The boss of pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca’s pay rose to £17.7 million in 2025. That’s after Keir Starmer’s administration bent over for Donald Trump and Big Pharma in December last year, accepting a 25% increase in pricing for NHS drugs.

AstraZeneca— Extracting wealth from people’s healthcare

Unsurprisingly, AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot welcomed the increased NHS costs in February. He called them a “very positive step”, suggesting he wants to milk even more from the NHS.

That’s all despite AstraZeneca cancelling investment plans in the UK.

Big pharma companies stopped nearly £2bn in investments in the UK in 2025. For example, US drugmaker MSD announced that it would abolish its £1bn London research centre. Shortly after, AstraZeneca said it would scrap a £200m investment in research facilities in Cambridge.

It was the US ambassador to the UK, Warren Stephens, who asked chancellor Rachel Reeves to enable pharmaceutical companies to drain more resources (via profit) from the NHS.

Trump and big pharma holding the NHS to ransom comes despite MSD, for instance, making £3.27bn in net income in the first quarter of this year.

End privatisation

The price gouging makes it clear that big pharma should be brought in-house to relieve pressure on the NHS. Moneyed rewards can remain with nationalisation. Scientists already receive prizes for breakthroughs and the same could be done in a public sector pharmaceutical division to further incentivise discoveries beyond public good.

That way private suppliers cannot use their position to demand more and more money from the NHS. Indeed, drug company Roche has refused to offer the NHS drugs for terminal cancer because of its excessive profit motive. It’s worth noting that a lobbying firm that has represented that company also donated £55,800 to former Labour cabinet minister Anneliese Dodds.

Healthcare should be public including all its resources. That means pharmaceuticals and land.

Although, it seems Starmer is in the pocket of the corporate extractors.

Featured image via DW

The official Israeli embassy ‘X’ account, with the colony’s typical arrogance, has publicly demanded the UK Green party drop its anti-Zionist motion. The party’s conference will debate and vote on a motion that accurately describes Zionism as racism. It will also affirm support for the Palestinians’ legally-guaranteed right to resist Israel’s occupation by “any available means”.

Cue an entitled hissy fit from the official account, which spouted “utter condemnation” at the “extreme” motion and absolutely demanded the party reject it:

The Embassy of Israel expresses its profound concern and utter condemnation regarding the “Zionism is Racism” motion currently under consideration for the Green Party’s upcoming spring conference. a motion so extreme, so hostile, and so intellectually bankrupt that its very inclusion on the agenda raises urgent questions about the direction of the party.

Zionism is the fundamental right of the Jewish people to self determination in their ancestral homeland. It is not an ideology of exclusion, but one of liberation. By seeking to categorise Zionism as a form of racism, this motion attempts to revive the long discredited and hateful equation once promoted by UN Resolution 3379. That resolution was a moral stain on the international community and was decisively revoked by the UN General Assembly in 1991. To attempt to resurrect this falsehood in 2026 is a regressive and dangerous step.

But antisemitically spouting that ‘Jewish self-determination’ entitles Israel to steal the Palestinians’ ancestral homeland so Zionism can’t possibly be racist wasn’t enough. ‘@IsraelinUK’ needed to throw in some genocide-justifying atrocity propaganda. It ignored — of course — that all its lies have been disproven. And the genocidal colony, which has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians, whined that a party motion “creates a hostile and threatening environment”:

Furthermore, the motion’s explicit support for “armed struggle” is nothing less approval of terrorism. To suggest that “all available means” should be supported is to provide a blank cheque for the same atrocities witnessed on October 7th, 2023: mass murder, torture, rape, and the kidnapping of civilians. To endorse this is to abandon every moral and humanitarian principle the Green Party once claimed to uphold.

Just the existence of such a declaration creates a hostile and threatening environment, providing a justification for further antisemitic hostility. The Green Party should feel nothing but shame for allowing such a motion to reach its conference. Instead of championing social justice, equality, and human rights, this proposal transforms the party into a welcoming refuge for those who hate the different, despise minorities, and promote violence.

The Embassy of Israel calls on the Green Party to reject this motion decisively and unequivocally, to make an effort to prevent their platform from being hijacked by extremism.

“Mass murder” — nope. Israel itself killed most Israelis that died on 7 October 2023 through its ‘Hannibal directive‘. It even admits it did, since just days after it happened — but only in Israel. When it’s trying to mug British people and other nations, that ‘never happened’.

“Torture” — nope. Israel routinely tortures thousands of innocent Palestinians in detention. But there is no evidence of torture of Israelis, either on 7 October or during the captivity of some Israelis in Gaza.

“Rape” — nope. The UN found not one credible account of rape during the 7 October raid. Even Israel’s own prosecutor had to admit it. You know who does rape — every day? Yep, you’ve guessed it: the ol’ genocidal colony itself.

“Kidnapping of civilians” — almost entirely nope. A small number of civilians were kidnapped. Children taken to keep them with their parents. A few old people. But apart from the kids, everyone in Israel has to do military service. Many of those taken were on active duty or military reservists. The kidnapping of civilians is a crime — but it was almost absent on 7 October. Israel, by contrast, has abducted thousands as a means of terror — and continues to do so.

Writer Matt Kennard summed it all up perfectly:

Embassy under control of a war criminal wanted by ICC thinks it has right to tell Green Party it must censor a conference motion

Too late. Levees have breached. Zionism is racism—and the whole world knows it. Armed resistance to occupation is also legal under international law https://t.co/3WReiGQkFx

Advertisement

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) February 24, 2026

Featured image via Twitter

Direct military force has, for centuries, been the principal means by which States have achieved ambitious foreign policy objectives, whether seizing or defending territory, altering a state’s military behaviour, or reshaping its internal political and economic structures.

Since the First World War and the rampant development and consolidation of world financial markets, a shift in attention towards non-violent economic force has developed to an extent which has forged a set of coercive measures surpassing direct military force as the principal mode of engagement.

At the apex of contemporary economic warfare, sanctions serve as our post-war world’s ‘enlightened’ alternative to open conquest and bloodshed, a humane and non-violent mechanism for the ends of global norms and the so-called ‘rule of law’, which compels rather than overtly subdues antagonists.

The mark of a civilised country, it seems, is aversion to open conflict and a commitment to quieter, more technocratic means of dominance.

Sanctions: 100 years of the ‘indispensible tool’

Over the past century international relations scholarship has championed the utility of sanctions, casting them as indispensable tools in the arsenal of statecraft and a mark of the refinement of contemporary geopolitical engagement.

This intellectual edifice has no doubt served to lend relative credence to the recent wave of punitive measures levied by the UK, US, and allied governments against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Sanctions are treated not only as necessary but as morally superior, a form of pressure that preserves the legitimacy of those who wield them. Yet their historical record suggests something closer to continuity with older forms of coercion than any genuine departure from them.

Economic warfare is indeed ancient, but our present method of sanctions traces its origins to the interwar period in Europe, when the League of Nations sought to harness economic coercion as a means of enforcing a premature form of collective security during the rise of openly militaristic European leadership.

Sanctions imposed on Italy during the 1935 invasion of Ethiopia marked one of the earliest attempts to deploy such measures in lieu of direct military engagement. While these efforts failed to halt Italian aggression, they laid the groundwork for the widespread adoption of sanctions in the post-war international order.

The US leading the charge

The United Nations further refined the art of sanction. In theory, sanctions were to be wielded collectively, targeting states that violated international law. In practice their deployment became increasingly selective and frequently unilateral, driven by the strategic interests of the United States and its closest allies.

With unrivalled command over the global financial architecture that emerged after the Bretton Woods accords, the US asserted itself as the preeminent enforcer of sanctions, capable of excluding adversaries from international markets, payment systems, and access to capital.

This role became more entrenched after the collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only meaningful counterweight to American geopolitical and financial power. The integration of Britain and Europe into this system strengthened its reach, embedding sanctions within global trade, insurance, shipping, and banking networks.

Whether the objective is regime change, policy reversal, or containment, sanctions have consistently fallen short of their most ambitious goals. Their failure stems from a recurring miscalculation: the belief that forced economic hardship will translate into political pressure sufficient to compel either the citizenry of the targeted state into open revolt, or the state itself into negotiation and compliance.

Cuba: a case in point

The decades-long embargo on Cuba remains one of the clearest examples. It has neither toppled the government nor facilitated meaningful political transformation. Instead, it has contributed to chronic shortages, restricted access to finance and trade, and periodic humanitarian crises, while reinforcing the state’s legitimacy as a defender against external pressure.

A limited diplomatic opening during the administration of Barack Obama briefly raised the possibility of gradual normalisation. This approach was reversed under Donald Trump, who expanded financial restrictions, limited remittances, and re-designated Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism shortly before leaving office. These measures have largely remained in place.

In recent years, Cuba has experienced its most severe economic crisis since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Energy shortages, blackouts, declining tourism revenues, and constraints on fuel and food imports have driven mass protests and large-scale outward migration. Yet despite these pressures, the political system has endured.

The persistence of sanctions across successive US administrations illustrates the degree to which they have become embedded not only in foreign policy but in domestic political cycles. Their humanitarian impact has been significant, but their political outcomes remain limited.

Sanctions are rarely successful

In Iran, sanctions have significantly damaged the economy, contributing to inflation, unemployment, and shortages, but they have not fundamentally altered the state’s strategic posture. In North Korea, which has been subjected to one of the most extensive sanctions regimes in history, these measures have left the regime’s core military ambitions unaffected.

Instead, they have reinforced domestic narratives of siege and external threat. The result has been increased internal cohesion and the consolidation of authority, rather than destabilisation. A further consequence has been the deepening of security and technological cooperation among sanctioned states, including closer alignment between Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Even in cases where sanctions are presented as successful, the costs often extend beyond their intended targets. The sanctions imposed on Russia since 2022 were expected to produce rapid economic collapse and compel a change in strategic behaviour. The early period appeared to support this assumption.

Currency instability, inflation, and the departure of Western firms generated a perception of acute crisis. However, this shock was followed by a period of adjustment. Trade flows were redirected, financial transactions shifted toward non-Western systems, and energy exports increasingly moved to Asian markets.

Russia

The departure of Western firms unfolded in ways that reshaped ownership structures inside Russia. Companies exiting the market were often compelled to sell assets at steep discounts. Factories, infrastructure, and logistical networks transferred into domestic hands, frequently supported by state financing.

This process accelerated import substitution and industrial policy in ways that would have been politically and economically difficult to impose prior to the sanctions. Rather than isolating the Russian economy, these measures contributed to a partial restructuring, increasing its insulation from Western pressure while reinforcing the state’s role in strategic sectors.

For Europe, the consequences were immediate and structural. The disruption of long-standing energy relationships exposed deep dependencies. Governments were forced to subsidise households and industry, expand liquefied natural gas infrastructure, and secure alternative supplies at higher cost.

The political effects have been visible across the continent, where parties critical of sanctions and energy policy have gained ground, reflecting broader concerns over competitiveness, industrial decline and sovereignty.

At the same time, global trade has adapted.

Trade has adapted

Commodities have continued to flow through intermediary states, with complex supply chains obscuring origins while preserving market access. Turkey, the Gulf states, and parts of Central Asia have played an expanding role in facilitating rerouted trade and financial transactions.

Parallel payment systems and local currency settlements have gained attention, particularly among emerging economies seeking insulation from Western leverage. The expansion of BRICS and related initiatives reflects a broader search for alternatives within an increasingly fragmented global economy.

Financial and logistical restrictions frequently affect broader populations rather than governing elites. Access to medicine, infrastructure, and essential goods is shaped by compliance regimes and banking constraints. In some cases, this pressure contributes to negotiation; in others, it strengthens internal cohesion and legitimises state authority.

The unintended consequences of sanctions extend beyond individual cases.

A global reshaping

They are reshaping the structure of global economic relations, encouraging diversification, regionalisation, and institutional innovation. The increasing use of export controls, tariffs, and technological restrictions has extended economic coercion into areas once associated with commercial competition. The strategic contest over semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and supply chains reflects a growing perception that interdependence can generate vulnerability as well as efficiency.

The return of Donald Trump to the presidency has reinforced this trajectory. His administration has renewed emphasis on tariffs, industrial policy, and economic leverage as central instruments of foreign policy. At the same time, this approach reflects a broader bipartisan shift within Washington, particularly in relation to competition with China and the use of economic power to shape global outcomes.

Paradoxically, sanctions have proved not to cripple the West’s antagonists but embolden them, accelerating a major renegotiation of the dynamics of world trade, revealing wrought contradictions at the centre of our global economic order. The record demonstrates a persistent pattern: sanctions frequently exacerbate humanitarian crises, inflict suffering on civilian populations, while ultimately failing to achieve the political and economic ambitions of their imposers.

Sanctions do not work

Rather than reinforcing the post-Cold War US-led order, the US, UK, and Europe have helped facilitate new alliances and a restructuring of global financial and geopolitical architecture against themselves. In the West’s failed attempt to scupper Russian ambitions, the price we ultimately pay as Westerners is with our own sovereignty and economic security.

For Western powers to save face, they first ought to realise the limits of their capacity to play hegemon; second, renegotiation must take place with Russia and the East at large while we still have a hand to play.

Britain’s place in the rising global economic and collective security architecture must remain an open question, lest we lose everything for the pursuit of another country’s lost and irrational cause.

Featured image via the Canary

An alleged murderer told the court he “highly regret[s] his actions” on the night Zahwa Mukhtar died but had no intention to harm her and didn’t think she was injured.

Duane Owusu delivered a fatal blow to Zahwa’s neck that led to her falling backwards and hitting her head on the ground in Chadwell Heath Lane, Romford.

Moments before, the 27-year-old was allegedly pushed from a parked Mercedes when events continued to escalate inside the car.

Zahwa Mukhtar murder trial continues

Giving evidence at his trial on Thursday, Owusu denied hitting Zahwa with his fist and said he “shoved her” so she didn’t stop him from getting back into the car.

He said: “I had no reason to cause her serious harm. I was basically looking after her the whole night, stopping all the fights, making sure that she was alright. I just wanted her out of the car to deescalate the situation.”

He later added: “I’m not going to punch a woman…Because I wanted her out of the car, I just shoved her out the way. If I had punched her that would have caused some sort of injury. That’s not what my intention was.”

The incident was captured on CCTV outside a care home in the early hours of Saturday 16 August last year. It shows two kicks aimed towards Zahwa’s face while she’s on the ground near the rear passenger side door, where she’d been sitting on the defendant’s lap in the overcrowded car.

Henrietta Paget KC, prosecuting, summarised what Owusu had told jurors earlier.

She said: “I was getting my other leg out of the car. I tried to sweep her leg out of the way to create distance from the car because I felt like I couldn’t close the car door, and I didn’t want the car door to hit her leg, and I didn’t want us driving off and the wheel going over her feet.”

Later addressing what Ms Paget suggested was a “savage attempt to stamp her face”, Owusu said: “100 per cent not” and claimed he only wanted to “push her legs out the way”.

How the night allegedly began for Zahwa

Owusu and his group had come from a house rave and Zahwa was socialising in Stoke Newington Road, north London, when the two parties crossed paths.

When he left the rave, Owusu was “tipsy and lively” but wasn’t drunk. He told the court he’d taken a swig of white rum before going in, a quarter of an ecstasy pill and had smoked cannabis earlier in the day.

“I was happy,” he said and called himself a “people [person]”.

“I just talk to random people if I’m in a good mood,” he explained when shown footage of himself.

The 36-year-old first encountered Zahwa while trying to deescalate a tense situation between one of his group and another man, Owusu told jurors.

He said: “This is when I remember seeing Ms Mukhtar, she’s holding on to my arm saying, ‘Brother, please stop. These guys, they’re going to stab you. These guys are going to stab you’. At that point when she was saying that, I was thinking, why is she saying that? Who is this? I don’t even know her.”

Alleged tension

The court heard evidence earlier in the trial about Zahwa’s interactions with the group and her suddenly jumping into the car.

Owusu said Zahwa had asked the driver if she could “chill” with the group, some of whom were going back to Dagenham to continue the party at one of their homes. He denied having a sexual interest in the victim.

He said: “I didn’t have an issue with her coming so I said to come and sit in the back.”

But once inside the car, Owusu described several fights between Zahwa and two other women, Paige Allen and Abigail Winter, beyond hair pulling, and which he had to break up.

“Little girly stuff,” he said, but blows were allegedly thrown, which escalated at a petrol station. The defendant said Abigail had dragged Zahwa to the ground and both women attacked the victim.

He led Zahwa away because she was angry and had tried to both calm her down and protect her, Owusu said. The two women didn’t want her back in the car, but “I couldn’t just leave her there like that,” Owusu stated.

The situation changed

The court then heard Zahwa’s demeanour changed. “She started being abusive and biting her nails, threatening to stab people,” Ms Paget said.

With Zahwa on his lap, the defendant could see she took out her phone and began scrolling through contacts, which worried him.

He said: “I was thinking, I hope she’s not trying to ring someone and escalate the situation saying she’s been attacked by two girls. I was just thinking the worst at that point.”

Then she began filming the women. Answering what was so bad about Zahwa doing this, Owusu said he believed it could provoke further conflict.

He said: “It felt awkward. It felt weird. You just said you’re going to stab them, you’re going to kill them, and then you’re going to take a video of them. I thought that was a bit weird.”

After he asked the driver to “Please stop the car,” Owusu claimed he “snatched the phone” and threw it out as bait to get Zahwa out. His intention was to book her an Uber, he told the court.

“At what stage did you call her a ‘dumb bitch’?” Ms Paget asked.

“I don’t remember saying that,” the defendant replied.

“I highly regret my actions”

Owusu told jurors Zahwa fell from the car when he loosened her grip from his gilet attempting to get her off his lap. He denied throwing her from the vehicle.

The defendant also said he didn’t see Zahwa on the ground after the incident, but had heard one of the other women saying that she was.

He said: “I highly regret my actions that night. I feel bad that I showed a lack of interest because at that point then, I was still concerned with her getting back in the car. I didn’t want problems to escalate.”

Until he was arrested, Owusu didn’t know Zahwa had died, he told the court. He’d been informed about the heavy police presence outside his home and conversations being had with neighbours, which led him to assume the worst.

He said: “I was just trying to recollect how I pushed her. Starting to think, did she hurt herself? Did something happen after we left her there? I was just praying, I hope it’s not nothing too serious.”

Michael Borrelli KC, defending, explained Owusu’s searched the internet for information that weekend, such as ‘Incident Chadwell Heath girl found unconscious’, to no avail.

He said: “I was just so depressed, I was scared, I was praying. I remember being that stressed on the phone and the emotions I was going through at that moment that I completely slept the whole day until the next day.”

Mr Borrelli asked: “At any point during that incident outside the care home did you deliberately hurt Ms Mukhtar?”

“No,” he said.

Owusu, of Althorne Way, Dagenham, denies murder and manslaughter.

The Old Bailey trial continues.

Featured image via the Canary

Alvi Choudary, a young British-Asian man, was arrested earlier this week for a burglary in Milton Keynes. The only problem? He’s never even entered the city, which lies 100 miles from his home in Southampton. Nevertheless, racist AI facial recognition technology placed him at the scene of the crime.

The news comes after calls from Labour to increase the use of AI in both policing and the court system. On top of that, just two days ago — 24 February — a police chief in charge of AI use admitted that a new £115m national police data centre will produce biased and racist results.

AI facial recognition — Wrongful arrest

Choudary appeared on Good Morning Britain to talk about what happened to him. He explained to presenters Kate Garraway and Richard Madeley that he was held in custody for around 11 hours before police would even speak to him or hear evidence against his arrest.

Adding insult to injury, the arrest turned out to be due to a custody photo taken of Choudary some four years previously. This, too was a wrongful arrest. And, despite the fact that officers assured him at the time that his DNA and information would be removed from the system, his photograph was kept on record.

It was this photo that police AI facial recognition software matched to an image of the suspect. As it turned out, the suspect didn’t resemble Choudary in the slightest. The police officers were laughing at this racist error even as they released Alvi.

Madeley then asked why asked why exactly the AI technology performs so poorly for BAME individuals. Akiko Hart, the director for the human rights organisation Liberty explained that:

It’s because the AI is trained on white faces. And so, essentially, you are more likely to be misidentified if you are young, you are more likely to be misidentified if you’re a woman, and obviously we’ve seen there’s really shocking statistics about how you’re more likely to be misidentified if you’re Asian, if you’re Black, and 250 times more likely to be misidentified if you’re a black woman. And that is because of the way the AI is trained.

AI racism

Choudary‘s wrongful arrest is a case-in-point for the problems being caused by the increasing use of AI in the justice system. However, Labour remain hellbent on pushing AI into policing and the courts, in spite of its well-documented biases.

Earlier this month, on 12 February, the Ministry of Justice announced plans to use predictive policing to overhaul the youth justice system. Part of the proposal was to use “machine learning and advanced analytics” to “support early, appropriate intervention” in youth crime.

At the time, the Canary published an article on how this initiative would automate the discrimination that had already been part of the lives of racialised individuals for decades.

Then, on 24 February, justice secretary David Lammy proudly announced that Labour was also pushing AI use into the courts. He stated:

we are going to invest more in our in-house Justice AI Unit – a specialist team within my department, forward-deployed to the frontline, working with staff to tackle the challenges they face.

Over £12 million in additional funding in the next financial year will expand our AI capabilities, putting this powerful tool, finally, into the hands of staff.

A problem, here and now

On that same day, 24 February, police AI lead Alex Murray acknowledged that a new £115m police data centre would produce discriminatory results. However, he also tried to assure the public that the police would work to reduce that discrimination.

As if, that is, they’ve ever done the work of addressing their non-digital discrimination. Beyond that, the police even have form for neglecting to reduce or act on bias in their AI use already.

On the failure of a previous police venture in facial recognition technology, the Association for Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) stated that:

System failures have been known for some time, yet these were not shared with those communities affected, nor with leading sector stakeholders.

As Alvi Choudary’s wrongful arrest clearly demonstrated, AI racism in policing is not a problem to deal with in the future. It is already here, and it’s already affecting people’s lives. 

Labour and the police know that this is a problem; they know it’s racist. But never mind — they’re going ahead with it anyway. Oh, and they’ll try to mitigate the risk, honest.

Featured image via 3DIVI

Police have arrested a man after he allegedly tried to set fire to a Muslim community centre in Worcestershire. Footage posted on X by the 5Pillars news site seems to show a white male setting a shed alight.

5Pillars posted:

A Muslim community centre in Worcester, which is owned by Worcester Mosque, was firebombed this morning.

A white male has been arrested and police say they found several petrol cans around the centre.

They added:

A far right march is due to take place in Worcester on Saturday.

5Pillars‘ tweet showed footage of an individual setting a fire before running away. Another angle in the same video shows firefighters inspecting the damage to the shed after the fire had gone out.

BREAKING: A Muslim community centre in Worcester, which is owned by Worcester Mosque, was firebombed this morning.

A white male has been arrested and police say they found several petrol cans around the centre.

A far right march is due to take place in Worcester on Saturday. pic.twitter.com/Tjfid0ZJwI

— 5Pillars (@5Pillarsuk) February 26, 2026

Advertisement

One X user said this was part of a pattern of attacks:

First it was Manchester Central Mosque, then Worcester. The Islamophobes in this country are not even pretending anymore, they have dropped the mask completely and would go any length with to cause havoc. Our mosques need to be on high alert and extra vigilant. https://t.co/nwef8c2QWz

— Abdullah (@Lanre_banjo) February 26, 2026

Several others blamed the attack squarely on far right figures like Tommy Robinson and Rupert Lowe. Both of whom have made careers out of peddling anti-Muslim hatred:

You bastards are the fucking reason for this. @TRobinsonNewEra @RupertLowe10 https://t.co/unPMAfRReC

— Maavi The Poet (@ThePoetMaavi) February 26, 2026

Advertisement

Other parties like Restore and Reform UK were to blame. And that anyone who thinks they are the answer is either plain wrong or deeply sick:

All the right wing pricks like Reform and Restore are responsible for this. Anyone who thinks they are the answer to the country’s problems is either deeply misinformed or a cruel evil person https://t.co/JQMVc8pJ7O

— Clobbering Man Punk (@harrythepratt) February 26, 2026

A view that is hard to disagree with on the evidence:

These acts of Islamophobia did not start increasing in a vacuum – the RACIST scapegoating of Muslims whipped up by far-right charlatans like @Nigel_Farage and @reformparty_uk has contributed MASSIVELY to this current climate.

Racist rhetoric has consequences. https://t.co/1yAKUbmOem

Advertisement

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) February 26, 2026

As Al Jazeera reported on 16 February, anti-Muslim feeling seems to be in overdrive and getting worse. They interviewed a Muslim single mother in Basildon who told them about living in fear:

After being racially abused while walking through her favourite park, she stopped going there altogether. Women, she said, are increasingly changing their daily routines, constantly watching over their shoulders.

Racism now permeates every aspect of their lives, she added.

Another told the outlet her own child:

was isolated on the playground and subjected to racial slurs. Months later, she broke down in tears in front of her mother, explaining the abuse she had suffered.

The child was eventually removed from school.

And on 25 February a man was arrested after entering a Manchester mosque with an axe. He was found to be carrying a range of other weapons and eventually arrested:

The mosque said:

greater resources are urgently needed to address this growing and real risk.

Anti-Muslim feeling is a core tenet of modern far-right politics, but centrist parties like Labour are more than willing to lean into it too. This divisive politics cannot be allowed to flourish further. It needs to be challenged wherever it is found.

Featured image via the Canary

The coast guard in Cuba have exchanged fire with what they say was a US infiltration force on 25 February. The shoot-out off the island’s north coast killed four and wounded six aboard the US-linked vessel. Survivors were arrested.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, an avid Cuba hawk, has been cautious in his comments so far. And the Cuban authorities maintain those on the speedboat fired first. Now the Cubans said those aboard planned:

an infiltration with terrorist aims.

A coast guard commander was also wounded. The BBC reported:

The Cuban authorities said they had established that all 10 of those on board the speedboat were Cuban nationals residing in the US.

They also identified an 11th person they said had been arrested and had confessed to being part of the alleged plot.

Advertisement

The Cuban authorities claims those captured had:

prior records involving criminal and violent activity.

The BBC said:

Handguns, assault rifles and improvised explosive devices were recovered from the speedboat, along with other tactical gear, according to the statement.

BBC Verify said it had been unable to pinpoint the ownership of the boat.

Cuba: Bay of Pigs 2.0?

The incident will recall the failed 1961 US invasion attempt in the Bay of Pigs. The US is currently sanctioning Cuba even more aggressively than usual in a bid to unseat the government. The situation is so dire that Mexico is shipping humanitarian aid into the island nation.

President Donald Trump is determined to reshape the hemisphere, by force where necessary. Case in point, the US attack of Venezuela in January, and subsequent kidnapping its president.

Marco Rubio, the hard-right scion of Cuban migrants, is know for his rabid views on the Cuban regime. But he seemed reserved in his public comments. Rubio, who is in the Caribbean for international talks, said he was waiting for verifications:

Rubio was less reserved in the hours after the 3 January bombing and special forces raid on Venezuela.

He told reporters then that Cuba was:

run by incompetent, senile men, and in some cases not seen now, but incompetent nonetheless.

Rubio said:

In some cases, one of the biggest problems Venezuelans have is they have to declare independence from Cuba.

Adding:

They tried to basically colonize it from a security standpoint. So, yeah, look, if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned at least a little bit.

There is no doubt the US wants Cuba – once part of the US empire – back under its control. And American covert actions are hardly a rarity in Latin America. A similar-sounding operation was mounted against Venezuela in 2020. It also failed. Two former US special operations soldiers were among those jailed. Details are hazy, but the playbook seems eerily familiar.

Featured image via the Canary