Source link

The Greens for Palestine group has issued a strong demand to its party functionaries: stop throwing our candidates under the bus to pander to the Israel lobby.

The message comes after the Greens’ Makerfield by-election candidate stepped down – presumably pressured – for sharing a post about Golders Green. The group of party members wants to know – who is selecting Green candidates, party members or the Israel lobby, the Zionist Labour party and hostile press?

Greens for Palestine call out cowardice dressed as pragmatism

It reads:

Yesterday, we witnessed yet another chilling example of the same press that has spent over a year providing apologia for the Zionist genocide of the Palestinian people, releasing smear pieces against members of Manchester’ Green Party to bend the Makerfield by-election to their will.

We have seen multiple instances of this playbook throughout the recent local elections. Local and national party figures, rather than standing with their own comrades, have believed what is written in the press and thrown fellow party members under the bus at the whim of the Zionist lobby. This is cowardice veiled in pragmatism.

Advertisement

So we ask, plainly and with deep frustration: Who is in control of who the Greens select as candidates? Is it Green members? Is it the press? Is it the Labour Party? Or is it the lobby? It should be Green members themselves. And if that is truly our party’s principle, then we strongly suggest that the party massively, step up its support for anti Zionist candidates. Not silently or reluctantly. But publicly, robustly, and without apology.

Greens For Palestine provided extensive support to candidates smeared in the recent local elections. We will continue to do so whenever and wherever we are needed. We will show up where the party will not.

We need to hit back

The letter goes on to demand the party’s cowardly executives “hit back” to protect members and candidates and stand up against the horrors of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians:

It is apparent that the party has not provided this support. It is a failure of nerve. And it leaves our members exposed to a coordinated, well-funded campaign gf misinformation and prejudice that the party seems unwilling to confront.

When the Green Party capitulates, we will lose future MPs and councillors who have called out Israel’s genocide, and speak up for Palestinians’ self-determination. This is by design.

Advertisement

More than ever we need bold people in British politics and a government who can end the UK’s complicity in the genocide and illegal occupation of Palestine. As we can so obviously see, the public want this too. They have supported Zack Polanski and the Green Party’s unwavering stance.

We need to hit back. We must be brave and forthright in our defence of our candidates. Silence will not protect them. Steadfast support will.

We have watched a livestreamed Genocide. We are seeing the extermination of the Palestinian people. Dogs used to rape Palestinians, children targeted by snipers, torture, death and mass destruction.. We are letting the people that defend this force our party to turn its back on the democratic decisions of our membership.

Let us be unequivocal:

Advertisement

Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.
Palestine must be freed.
Zionism is racism.
We are an anti-racist party and will not tolerate anti-Palestinian racism.

Justice, not a racist veto

It ends:

These are not fringe positions, they are core matters of justice, rooted in international law, human rights and the very anti-colonial values this party claims to stand on.

We call on the Executive to issue clear, public solidarity with any Green candidate smeared for their principled support for Palestinian freedom. We call on you to fund and resource that solidarity. And we call on you to stop acting as if the press or the lobby have a veto over our democratic processes.

In solidarity and resolve,
Greens For Palestine

Advertisement

The call is badly needed. Party leader Zack Polanski started strongly against the witch-hunt by a Zionist establishment terrified by the popularity of the Greens and Polanski’s firm statements against Israel’s genocide and colonialism. But that has given way to an increasing tendency of the party to cave to lobby attacks rather than stand their ground.

That has to change. And it needs to start right the hell now.

Featured image via Getty/Leon Neal

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Source link

The Trump regime has filed an emergency appeal to try to overturn a court ruling blocking its punitive sanctions on UN rights and international law expert Francesca Albanese. The US had targeted Albanese, as well as International Criminal Court judges and lawyers, with heavy sanctions because of their pronouncements on Israel’s genocide and other crimes in Gaza.

For now, the US Treasury has been forced to lift the sanctions in response to the court order. However, the Trump administration is trying to overturn the ruling. Justice Department assistant attorney general Brett Shumate said on X that her department is applying for “emergency relief” to restore the sanctions. She also claimed that:

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has undermined the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

None of which is a crime for an Italian, of course, but it illustrates the extent of US arrogance and entitlement, especially in connection with the Israeli colony.

The US government’s application claims that the district court’s injunction is “fundamentally flawed” and that “foreign citizens outside US territory do not possess rights under the US Constitution”. Foreign citizens outside the US are also not obliged to defer to US “national security and foreign policy”, of course, but presumably that’s a hair Trump is not willing to split.

Trump war on free speech

US district judge Richard Leon ruled last week that the Trump administration was violating Albanese’s free speech rights by sanctioning her for criticizing Israel’s genocide. The US government has removed the sanctions but claimed that this “does not reflect a change in policy”. A State Department spokesperson said the sanctions will be immediately reimposed if the appeal court overturns the injunction.

Albanese was sanctioned for writing a report that corporations supporting Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Giant companies accused include Palantir, Amazon and Microsoft. The sanctions left Albanese and other victims unable to hold bank accounts or credit cards.

The sanctions prohibited Albanese from entering the US, accessing US banking and payment systems, and engaging in business with anyone based in the country. The US Israel lobby has also tried to block the sale of Albanese’s new book highlighting its crimes in occupied Palestine. She was honoured in early May 2026 by the Spanish government for her service to humanity.

Featured image via Getty/Evan Vucci-Pool

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Source link

A petition demanding a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy will be debated in Parliament on 22 June 2026, according to an update published on the Petitions Committee’s page on 21 May 2026.

The petition reads:

We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate.

Petition debates cannot change the law or force a vote, but they can raise awareness and put pressure on the government.

The petition was launched in January and has now passed 115,000 signatures.

A petition is eligible for a debate if it reaches 100,000 signatures, though the committee has discretion over whether to schedule one.

Israel: Starmer government does not support public inquiry

The government responded on 17 April 2026, stating it does not support a public inquiry.

It said it already takes foreign influence seriously and is taking action, including transparency measures and the recent Rycroft review into foreign financial interference.

Notably, the Rycroft review does not mention Israel or the United States at all. It focuses instead on Russia, China, and Iran.

At least half of Keir Starmer’s front bench accepted Israeli or pro-Israel cash. If any cabinet MPs like David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, or Yvette Cooper show up to this debate, colour us surprised.

The Starmer government has shown less than zero interest in holding Israel to account for its crimes. Under Starmer, the UK has operated near-daily spy flights over Gaza from December 2023 onwards.

Just recently, the Foreign Office (FCDO)  closed down its unit that tracked Israeli atrocities and breaches of humanitarian law in Gaza and Lebanon.

Don’t hold your breath for any meaningful action on 22 June.

Featured image via Getty/Charles McQuillan

By The Canary

Source link

There is a familiar refrain that follows my partner and I as we navigated the UK’s public bathrooms. As a gender-nonconforming couple, we’re painfully aware of the transphobic discourse that overshadows our daily lives. Approaching a set of bathrooms whilst out and about, and not wanting to draw more attention to ourselves, one or both of us will groan, before announcing with resignation:

Time to do ‘gender’…

It will be a situation familiar to many trans people. The so-called ‘bathroom ban’, fought for by anti-trans activists, has become notorious for making the lives of cis and trans people alike more complicated. Not only is it an infringement on the human rights of trans people themselves, but it inevitably leads to the policing of people of all gender expressions. Cis people too find themselves viewed with suspicion and even harassed for not looking a ‘certain’ way.

It is a situation unlikely to change in the near future. A new ‘code of practice’ document released by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has set out new (but no less convoluted) guidance on how public institutions and services are to cater to those with ‘protected characteristics’ and avoid discrimination.

Despite its claims to provide clarity with regards to various “everyday situations”, it’s a total mess of legalese that fails in simplifying the lived experiences of cis and trans people in Britain today.

Responses to the update

In an explainer video posted on their website, EHRC chair Mary Ann Stephenson says:

The code outlines how the Equality Act 2010 works in relation to the provision of services, public functions, and associations and explains the steps that should be taken to ensure people are not discriminated against.

The document itself claims to be:

based on the principle that people with the protected characteristics set out in the [Equality] Act should not be discriminated against, harassed or victimised when using any service provided publicly or privately.

TERF groups have already claimed a tentative victory in response to the new guidance.

Lobby group Sex Matters argues:

Nothing in the code of practice changes the Equality Act 2010. What it does is provide detailed, practical guidance on how to interpret the act.

In particular, the group claims that previous guidance on Equality Act:

was ambiguous about the relationship between the protected characteristics of sex and gender.

For example, the old guidance suggested that:

a service provider … should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.

This notion of “presentation” was underpinned by the principle of “self-identification”. Regardless of how a service provider visually perceives a person’s gender, they should defer to how that person identifies themselves.

Sex Matters argue that the “new code of practice has removed that error”, leading trans advocacy group TransActual to conclude:

The newly published EHRC Code of Practice leaves trans people in the UK today with less rights than they had prior to last year’s Supreme Court ruling.

But does it really? The new guidance certainly gives TERFs more ammunition in their never-ending lawfare campaigning against people who are just trying to live their lives, but claims that it removes previous errors of interpretation around certain social interactions appear to be overstated.

Summarising analysis from the Good Law Project, which argues that the “updated code of practice rows back on some of the most harmful elements in the previous draft”, trans rights lead Jess O’Thomson explains:

It’s good to see clear guidance that associations can be for multiple protected characteristics – so you can have an organisation for both cis and trans women. And the suggestion of checking people’s birth certificates before they can use the toilet has been axed.

But it still treats trans people as a third sex, suggesting they should be made to use separate spaces – entirely ignoring the harm this causes, and human rights law. We will keep fighting this discriminatory approach.

‘Biology’ as a euphemism

The problems that persist with the new guidance all come down to different interpretations of sex and gender. In short, the guidance seeks to clarify the legal definition of these terms, and how public service providers can navigate the EHRC’s legal framework in a variety of hypothetical scenarios. What the document provides, then, is  legal cover for individuals and organisations. But it remains the case that the law does not neatly cohere with (nor determine) the lived experiences of those concerned.

For example, what does it mean when the guidance says it uses “the expression ‘biological sex’ to describe the sex of a person at birth”? To cut through the vague euphemism, it means the bathroom you use should be determined by what genitals you have. As a foundation that is supposed to alleviate the complications of ‘perceived’ gender expression, it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Many intersex people, for example, have testified to invasive and discriminatory medical treatment on the basis that their “sex at birth” is no less determined on a medical professional’s perceptions. It has long been the norm that people born with ambiguous genitalia are subjected to decisions made about their bodies by doctors, who even encourage parents to consent to surgeries that can ‘correct’ their child’s genitals and make them look more ‘normal’.

Outside of medical professionals and intimate partners, however, who else is going to be interacting with our genitals during the day-to-day? Certainly not a random Starbucks employee! It is for this reason that so many of the hypothetical situations lists in the new guidance unavoidably fall back on other people’s perceptions of an individual’s gender expression.

The absence of trans testimonies

Contradictions continue to hamper this most irrational of debates because many of the things that determine our gender cannot be seen.

Speaking personally, as a trans woman, my hormone profile is not that of a biological man. A combination of testosterone blockers and a hormone replacement therapy has fundamentally changed my inner emotional landscape. As far as outward appearances go, I continue to be misgendered often. But many of the women in my family present as more ‘masculine’ than most anyway. In fact, compared side by side, I’m the spitting image of the woman that gave birth to me.

Too much information? Yeah, probably! The EHRC’s new guidance goes to great lengths to try and ‘clarify’ how businesses and public bodies can avoid falling foul of the UK’s discrimination laws, but the fact remains that people’s lived experiences are more diverse than the law could ever truly account for. This is a problem that the EHRC – whenever it does decide to listen to trans people – cannot avoid. As a result, ‘clarification’ paradoxically means even more ‘complication’.

Prioritising the legal definitions of sex and gender over and above the reality of trans lives will always be reductive, further entrenching a ‘hostile environment‘ for trans people. But that is precisely what lawfare-waging TERFs want. The more convoluted the law, the colder the chilling effect on LGBTQ people’s freedoms of movement and expression.

At the end of the day, it’s not the law that needs to be changed, but the general attitudes towards trans people in this country. The law may influence this, but the problems have taken root far deeper than statutes.

Featured image via Getty/Ian Forsyth

By Em Colquhoun

Source link

The man of the hour, Pedro Pascal

View this post on Instagram

Source link

Source link

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

Festivals are all fun and games until you remember about a small thing called a shower.

I don’t know about you, but it’s always a day or two into a festival or camping before I start to become irrevocably aware of the layer of the layer of filth I must be covered in. After that, it’s game over.

While, yes, there’s often some kind of shower... situation going on at campsites, it’s not always one you want to find yourself in.

Advertisement

That is, if you even have time to shower between running around and drinking copious amounts of alcohol.

But if there is one hack you can’t live without at a festival, it’s always having a pack of wet wipes on hand.

Should you lose track of time and realise you’ve not washed in a considerable number of days, or that you’ve developed an irrational fear of the shared showers, wet wipes will always have your back.

These coconut-scented ones from Freshwipes come in a pack of 12, but if you’re going for a longer stint you can save by buying a multipacks of 5, 10, or 36.

They’re biodegradable, 10x wetter than regular baby wipes, and fold out to A4 size, so one wipe is enough to clean your whole body.

Advertisement

That means you can rest assured you’re not leaving too much harmful rubbish behind.

They’re even skin-safe certified, earning the seal of approval from Dr Hilary Jones MBE as dermatologically sound and antibacterial, thanks to the addition of chlorhexidine.

And, if coconut is not your thing, you can choose between its ocean fresh scent and unscented options.

But best of all, one pack costs just £6, so you can stay odour-free wherever you are this summer for the price of less than two coffees.

Source link