Washington will soon enter a new chapter after voters pick the capital’s first new mayor in a dozen years and its first new Congressional delegate since 1991. And no matter who wins Tuesday’s primaries, they’ll be on a collision course with President Donald Trump.

The frontrunners in both races have hinged their campaigns on opposition to Trump, who since returning to office has chipped away at Washington’s autonomy and sought to remake parts of the city in his image. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has led the city since taking office in 2015, has taken a pragmatic approach to working with the president in an apparent effort to avoid further furor. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton has represented the District since 1991 and condemned Trump’s actions in strongly worded statements, but the 89-year-old has dodged the spotlight amid questions about her acuity and ability to serve.

The candidates running to replace them say that’s far from enough.

In interviews with POLITICO, those leading candidates emphasized that they hoped to find common ground with the Trump administration and coordinate where possible, especially on projects that could jumpstart Washington’s sluggish economy. But they all drew a red line at Trump’s extraordinary law enforcement actions, including sending in the National Guard indefinitely and surging federal immigration agents in coordination with local police.

“Washington, D.C., residents want and deserve a mayor who’s going to stand up and fight back, and that’s what I’m bringing,” said Kenyan McDuffie, a relatively moderate, pro-business former D.C. Council member who is polling second in the mayor’s race. He has pledged to end coordination between the Metropolitan Police Department and ICE on his first day in office.

Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. council member who is polling more than 10 points ahead of McDuffie, has taken an even more adversarial posture against the president. She told POLITICO she would “actively tell our employees to resist” if Trump again federalized the MPD, adding that she would work with D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb “to defend D.C.”

Trump is already making known his displeasure — particularly with Lewis George, a democratic socialist whose platform and campaign are reminiscent of those of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Asked last week about the possibility of Lewis George winning the primary, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office: “I wouldn’t like it.”

“Maybe we’ll take back Washington, run it on a federal basis,” he continued. “We won’t put up with it. We’re not gonna lose our businesses.”

Lewis George’s campaign almost immediately cut Trump’s comments into an ad. “Look, we’re not going to get ICE off our streets by fearing this president,” she said in response. “We’re not going to protect our rights, or Home Rule, by complying in advance. Threatening Home Rule because you don’t like how residents are voting is an attack on democracy itself. The people of D.C. elect their mayor, and they want someone who’s gonna stand up to Donald Trump.”

There’s a similar sentiment among the leading delegate candidates.

Robert White, a city council member and one of two frontrunners in the delegate race, described Trump’s surge of federal agents and National Guard troops to the city as “lawlessness” and “the opposite of public safety.” He said he would seek to build a coalition in Congress to “push back in every way.”

Brooke Pinto, a fellow council member and the other delegate frontrunner who has centered public safety in her campaign, said the administration’s use of National Guard troops and ICE agents have not helped the city. “While I am very committed to advancing public safety in the District of Columbia, what we’re seeing from the Trump administration undermines those efforts,” she said.

That type of messaging is politically savvy in a city with an electorate that heavily supported Kamala Harris in 2024 and whose lives have been directly impacted by the president’s grip over Washington — from the troop surge to his sweeping cuts to government programs and razing of the federal workforce, which have severely contracted the District’s economy. That’s not to mention his efforts to splash his name and face across federal buildings, and mounting moves to beautify portions of the city and stand up ambitious architectural projects.

“When politicians try to interfere with our local public safety, when they are sweeping up unhoused residents, cutting jobs, when they are pushing policies that negatively affect our local economy and driving up overall costs of everything from gas to housing, I’m going to fight back,” McDuffie said.

But it sets the candidates — whoever wins — in explicit opposition to Trump, who has consistently sought to bring his enemies to heel whenever he gets the chance. The president has several levers at his disposal if he chooses to retaliate against Washington, from another federal law enforcement surge to using his influence over Congress to weaken D.C. Home Rule. The city also depends on the federal government for high-profile projects that would improve public spaces and bring jobs to the District, including upgrades to Union Station and the redevelopment of the RFK Stadium campus.

Asked how the White House is preparing for a potentially more adversarial mayor and delegate, a spokesperson referred POLITICO back to Trump’s Oval Office comments.

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.

Source link

In the latest instalment of the poorly-written melodrama that is Starmer’s Labour, the PM has warned Andy Burnham that a leadership challenge would “throw the country into chaos”.

However, speaking on ITV’s This Morning, he also stated that:

If there is a challenge, I will fight. I’m not going to walk away from this.

We won a landslide victory just two years ago with a clear mandate to change the country, that’s a five-year mandate.

‘I always said that would take time’ says Starmer

Following devastating losses across England, Wales and Scotland in May’s elections, the Labour leader has faced renewed calls to step down.

Polster YouGov is currently reporting that 61% of respondents dislike Starmer, versus just 19% in favour. Likewise, as of 18 May, 71% of the public felt that the PM was doing a bad job.

However, Starmer seems undeterred, insisting that he intends to remain in his position for the long-haul:

What we did was offer change. I always said that would take time.

Do I understand that people are frustrated and say ‘I haven’t seen enough change yet?’ Yes, of course I do.

We need to complete on the work that we are doing, but… if you’ve waited best part of 20 years for your living standards to improve, you want that to happen more quickly. I completely understand that.

Advertisement

All eyes on Makerfield

Andy Burnham is currently the mayor of Greater Manchester. However, his best route toward a potential bid for the leadership of Labour is to become a member of Parliament. As such, a great deal hinges on the upcoming by-election in Makerfield, Greater Manchester.

The constituency’s former minister, Josh Simons, quit his seat in order to clear a shot for Burnham. The leadership hopeful’s most prominent rival for the seat is Reform UK’s Robert Kenyon, who has faced repeated controversy over his friendships with fascists and deeply bigoted outbursts.

In order to mount a leadership challenge, Burnham would then need the backing of 81 other Labour MPs. Rivals who have already signalled their intent to oppose him include ex-health minister Wes Streeting and former armed forces minister Al Carns, both of whom have already quit their positions.

As reported in Murdoch rag the Sun back in May, a senior Labour source stated that Burnham was considering a snap election, should he be victorious:

Andy considering an early general election. They are wargaming it.

But Labour MPs would absolutely hate it. They are worried about losing their seats.

If Andy becomes PM I expect he will have to promise the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) that he will not call a snap election.

They will want him to sign the pledge in blood.

However, the Manchester mayor’s team have since signaled that the rumours are false.

While some in his campaign were initially in favour of holding off until after Labour’s September conference, the resignations last week of John Healey as defence secretary and Al Carns as armed forces minister over military funding persuaded them to act more quickly, The Times reported.

‘Change the story’, Burnham

Regarding the by-election, which will take place on Thursday 18 June, Burnham sounded hopeful:

I kind of feel as we go into the final stretch that the voters of this constituency could be about to write a new script for British politics, and how good is that?

Change the story.

It’s becoming more and more divided, isn’t it?

Advertisement

And we can see what’s happening.

We don’t want to end up like the United States of America, where people don’t talk to each other in the street if they vote different ways.

Just three days ahead of the crucial date, the Labour candidate is currently leading across most polls. However, and as we at the Canary keep pointing out, for all Burnham’s talk of ‘change’, he still seems extremely woolly on little details like what exactly he’ll change, how he’ll change it, and when he expects to be done changing it.

Now where have we heard that one before?

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

The Oxford Union Society (OUS) is set to go ahead with its postponed debate featuring notorious racists Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Jacob Rees-Mogg. And, that’s in spite of urging to the contrary from community leaders and campaign groups.

The OSU, though independent from the University of Oxford, draws much of its membership from the university. On 17 June, it’s set to debate the motion:

This House Believes the West is right to be Suspicious of Islam

The debate was originally scheduled for 28 May. However, it was postponed after public outcry over Robinson’s presence, in particular.

Tommy Robinson is just the tip of the racist iceberg

Because obviously the motion itself wouldn’t result in enough Islamophobic sentiment in its own right, the invited guest speakers supporting the motion will be Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Jonathan Sacerdoti.

The Canary has written enough on Robinson’s repeated criminal violence, white-supremacist agitation and low-down grifting to fill several books. However, his most recent racist provocations resulted in rioting and arson attacks across Belfast, Southampton, and elsewhere.

Laurence Fox was once better known for playing Inspector Morse’s sidekick’s sidekick on telly. Nowadays, the putative ‘free speech champion’ seems to spend his days spewing bigoted filth online, making unsuccessful libel claims, and failing to become London’s mayor.

Sacerdoti is a journalist with bylines in the Spectator, Daily Mail, and Jewish Chronicle, among others. He’s previously appeared at the OUS to argue against the motion that Israel is an apartheid state.

…And the opposition?

Their opponents will be Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Doward, and Abdullah al Andalusi. And yes, you read that right – Rees-Mogg is somehow on the ‘against’ side.

Noted Victorian cosplayer and Tory politician Rees-Mogg managed to lose his once-safe parliamentary seat in 2024. Nowadays, he makes his money presenting for far-right GB News. Oh, and he’s also a trustee of the charity that safeguards the OUS, if you’re wondering why he’s actually here.

Meanwhile, both Doward and al Andalusi are both new ones on us. Doward is a Muslim revert who runs the podcast Speaker’s Corner, which “shines a light” on issues affecting Muslims.

Regarding al Andalusi, also a revert, anti-fascist investigative outlet Searchlight stated that:

Rees-Mogg’s fellow opposition speakers are two Muslim converts. One is Abdullah al-Andalusi, whose former name was Mouloud Farid. Under that name he managed to pass security vetting more than a decade ago and worked for almost two years (until July 2014) for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.

Though a very marginal figure in the Muslim community, he has managed to persuade some media outlets to give him publicity and an opportunity for fundraising.

Advertisement

Andalusi was reported in the mid-2010s to be “closely associated with the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir”, which has been banned as a terrorist organisation since 2024.

The OSU were always going to be scraping the barrel to find any Muslim leaders or anti-Islamophobia campaigners to dignify this debate with their presence. However, the choices of Rees-Mogg and al Andalusi really do seem intended to fan the flames of racial hatred.

The city stands opposed

Given the presence of walking incitement-to-riot Robinson in particular, the community opposition to the debate has been fierce.

Susan Brown – Labour leader of Oxford City Council – has called for the OSU to foot the bill for the massive amount of security that the city is having to put in place. She stated that:

Whilst we are committed to free speech and open debate, that must be balanced against ensuring all our residents can live free from hatred, intimidation and harm. […]

This will cause considerable disruption for local residents and businesses, and comes at a substantial cost.

The Oxford Union must meet the full costs of staging their event, rather than leaving Oxford’s taxpayers to pick up the bill.

Meanwhile, Ian McKendrick – campaign group Oxford Stand Up To Racism’s vice chairman – called out the OSU’s invitation to Robinson. He stated that the extreme-right leader had been whipping up “violent race riots” and:

radicalising tragedies to stir up hate and inspire fear.

We cannot stay silent and watch our country descend into chaos and division. Oxford must present a united front and say no to racism, no to fascism.

Advertisement

The Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, and Imam Monawar Hussain penned a joint letter calling for the OUS to withdraw its invitations. The pair, who together chair the Oxfordshire and Thames Valley Faith and Civic Leaders Forums, wrote that the debate society’s leaders have a:

duty of care to the many thousands of Muslims, Jews and others of different faiths in the city.

Those who have issued this invitation need to be mindful not only of the University of Oxford but of the city in which they live and study as students – a city which has a long tradition of hospitality to migrants and the poorest sections of society.

We make a strong appeal in these weeks and months of global tension that this invitation should be reconsidered and withdrawn for the sake of this city and its peace.

Dangerous disregard

Whilst the debate society styles itself as a champion of ‘free speech’, and its president Arwa Elrayess touts her Palestinian origins, this debate is nothing more than a low-down publicity grab. Worse still, it comes at a very real cost to the people of Oxford around them.

Elrayess posted a statement voicing her delight that the OSU would:

continue to uphold the central principle of free speech that this Society was built upon.

The OSU has shown a dangerous disregard for the safety of the inhabitants of the city around them. And of course, that applies twofold for the people of colour who will inevitably bear the brunt of attacks by Robinson’s white-supremacist followers.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

Source link

Keir Starmer’s government has been doing its best to make an example of Palestine Action activists. And showing real unity with Labour on the topic of Israel’s settler colonial genocide, prominent Tories have jumped to defend the dangerous crackdown on protest rights.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and shadow home secretary Chris Philp are both very close to the Israel lobby and have been vocal in their smears against Palestine Action. As a judge handed down draconian ‘terrorism’ sentences on four anti-genocide activists, Badenoch blamed “these thugs” for injuring a police officer.

She suggested that police officers who had gone to help an Israeli weapons factory had somehow been:

risking their lives to protect us

Despite overwhelming expert consensus, Badenoch has previously denied Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Palestine Action

In reality, the events at the weapons factory saw one activist unintentionally inflict a minor injury on a police officer:

No, they didn’t.

One of them, Sam Corner, was found to have injured Sgt Evans without intent.

There was no such accusation against any of the others.

Advertisement

Kemi Badenoch committed contempt of court on live television during their trial. https://t.co/5d7TNB4Fel

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) June 13, 2026

Philp also twisted the facts into a suggestion that “these violent thugs” had somehow gone out to attack police officers. He also talked about them “smashing up property“, as if it was random property and not a factory supplying weapons to a genocidal apartheid state.

3 of the 4 people didn’t attack the police officer and all of the 4 were cleared of violent intent. So the only disgrace here is the lie you’re telling to justify a clear miscarriage of justice & the use of anti-terror laws to justify your government’s complicity in a genocide. https://t.co/8WNKMNoM19

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) June 13, 2026

Philp recently sought to ‘understand the reasons‘ behind the racist pogroms in Belfast.

Shadow housing secretary James Cleverly used similar lines of attack.

They were acquitted on all charges until the State forced a rigged retrial that lied to the jury.

This wasn't justice. It was the death of it in Britain. https://t.co/8I1AkvWiWD

— Marl Karx (@BareLeft) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Right to protest under attack

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has called government efforts to use Palestine Action as an example to deter opposition to genocide:

A truly dangerous attack on the right to protest.

He believes it’s “deeply authoritarian” and:

should worry all of us

As suffragettes faced imprisonment for their direct action in the past, Palestine Action is walking a similar path. And as journalist John McEvoy reported:

Being in court yesterday felt akin to witnessing a colonial crime: punishing activists with terrorism offences in order to set a precedent that taking direct action to stop a UK-backed genocide will not be tolerated.

The government thinks it needs to set an example. One reason for this is that, as late academic David Graeber said:

Nothing annoys forces of authority more than trying to bow out of the disciplinary game entirely and saying that we could just do things on our own. Direct action is a matter of acting as if you were already free.

The suffragettes did that. Palestine Action has done that. And no matter what Labour or Tory genocide apologists say or do, opponents of injustice will never stop fighting injustice.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

In 2025, Elon Musk was causing havoc in the US via his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). As critics said at the time, Musk wasn’t making cuts in a sensible and practical fashion; he was just pointing at programmes on a spreadsheet and saying ‘cut that‘. Now, the impacts of his time in government are becoming more and more apparent:

> save $15M a year by cutting a screwworm monitoring program

> screwworm outbreak almost immediately

> $1B to combat it

Advertisement

Government efficiency https://t.co/EHeY9if26V

— Luke Miani (@LukeMiani) June 15, 2026

Musk is a failing worm

Musk was supposedly in position to reduce the national debt. As reported, his failure in this regard was complete:

WOW! You can really see where DOGE began its work! https://t.co/5QGSDDn3XB

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) December 23, 2025

Here’s what one of the young men Musk employed to carry out DOGE cuts said:

I personally was pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was. This isn’t to say that it can’t be made more efficient — elimination of paper, elimination of faxing — but these aren’t necessarily fraud, waste and abuse.

If you have any degree of familiarity with how Musk conducts himself, you’ll be unsurprised to learn the self-proclaimed ‘free speech absolutist‘ fired this guy for his comments.

Getting to the screwworm issue, Forbes reported that Musk cut funding for a monitoring programme. Making things worse, the cut came:

days before the U.S. ended a temporary suspension of cattle imports from Mexico, meaning livestock was allowed to cross the border without any of the monitoring previously funded by the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID)

Screwworm is once again present in American livestock. In the long-term, this could decimate the American herd; in the short-term, it’s going to make it hard to impossible for the US to export beef.

The cost of Musk

Reporting on the successful 1960s programme to eradicate screwworm, Forbes wrote:

The eradication was the result of multiple sterile fly programs across the south that cost roughly $42 million in the mid 1960s, the equivalent of about $452 million today.

There have been outbreaks since, but there hasn’t been a significant problem in decades. USDA estimates show that if the US suffers an outbreak similar to what it saw in 1976, it could cost as much as $1.8bn.

To try and prevent a future outbreak:

The USDA is spending $750 million on a new Texas facility capable of producing roughly 300 million sterile screwworms per week, but it won’t be operational until at least 2027

In other words, it’s going to cost the US close to a billion even if there isn’t a significant outbreak.

The DOGE legacy

Speaking on Musk’s time in office, the House Committee on the Budget reported:

DOGE’s Mass Firings Result in Gutted Services and Higher Costs.

The committee added:

President Trump and Elon Musk are slashing essential services that millions of Americans depend on through mass firings of government employees. Through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), they have illegally fired tens of thousands of employees through prohibited personnel actions.

These cuts threaten services that Americans rely upon, such as the delivery of Social Security benefits, access to classrooms for students with disabilities, and help processing tax refunds. Additionally, these cuts to the federal workforce will likely make the deficit worse, not better, thanks to decreased oversight and increased tax dodging.

From a UK perspective, it’s worth being aware of the failure of DOGE, because Reform UK is looking to repeat it. And as you might have already guessed, this means cuts to public services combined with infinite money for flags:

£75,000 for 164 flags.

This is how Reform will spend your money. pic.twitter.com/McUmY1sPYl

— BladeoftheSun (@BladeoftheS) October 24, 2025

Featured image via Benjamin Fanjoy (Getty Images) / Brandon Bell (Getty Images) 

By Willem Moore

Source link

Alan Cumming as Leo Struthers | Image: © Channel 4/Ben Blackall

4 min read24 min

Brilliantly scripted, with standout performances, this dark new drama from the pen of Russell T Davies is a wake-up call to the erosion of LGBT+ rights and the corrosive impact of social media

Advertisement

While I’m a massive fan of Russell T Davies, I’ve been putting off watching his latest drama for Channel 4, Tip Toe. Partly because I’ve not entirely recovered from the emotional onslaught that was It’s a Sin and its perfectly styled period piece exploration of the 1980s Aids epidemic. Mostly, however, because it tackles head-on some of the more disturbing social dynamics of the mid-2020s, and I know how hard his dramatic punches can land.

Tip Toe could be considered part three of an informal trilogy exploring the experiences of LGBT+ people in Manchester: Davies’ joyous celebration of Canal Street culture, Queer as Folk, and the mid-life crisis follow-on, Cucumber.

All three programmes feature different sets of characters orbiting around Canal Street’s bars. All feature people making seemingly small, if rash, choices that quickly lead to things spiralling out of control. Tip Toe speeds towards a particularly dark conclusion and, unlike the other two, doesn’t find a happy resolution for its protagonists after they reach their lowest point.

Advertisement

This isn’t a spoiler. RTD uses a conceit he’s employed more than once before, notably in the era-defining Doomsday episode of Doctor Who, where a character’s eventual death is revealed in the opening scene. Only, unlike Rose Tyler, there is no sci-fi ‘MacGuffin’ to protect Alan Cumming’s character Leo Struthers from a genuinely sickening fate. 

There is a more subversive conceit to Tip Toe in that, although the lives of those inhabiting the Canal Street scene are the fabric the tale is written on, its dark heart is bar owner Leo’s straight next-door neighbour Clive Goss, played with terrifying intensity by David Morrissey. Morrissey’s performance is a standout here, one of barely concealed anger and violence. All fuelled by his frustration at his own perceived lack of success, in his terms at least, at work and with his family. Even if Clive doesn’t gain the level of respect he feels he is due through his all-too-transparent dominance manoeuvres, the drama is propelled largely by the reactions of other characters to him.

Straight next-door neighbour Clive is played with terrifying intensity by David Morrissey

Clive’s story allows Davies to expound again on a theme that he has come back to repeatedly in recent work: the corrosive impact of online interaction and social media on individuals, and on society as a whole. All the characters in Tip Toe exist fluidly in a world that can’t really be described as virtual anymore, so thoroughly is it integrated into their lives. Capturing the online experience has been a challenge to portray well on TV, as our relationship to this still-evolving technology develops. Tip Toe manages to integrate it pretty successfully into the flow of scenes throughout, and then towards the end of episode one, there is a real bravura moment when Leo, Clive and his family are all shown retreating into private time with their devices, four of them finding different versions of sexual release, while Clive doomscrolls down into a rabbit hole of extreme violence.

By contrast, for all the struggles he has been through as a gay man of his generation, Leo has a wearied naivety to him. This leads him to miss just how real a threat his neighbour Clive poses. Whatever the messiness and challenges of parts of his life, his overall financial security and social position blinds him to the danger.

Advertisement

In some brilliantly scripted set-pieces, Leo and his friends Melba (Paul Rhys) and Stephanie (Elizabeth Berrington) talk about how the hard-won rights of LGBT+ people and women are being increasingly challenged – but when the crisis comes, Leo is oblivious to the key moment of risk until it is too late. I am sure that is the lesson RTD is screaming at us all to take heed of now, before things slide downhill too far for us to recover from.

Kevin McKenna is Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey

Tip Toe

Written & created by: Russell T Davies

Directed by: Peter Hoar

Broadcaster: Channel 4

Source link

Hundreds of Pro-Palestine students walked out of Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai’s commencement speech at Stanford University in California.

Google has backed Israel’s AI-powered genocide of Palestinians through Project Nimbus — a $1.2 billion contract to provide cloud computing services for the Israeli government and defence establishment.

Journalist Erin Woo said that the students were heard booing, chanting “Free, free Palestine” and “shame on you” as they walked out.

Well over 100 Stanford students walked out of Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s commencement speech at Stanford just now, chanting “Free, free Palestine.” Google has a cloud contract with the Israeli government. Lots of boos and cries of “shame on you” as well pic.twitter.com/2dIqs1SBvi

— Erin Woo (@erinkwoo) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Students were carrying anti-Google banners like –

Genocide runs on Google

and

ICE spies with Google

Likely that the tech-overlord was embarrassed as he refused to acknowledge Lily Jamali, a BBC journalist who asked for his reaction to the walkout.

WATCH: We asked Google CEO Sundar Pichai for his reaction to 100+ Stanford grads walking out of his speech today. @BBCWorld pic.twitter.com/MqJOO9faWn

— Lily Jamali (@lilyjamali) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Graduates choosing conscience over Google

Grassroots group Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) praised graduates who walked out of the ceremony rather than listen to Pichai’s speech. They said these graduates chose conscience over comfort.

It said regarding their action and Google:

Today, Sundar Pichai was met with the sight of hundreds of students who showed they could not be allured anymore with the talk of a dollar or rapidly expanding AI. We know about the crimes of Google in collaborating with Israel, ICE, and companies like Palantir.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine (@stanfordsjp)

SJP ran a parallel Stanford People’s Commencement with speakers Mahmoud Khalil and Dr. Mohammad Subeh.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mohammad Subeh (@docsubeh)

Dr. Subeh, a Palestinian American emergency room doctor who has previously graduated from Stanford, said:

It’s a shame that Stanford invited the CEO of Google to give the main commencement address to the 2026 graduating class, at a time when Google is actively partaking in the genocide and upholding of apartheid in Palestine. Proud of all the students that walked out in an act of defiance and then joined the People’s Commencement. As Mahmoud mentioned in his speech, “when the moment comes to choose between comfort and conscience, choose conscience.”

Students with conscience were the heroes of the day. As for Pichai and Google? Embarrassed into silence.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

On Monday 15 June 2026 710 migrants crossed the English Channel on eleven boats. It was the single largest number to cross in a single day this year… That comes after six days with no crossings following bad weather. Smash the gangs…

Source link

The purpose of Pride Month is to assure LGBTQ+ people that they don’t have anything to be ashamed of. The reason this needed to be made clear is because society used to present the exact opposite message to LGBTQ+ people.

While things have improved in many ways, we shouldn’t pretend LGBTQ+ people enjoy universal acceptance now. We also need to acknowledge that things have slidden backwards in many regards, especially for the trans community.

Worryingly, there are signs this backslide will only get worse as Reform gains political power. This is manifesting right now through Reform-run councils doing everything they can to hide LGBTQ+ people from the public.

‘Straight out of Trumpland’: LGBTQ+ members fight for Pride after Essex library banhttps://t.co/BLTRqnwMvh

— Reform Party UK Exposed (@reformexposed) June 15, 2026

Reform should be ashamed of itself

To give you an example of the bigotry LGBTQ+ people still face, here’s Reform leader, Nigel Farage, describing “trans ideology” as “poisonous”.

Reform UK will ban the poisonous trans ideology in our schools.

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) June 20, 2024

Advertisement

When Farage and others like him speak of “trans ideology”, what they’re talking about is the acknowledgement trans people exist. We’ve been here before with ‘Section 28’.

Section 28 of the Local Government Act was introduced by Margaret Thatcher:

On 24 May 1988, in the face of widescale protests from LGBTQ+ activists and allies, the Local Government Act was passed. Within the Act was Section 28 – a seemingly small addition to the earlier Local Government Act 1986. It prohibited local authorities from ‘promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material’ and from teaching ‘the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’.

You’ll notice this is almost identical to the way that the right talks about trans people today. It’s unsurprising to hear it coming from Farage.

Very sad to hear of the death of Margaret Thatcher, a great patriotic lady.

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) April 8, 2013

Much like Thatcher, Farage wants to run the country. But we don’t have to wait to see what Farage in power will look like because Reform-led councils are already doing what they can to bring his vision into existence.

Divide and conquer

Earlier this month, Maddison Wheeldon reported for the Canary that the Reform-led St Helens council would not support Pride Month or Refugee Week.

It said its decision was 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’.

Council leader, George Woodward, later made the following announcement:

St Helens Borough Council won’t be supporting or promoting Pride. I have instructed officers to cease engagement with all aspects of the event.

We don’t consider celebrations of sexuality, especially those with left-wing political leanings such as Pride, to be appropriate for St Helens Borough Council to dedicate valuable officer resources.

I am also deeply concerned that Pride has become affiliated with harmful transgender ideology.

As a council, we have a duty of care towards young children in the borough. Being affiliated with a movement that often results in lifelong medical harm in young impressionable children is not the direction in which I want St Helens Council to travel.

If Pride is ‘left-leaning’, it isn’t because there’s anything inherently socialist about being LGBTQ+; it’s because the right scapegoated these people for decades.

Woodward is pushing the exact same Section 28 ideology as Farage and he isn’t the only one doing so either.

Pride Month hate is spreading

Since St Helens, several other Reform councils have made moves to hide the existence of Pride Month. They include Essex, Warwickshire and Staffordshire councils.

On the latter, the BBC reported:

Reform UK-led Staffordshire County Council says it will not feature LGBTQ+ Pride displays in its libraries, explaining the decision by saying public display space will instead focus on reading, learning and council services.

Meanwhile, Warwickshire Council’s leader is facing a code of conduct complaint.

George Finch is to face another code of conduct complaint, this time from Warwickshire Pride, after he said books containing “contested gender ideology” should not be promoted in libraries in the county.

Later referencing material featuring transgender issues, he said libraries should “not seek to embolden political ideologies”, which he said were “highly charged and polarising”, saying they should not be “taught to children as pure fact”.

Reform is also banning Pride events in libraries, the Guardian wrote:

Before Reform gained control of Essex county council in the May elections, Chris Taylor and members of the Rochford LGBTQ+ community already felt they were witnessing a growing tide of political rhetoric around identity.

But they were still shocked when the county’s new leadership moved to ban Pride events in 74 libraries, scaling back events of “any particular groups or themes”, a decision they said was “straight out of Trumpland”.

Reform wants queer culture out of sight

As we can see, Reform’s strategy is to hide LGBTQ+ events and literature away from the public. This won’t be a case of ‘out of sight, out of mind‘, though, because these politicians have no intention to stop obsessing over trans people.

Anti-trans rhetoric is a source of never-ending controversy for them, and these people thrive off grievance and division.

The time to fightback is now, anyway.  While we’re not back to the Section 28 days just yet, we all know this is only heading in one direction.

Featured image via Ian Forsyth/ Eamonn M. McCormack/ Getty Images

By Willem Moore

Source link