter-espionage experts” who “concluded that hostile state actors, almost certainly linked to Moscow, had used ‘spear phishing’ tactics to compromise [your] phone, email and bank accounts”. Who were these counter-espionage experts?

Farage is scuppered either way on this one. Either he didn’t report the ‘Russian hack’, which he should have as a national security incident, or he made the whole thing up. Personally, our money’s on the latter.

Of course, if Farage wants to remain in hiding, he’s free to do so. Dodging interviews is really helping his public image as a man who definitely isn’t lying. That said, if he does fancy facing the music, Turley’s itemised list is probably a good place to start.

Featured image via Getty/Dan Kitwood

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

Just as Green Party leader Zack Polanski has made calls to release Marwan Barghouti, so too in Spain, prime minister Pedro Sanchez attended Barcelona’s Primavera Sound festival. There, Barghouti’s son, Arab Barghouti, addressed 75,000 people before meeting the Spanish premier.

Arab Barghouthi, son of Palestinian prisoner Marwan Barghouti, met with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez after addressing 75,000 people at Primavera Sound. pic.twitter.com/RMMyKyzGm3

— Quds News Network (@QudsNen) June 8, 2026

Sanchez even shared a video of Barghouti’s son’s speech on Instagram and thanked him for raising his voice.

Polanski and Sanchez’s positioning of Marwan Barghouthi as a political prisoner rather than Israel’s framing of him as a terrorist borrows directly from the playbook that once freed Nelson Mandela.

Barghouti has been called “Palestine’s Mandela” – a statue of him briefly stood near the UK Parliament last week before police intercepted it.

Like Mandela, Barghouti has spent decades in prison. And like Mandela, his supporters believe he will one day be recognised as a global symbol of freedom and justice.

Barghouti must be freed

A POLITICO profile published the same week praised the Spanish PM as a “rockstar” and the “unlikely face of Europe’s opposition” to Trump.

When the U.S. and Israel began their attack on Iran in late February, Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez stood out as the sole EU leader to openly condemn the military operation.

Within months, he went from an outlier in Europe to the bloc’s moral leader.

Advertisement

https://t.co/VLTgSu4Whv pic.twitter.com/s4N6wcvf0c

— POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) June 8, 2026

POLITICO traces Sanchez’s domestic popularity to his defiance of US foreign policy priorities.

Spaniards backed him when he refused Trump’s demands to hike NATO spending. But it was his condemnation of the war on Iran that resonated with Spanish voters, among the most opposed to the attack anywhere in Europe.

The news outlet praised Sanchez as an exception to other European leaders who have not stood up to the Americans:

Overall, Europe’s leaders have been reluctant to clash with Trump. The U.S. is one of the EU’s largest trading partners, and maintaining stable ties is considered essential for countries like Germany. Additionally, despite Trump’s efforts to undermine NATO, European defense continues to not only be U.S.-led, but U.S.-centered.

But Sánchez is an exception to that status quo.

Zionist backlash

Like Barghouti’s, though obviously not to anywhere near the same degree, Polanski and Sanchez have paid the price of standing up to the Anglo-American-Zionist ruling elite.

For Polanski, the cost is a relentless media war. The Telegraph has joined other right-wing rags in publishing antisemitic Polanski caricatures. The Telegraph has also implied that Polanski wants to create a “Jew register,” in response to the Green leader backing calls to hold potential war criminals to account.

The Daily Mail published anonymous claims from allegedly “disgusted” relatives, but Polanski revealed they’d all refused to talk.

For Sanchez, right-wing rags are too eager for his downfall. The Jerusalem Post calls Sanchez’s administration “the most antisemitic government in the West,” and digs into his wife’s corruption case. 

One particularly strange claim from the Jerusalem Post, attributed to Spanish businessman David Hatchwell, insists Spain is “led by a coalition financed by Iran” made up of “terrorists who have never answered for their crimes.” No evidence is provided.

Hatchwell smears Sanchez’s government as one that “hates Spain, hates Israel, and hates America.”

Polanski and Sánchez might not reflect mainstream elite politics – but they certainly reflect majority public opinion.

New polling from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign reveals just how out of touch the British establishment really is.

BREAKING: New polling shows that Labour’s policy on Gaza is a significant factor in progressive voters ditching the party in huge numbers pic.twitter.com/9ftj4Y1QWQ

— Palestine Solidarity Campaign (@PSCupdates) June 8, 2026

Polling showed that Labour’s policy on Gaza is a significant factor in progressive voters ditching the party in huge numbers, with 53% of those who switched to the Greens, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, or independents citing Gaza as a reason.

Polanski and Sanchez’s embrace of Barghouti’s cause probably resonates more with ordinary voters than any front-page smear in the Daily Mail or Jerusalem Post.

Featured image via Getty/Buda Mendes

By The Canary

Source link

The US military deployed elements of the elite 82nd airborne division – paratroopers – to the Middle East in March. Sources have now revealed some went to Israel. Their mission, if called upon, was to seize Iranian oil port Kharg island.

US journalist Ken Klippenstein reported on 8 June:

When the Pentagon announced that the 82nd Airborne was deploying to the Middle East in March, it concealed a key detail: some of the paratroopers were headed to Israel, as revealed in an Army deployment order I obtained.

Adding:

A military source involved in war planning tells me the deployment is tied to new U.S.-Israeli joint contingency plans, completed since February, for seizing Kharg Island and carving out coastal territory inside Iran.

Rumours of a ground invasion bubbled then faded as the war ground to a humiliating halt. Klippenstein, among others, argued that a ground war was never going to happen. Trump’s war on Iran is currently polling as badly as the Vietnam war.

US paratroopers Israeli mission kept secret

The mission was kept quiet to head off:

public debate over a joint U.S.-Israeli operation inside Iran — a prospect many considered plausible at the time.

And because:

A joint U.S.-Israeli operation raises thorny questions for America’s Gulf Arab “partners,” especially over logistical support — hence the 82nd, which could launch directly from Israel without any Gulf state’s consent to use its territory.

The last mass military parachute drop was in 1945. While the Pentagon did talk about the deployment, the Israel tasking was kept quiet.

US Joint Chiefs Chairman general Dan Caine praised the 82nd in a public meeting in May 2026:

He went on to describe the paratroopers as “constantly ready to jump from Air Force aircraft into ground combat [to] seize key terrain if ordered to do so, just like their predecessors did in Sicily and Normandy in World War II, or to secure or enable the follow-on forces to flow into theater as they did in Grenada or Panama.”

For Klippenstein:

That is a description of readiness to seize a piece of Iranian terrain — which makes me suspect the New York Times and others were being used to “message” Tehran that such an operation was imminent.

One company remains Israel

The US-Israeli alliance is hardly a secret. Klippenstein gave three reasons why the mission was kept so secret:

First, the breadth and depth of U.S.-Israeli military cooperation goes far beyond arms sales and “deconfliction.”

Secondly:

the two countries are deepening intelligence sharing aimed at making Israel a sixth “eye” in the so-called Five Eyes alliance of the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.

And:

Third, naming Israel would expose how much of the U.S. assault on Iran is in fact a joint U.S.-Israeli attack — not a Trump-Netanyahu brotherhood, but cooperation at the military-to-military working level, where combined war plans are now reality.

Klippenstein said one airborne company – between 60 and 250 soldiers –  is still in Israel:

from which no dispatches have emerged in two months. I’m not saying a ground operation is imminent or inevitable. But if one were coming, wouldn’t it be nice to know?

US-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. And 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 Straits of Hormuz, a vital oil channel, once attacked – creating 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”. Trump came to power on an anti-war ‘America First’ ticket. He now faces worldwide humiliation.

Featured image via Getty/Ian Hitchcock

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Your Party parliamentary leader Jeremy Corbyn is asking for the public’s help to pressure Makerfield by-election candidate Andy Burnham into confirming he will back an independent inquiry into UK collusion in Israel’s genocide. Corbyn wrote to the Greater Manchester mayor in May 2026 asking Burnham to say publicly that he will back an inquiry. Burnham did not respond.

Now Corbyn wants members of the public, particularly but not exclusively in Makerfield, to sign a petition demanding Burnham state unequivocally that he will back an inquiry – and arrange it if he wins the by-election and a leadership election.

The British public deserves to know the full scale of its government’s complicity in genocide. That’s why I will continue to push for an independent, public inquiry.

We will not give up until there is justice for the people of Palestine.https://t.co/X0HlSxpGCg

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) May 26, 2026

Advertisement

Friends of genocide – except Corbyn

Burnham, at least formerly a supporter of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), is surrounded by concerns over his closeness to the UK Israel lobby. Disgraced, Israel-supporting incumbent Josh Simons quit in order to trigger the by-election and other pro-Israel figures now support Burnham. Burnham needs to win in order to challenge Keir Starmer for the keys to Number 10. Simons’s pro-Israel ‘Labour Together’ sabotage outfit appears to be trying to stay in control.

Makerfield voters go to the polls Thursday, 18 June 2026. If Burnham wants the left to lend him a vote, he needs to say right now – as per Corbyn’s demand – that he will hold an independent inquiry into the collusion of UK government, media and others in Israel’s slaughter of innocents.

Sign the petition here.

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Nigel Farage has called on the Unions to ditch Labour and instead join far-right Reform UK.

Reform is now the party of workers.

Today I am inviting trade unions to apply for affiliation with Reform UK.

We also welcome union leaders to attend our national conference in September and engage in discussions about the policies of a future Reform government. pic.twitter.com/v9dRHMmwU4

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) June 9, 2026

Advertisement

Farage has never been a member of a union. Instead, he has spent most of his career spouting hatred at them.

Nigel Farage hasn’t been a member of a union his whole life. He’s had nothing but borderline hatred for them his entire career. He’s also quoted as saying “Reform would go to war with these left wing teaching unions”.

Meanwhile councillors like @DarrenGrimes constantly air… https://t.co/mcBIPmgr8M

— Reform Party UK Exposed (@reformexposed) June 9, 2026

If any union accepts his offer, there is no doubt that it will eventually destroy both the union and its members’ rights. That sounds a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas.

Farage inviting the Unions to get into bed with him and Reform UK because they are ‘the party of working people’.
If any union accepts this offer it will destroy them and their members rights, perhaps that’s his plan? I would leave my union if it did would you? #Farage #ReformUK pic.twitter.com/QtOy7KVV8Z

— The Rev. Anton Mittens (@MittensOff) June 9, 2026

Farage voting against workers’ rights

Farage claims that Reform is the party of working people. However, the reality is that Farage has consistently voted against workers’ rights.

Trade union representative here: ARE THEY FUCK FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE. https://t.co/B8FDP1t6d3

— SaltyTech (@Captin__Caveman) June 9, 2026

From the man and party who voted against the Employment Rights Act – this is farcical.

What was it about the law which repeals vast swathes of the Tories’ punitive Trade Union Act 2016 and makes it far easier to get unions recognised in a workplace you didn’t like Nigel? https://t.co/LUMQhJlkY3

— Cllr Tom Creswell (@tom_creswell_) June 9, 2026

Reform wants to scrap the Equality Act. This would threaten parental leave rights, along with job security for half a million pregnant people.

Reform opposed the Employment Rights Bill & would scrap day one sick pay & parental leave rights.

Farage was against increasing the minimum wage & defended Thatcher causing a “little pain” with huge job losses in working class communities.

Reform are not on the side of workers. https://t.co/TSpttGE86e

— Danny Adilypour (@dannyadilypour) June 9, 2026

Farage was also against increasing the minimum wage. Which is hilarious given how much he takes home each year from his nine jobs. He takes home over £600k every single year – so much for a man of the people!

Reform is the party of corporate interests

Eleven trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. Having said that, a recent poll suggested there is growing support among some trade union members for Reform UK.

However, leaders of the TUC, GMB, Unison and Community all hit back at Farage. They said that Reform was the party of “corporate interests”.

In an interview with the Times, Farage said union leaders were spending members’ money on policies that members do not support. He added:

Reform now runs councils that employ tens of thousands of unionised workers: bin men and women, social workers, care staff, school support workers.

Unlike the snobbish Tories of old, we will never treat organised labour with contempt. If you represent working people in this country, my door is open. The doors of every Reform council leader from Sunderland to Sandwell are open.

Advertisement

Reform has never, and will never be, the party of workers.

Reform is not the party of workers.

You hate trade unions. You hate workers rights. You hate the minimum wage.

How can a party of greedy corrupt multi-millionaires and failed Tories who want to strip away our rights, make us poorer and privatise the NHS, ever be on our side. https://t.co/BZ9KSSSmIu

— Oliver Bennett (@OBennettSocial) June 9, 2026

Advertisement

Does Nige think that if he’s racist enough and incites enough riots, everyone will just forget about the £5m donation and the house he didn’t pay stamp duty on?

Why won’t you allow yourself to be interviewed? Why are you running away from the scandal of your £5mil ‘gift’ or should we say bribe? #Farage #FarageRiots #ReformUK #Brexit #RejoinEU https://t.co/5Ms3KSpeS1

— WeAreTheDeeplyUnhelpful48% #FBPE #RejoinEU (@Budfrog) June 9, 2026

It’s actually insulting to working-class people that Farage thinks he can spout racism and the working class will jump into his arms. But you can’t claim to be the party of working people whilst simultaneously voting against workers’ rights.

A man of the people wouldn’t take millions from crypto billionaires, pay as little tax as possible, and consistently vote against stronger employment rights for workers.

There is absolutely no doubt that if he got into Number 10, Farage would take a massive dump on workers as soon as he got the chance.

Featured image via Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

By HG

Source link