FIFA has launched disciplinary proceedings against Argentina following several alleged breaches during the 2026 World Cup, with the governing body examining incidents from both the semi-final win over England and the final defeat to Spain. The case centres on discriminatory behaviour, team misconduct, protocol failures, and the use of an inappropriate political message. Specifically the Falklands banner displayed after Argentina’s 2-1 semi-final victory in Atlanta.

The banner, which read “the Falklands are Argentine” is being treated as a potential breach of article 13 paragraph 2 c) of the FIFA disciplinary code, which prohibits demonstrations of a non-sporting nature at football events. FIFA’s investigation also covers late kick-offs, racist abuse allegations, security lapses, object throwing and other protocol violations attributed to both players and supporters.

Fallout from England semi-final

The semi-final in Atlanta is central to the case. After beating England, Argentina players held the Falklands banner in front of their supporters and then placed it on the pitch for several minutes. According to FIFA’s charge sheet, the banner had been brought into the stadium by some Argentina fans before being picked up by players at full-time. it remained visible on the turf until members of the squad folded it and handed it to a backroom staff member.

The display is being treated as a serious breach because FIFA’s regulations explicitly forbid political messaging inside stadiums. The governing body is examining whether Argentina’s players knowingly contributed to the display and whether the federation failed to prevent the banner’s appearance.

Argentina escalate tensions after final

The second major flashpoint came in New Jersey, where Argentina lost the World Cup final 1-0 to Spain. The closing moments and aftermath were marked by confrontations between players from both sides, prompting further disciplinary action.

Leandro Paredes is facing proceedings for three breaches of article 14 paragraph 1 i), relating to assault. He was involved in multiple altercations, including grabbing and pushing Spain players. Nahuel Molina is also under investigation after striking Rodri at full-time. Thiago Almada and assistant coach Roberto Ayala have had cases opened against them for their roles in the post-match disorder.

Spain midfielder Gavi is facing separate proceedings for unsporting behaviour, with FIFA reviewing his conduct during the same chaotic scenes.

Wider context for FIFA

The timing of the disciplinary announcement comes as FIFA faces scrutiny over other issues, including controversial proposals attributed to Gianni Infantino regarding commercial changes to the World Cup. The governing body’s decision to release details of Argentina’s charges may shift attention back to on-field behaviour and tournament conduct.

The investigation highlights FIFA’s ongoing efforts to enforce strict behavioural standards at major tournaments. political messaging, discriminatory behaviour and violent conduct are treated as serious offences, and the governing body has shown a willingness to pursue cases even after the competition has concluded.

Argentina consequences

If found guilty, Argentina could face a range of sanctions, including fines, warnings, suspensions for individuals and potential restrictions on future matchday operations. players such as Paredes, Molina and Almada could receive bans, while coach Ayala may also face disciplinary measures. the federation itself could be penalised for failing to prevent the banner display and for broader misconduct involving supporters.

Featured Image via  Reuters

By Faz Ali

Source link

World football has entered its most serious institutional crisis in decades, after the 55 national associations that are members of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) announced their unanimous agreement to boycott all FIFA tournaments, foremost among them the World Cup, should FIFA President Gianni Infantino proceed with his plan to privatise FIFA competitions and sell stakes in them to private-sector investors.

The decision followed an emergency meeting convened by UEFA amid mounting European opposition to the proposal, which officials on the continent regard as a threat to the future of the game and to the nature of international tournaments – which they view as belonging to the national associations and the fans, rather than as assets available for sale and investment.

Unanimous European rejection

UEFA, in an official statement issued on behalf of the 55 national associations, confirmed that all members stand united in rejecting FIFA’s proposal to transfer ownership of shares in the World Cup and its other competitions to private-sector investors, emphasising that European associations will not participate in any tournament organised by FIFA should the plan go ahead.

They said:

We unanimously and unequivocally reject FIFA’s proposal to transfer ownership interests in the World Cup and other FIFA competitions to private investors.

The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product. It is one of football’s greatest sporting legacies. It has been built over generations by players, national teams and supporters across every continent. No part of it should ever be surrendered to private investors. The World Cup is not for sale.

UEFA has called on FIFA to withdraw the proposal entirely and to provide binding guarantees that no similar project will be put forward in the future, arguing that ownership of global tournaments must remain in the hands of football governing bodies rather than investors.

UEFA views FIFA’s corporate takeover plans a radical shift in the nature of global football governance, granting the private sector unprecedented influence over the most important international tournaments, which threatens the independence of the game and prioritises commercial considerations over sporting values.

Repercussions that could threaten the World Cup

The European decision has significant implications for the future of FIFA tournaments, as the UEFA system includes the world’s leading national teams and those with the most titles, meaning that a boycott would directly affect the sporting and commercial value of the World Cup and other international competitions.

UEFA is also seeking to rally support from other continental federations to join its stance, amidst reports of reservations within some Asian federations, whilst others continue to consider their position on the proposal before making a final decision.

Although FIFA has so far stood by its plan, the European consensus presents the world governing body with its greatest political and administrative challenge under President Gianni Infantino, and threatens to cause an unprecedented split within the global football system if a settlement is not reached in the near future.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Eddie Howe’s time at Newcastle United is over. After nearly five years in charge, the head coach has stepped down following discussions with the club’s hierarchy over the past 48 hours. The move, however, did not come out of nowhere. Howe had already begun contemplating a departure weeks earlier, even as he continued preparing the squad for their Premier League opener against Liverpool on August 23.

His exit lands just 25 days before that fixture. It also arrives at a moment when Newcastle are attempting to stabilise after a turbulent summer of major sales, shifting priorities and growing uncertainty around key players. Howe leaves with the club still to issue a formal statement, but the decision is his, not theirs. Newcastle wanted him to stay. He felt he had taken the project as far as he could.

Matthias Jaissle lined up

Newcastle are moving quickly. Matthias Jaissle, currently at Al Ahli, set to replace Howe. The club hope to appoint the 38‑year‑old German within 24 hours, allowing him to take charge of the upcoming pre‑season camp in La Manga. Jaissle’s current employers, Al Ahli, are one of four clubs owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund. This is the same ownership group behind Newcastle, which has helped accelerate discussions.

Kieran McKenna and Antonio Conte were also considered, but Newcastle have settled on Jaissle as the preferred candidate to take the squad forward.

Howe and a summer of doubts

Newcastle’s summer has already been defined by major outgoings. Sandro Tonali has joined Tottenham in a £100m deal. Anthony Gordon has moved to Barcelona for close to £70m. Captain Bruno Guimaraes wants to leave and is wanted by Arsenal. Last summer, Alexander Isak departed for Liverpool in a British‑record £125m transfer.

Those departures have shaped Howe’s thinking. He believed he could take Newcastle forward again this season, but only if the club recruited strongly. Instead, the squad has been stripped of several of its most influential players, leaving Howe concerned about what the team would look like by the start of the campaign.

Newcastle have made additions, with winger Bazoumana Toure from Hoffenheim for £42m, midfielder Sean Steur from Ajax for £23m, and goalkeeper Ewen Jaouen from Reims for £18.5m.  Yet they also missed out on Johan Manzambi, who chose Aston Villa. The balance of the squad remains in flux.

Howe’s final days

Howe’s final match was a 4‑1 pre‑season defeat to Bristol City on Wednesday night. The result did not trigger the decision, but it framed the timing. Upon returning from the game, Howe informed his coaching staff. He will now take a break from football. The players have not yet been told; they were given a day off and will fly to Spain for the training camp on Friday.

There is no acrimony. The club believe Howe has done an exceptional job. He simply feels the project has reached its natural limit under his leadership.

Howe’s reign: five years of progress

Howe’s tenure is one of the most significant in Newcastle’s modern history. Appointed in November 2021 to replace Steve Bruce, he inherited a team winless in its first 14 Premier League games. By May 2022, he had guided them to safety and an 11th‑place finish. The first team ever to stay up after failing to win any of their opening 14 matches.

In August 2022, he signed a new long‑term contract. By February 2023, he had taken Newcastle to their first final in 24 years, losing the Carabao Cup final 2‑0 to Manchester United. Three months later, he delivered a fourth‑place finish and Champions League qualification for the first time in more than two decades.

January 2024 brought an FA Cup Tyne‑Wear derby win.  Newcastle’s first victory over Sunderland in almost 13 years. In May 2024, they finished seventh, scoring 85 goals and posting their highest Premier League goal tally ever.

March 2025 delivered silverware: a 2‑1 win over Liverpool in the Carabao Cup final, ending a 56‑year wait for a major trophy. Two months later, Howe secured another Champions League qualification with a fifth‑place finish.

The 2025‑26 season brought challenges. Isak left for Liverpool on deadline day. Newcastle reached the Champions League knockout stages via the play‑offs but were beaten by Barcelona. They finished 12th in the league. Gordon left for Barcelona in May 2026. Tonali followed in July. Guimaraes expressed his desire to leave. The squad was shifting faster than Howe believed was sustainable.

July 2026, after months of reflection, Howe has stepped down.

Howe’s final words on Guimaraes

Before news of his departure broke, Howe addressed the uncertainty around Guimaraes. He refused to offer assurances over the midfielder’s future, noting that neither the club nor the player fully controlled the situation. He emphasised Guimaraes’ commitment and quality, but acknowledged that external forces were shaping the saga.

His comments were calm, measured and consistent with his approach throughout his tenure: clarity without theatrics.

There are fears Newcastle could slip into a relegation battle without Howe, pointing to the scale of player departures and the reliance on unproven replacements. Supporters have expressed shock, frustration and sadness. Some believe Howe was not backed sufficiently. Others feel the timing is difficult but accept the decision. Many simply thank him for the memories.

Howe’s legacy

Howe leaves as one of Newcastle’s greatest managers. He delivered Champions League football twice, ended a decades‑long trophy drought, rebuilt the club’s identity and raised standards across the squad. His work was defined by consistency, clarity and a refusal to indulge in noise.

Newcastle now enter a new phase. A new head coach is expected imminently. A reshaped squad awaits. The project continues, but the architect of its revival has stepped aside.

Howe departs with respect, appreciation and a legacy that will endure long beyond the turbulence of this summer.

Featured Image via The Independent

By Faz Ali

Source link

The Supreme Court has today granted Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori permission to challenge the government’s continued terrorism ban on the group.

Palestine Action was ‘proscribed’ in July 2025. The ban was overturned in February 2026 by the High Court, which found it unlawful. Shabana Mahmood – still home secretary despite a change of PM – was allowed to go to the Court of Appeals. The appeals court overturned the High Court’s decision in June 2026, ruling that Mahmood was better placed than legal experts to decide what is a justified infringement on UK human rights.

But today, 30 July 2026, the UK’s highest court has granted Ammori permission to appeal to it. The case will be held sometime in the last three months of this year.

Palestine Action mass arrests limbo

The UK state has arrested more than 3,500 people for peacefully protesting against the ban. Dozens more were arrested today, including clergy, after a further protest at Westminster Magistrates’ Court – photos and footage will follow.

Britain today: An elderly woman in a wheelchair is escorted away by the police and risks up to 14 years in prison for supporting terrorism since the Home Secretary proscribed a protest group in 2025.

Her crime? She said: "I support Palestine Action and I encourage you to join". pic.twitter.com/GbHR7Aotro

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) July 30, 2026

The appeal decision means their cases will remain in stasis. The Starmer-turned-Burnham war on UK rights to protect Israel faces a new challenge.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has unveiled a commercial project. It could become one of the biggest financial ventures in the organisation’s history.

The plan would partially privatise FIFA’s commercial operations, most notably the World Cup. For the first time, outside investors would be allowed to take a stake in these activities.

Below, Al-Kanari breaks down the key elements of the proposal, how it would work, its potential value, and why it has faced such strong opposition.

A new commercial company

At the centre of the proposal is the creation of a new independent company, FIFA Forward Enterprise. This company would take control of FIFA’s commercial assets.

Those assets would include all of FIFA’s major revenue streams, including the World Cup — the organisation’s biggest source of income. They also include broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, advertising contracts, ticketing revenue, licensing rights and event operations.

The plan would see up to 20% of the company’s shares sold to outside investors, including investment funds and private companies. Meanwhile, FIFA would retain an 80% majority stake.

The proposed company has been valued at around $20bn, based on an assessment carried out with US bank J.P. Morgan.

Funding incentives for approval

To win support from member associations, Infantino has tied the proposal to a major funding package for FIFA’s 211 national associations. There are two possible outcomes depending on whether the plan is approved.

If approved, the $10bn package would see each national association receive $40m during the 2027–2030 cycle. Of this, $20m would be distributed directly through the Fast Forward programme. Additionally, another $20m would go towards development projects through FIFA’s Forward programme over four years.

The proposed funding would then increase in later cycles, rising to $22m for 2031 — 2034 and $24m for 2035 — 2038.

If the project is rejected, the $2.7bn package would not go ahead.

Instead, associations would receive only FIFA’s standard funding of $10m for the next cycle. This means they would miss out on roughly 75% of the additional money offered under the proposal.

Deadline and approval process

Infantino has set 19 September as the deadline for federations to decide whether to join the project. The decision affects access to the $40m funding package.

The proposal requires approval from more than half of FIFA’s member associations, as well as backing from the FIFA Council.

Infantino insists the plan would not change FIFA’s governance structure. He argues that sporting, technical and organisational decisions would remain entirely under FIFA’s control.

Opposition to FIFA

The proposal has triggered significant opposition, led by UEFA and joined by other continental federations and prominent figures across football.

Critics argue that the World Cup is a global sporting institution, not a commercial asset. Furthermore, they believe that allowing investment funds to take ownership stakes would fundamentally change the nature of the tournament. They fear commercial interests could begin to outweigh sporting priorities.

Opponents have also criticised the way the proposal was developed, arguing that it was created behind closed doors with financial institutions and without consultation with the six continental federations. These include UEFA and CONCACAF, or the clubs and organisations responsible for running competitions.

They have also accused FIFA of using funding as leverage, arguing that tying additional money to a 19 September deadline places pressure on federations. This is especially true for those with fewer resources — to approve the plan.

Critics say the financial incentives amount to an attempt to push the proposal through by exploiting the funding needs of poorer federations.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

The National have linked a Reform councillor who spoke at a ‘Nazi rally’ to a far-right vigilante group. And she’s not even the only one linked to these awful groups:

NEW: Reform councillor Audrey Dempsey, who shared a stage with neo-Nazis this weekend in Glasgow, has actually been "advising" a far-right vigilante street patrol group in the city

The National can reveal that she has been guiding the group on going to the "next level" pic.twitter.com/lmRB6xtrp8

— Laura Webster (@LauraEWebsterr) July 29, 2026

Advertisement

Nazis

We should note that Reform politicians have disputed that the ‘Nazi rally’ was in fact a Nazi rally. As Grace wrote for the Canary:

On Saturday 25 July, a far-right ‘Unite the Clans’ rally saw masked, violent fascists attacking people of colour on the streets of Glasgow. However, Reform MSP Thomas Kerr has since taken to social media to complain about the racist thugs being called Nazis — because obviously that’s the most important issue at hand.

The reason we’re confident calling it such is because many attendees were happily throwing off Nazi salutes:

Multiple Nazi salutes at the ‘Unite the Clans’ racist & fascist rally in Glasgow yesterday. They deny they are racist as majority of society abhors it. They masquerade as ‘protectors of women’, but only use concerns over women’s safety to scapegoat& build their fascist movement. pic.twitter.com/mUhNHLWP30

— Stand Up to Racism – Scotland (@SUTRScotland) July 26, 2026

Given the above, it’s no wonder an MSP has called for the group to be proscribed:

BREAKING: Anti-migrant groups causing terror in Scotland should be proscribed, an MSP has told the Home Office

Maggie Chapman has called on the UK to ban groups like Unite the Clans pic.twitter.com/p3PHBAYiJL

— The National (@ScotNational) July 28, 2026

Nazism is a well-understood and documented ideology with clear goals and methods. Clearly, any individual or group who promotes Nazi ideology is a threat to society. And as the philosopher Karl Popper wrote on the ‘paradox of tolerance‘:

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Back to the rally, Grace reported:

Reform councillor Audrey Dempsey is the elected representative of Springburn and Robroyston ward. She was also a speaker at the rally, pictured above in front of a sign for neo-Nazi group Patriotic Alternative.

Reform has not taken any action against her. And now we know that things are even worse than we thought.

Reform: The new Blackshirts

We now know that Demsey has also advised a vigilante street movement called Scots Active. The group is known for targeting migrants, as reported by the National:

Founded by Darren Docherty, Scots Active undertakes masked street patrols under the guise of protecting the local community, and frequently attends anti-immigration protests in Glasgow.

In a Facebook post thanking Dempsey for joining them on a street patrol, the group said:

We are so thankful she could take the time to come and complete a full walk. As well as all the advice and much more we need to take ourselves to the next level this year.

With counsellor Dempseys (sic) advice we are confident that we will make the right moves to becoming a non profit charity, have an official number for anyone needing our help to contact us on and we will hopefully have enough funding to get us set up in a small office space so the team have a base.

The National reached out to Scots Active for comment, with the group posting the following to their Facebook page shortly after:

You fucking stupid mate your gonny spread the lies you clearly listen to anyways fs take yer rag paper n shove it up yer hole.

Tiring

While Reform councillors are attending Nazi rallies and supporting violent street movements, senior Reform politicians are complaining that people are calling them ‘far right’ online. Frankly, it’s a ridiculous state of affairs, and it’s one that the public seem to be wising up to.

Labour has obliterated Reform’s poll lead

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

On June 28th, unelected Prime Minister Andy Burnham appointed Bridget Phillipson as the new Labour Party chair. What many in the mainstream media did not report, however, is Phillipson’s connection to Stuart Roden, a lobbyist with links to Israeli intelligence.

Stuart Roden

In 2023, Phillipson registered two £40,000 donations from Roden, the co-founder of Hetz Ventures, a Tel Aviv-based venture capital firm he set up with London-born former Israeli intelligence officer Judah Taub. According to a Declassified UK report, Roden’s Hetz firm employs:

an array of former Israeli soldiers, many of whom have served in elite intelligence units.

Last year, leaked diaries revealed that Roden had been conducting private meetings with then Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotolevy, and Phillipson is not the only recent Burnham appointment he has bankrolled.

Lisa Nandy

Labour MP Lisa Nandy, who also held “secret” meetings with Israeli ambassador Hotolevy, received a £40,000 in-kind donation from Roden in 2024, as well as a policy adviser paid for by serial pro-Israeli financier Trevor Chinn the year before. Now, she is Burnham’s Culture Secretary.

After a Freedom of Information request into Nandy’s meeting with Hotolevy, the Labour government refused to provide further details. Instead, Nandy’s department said that they would prioritise:

protecting relations between the United Kingdom and Israel.

Luke Akehurst

For at least two years, Phillipson was benefitting from quarterly payments from Chinn, again for “staffing costs”. During her deputy leadership bid in 2025, she also received support from Labour First, a group run by ex-Israel lobbyist and now Labour MP Luke Akehurst.

Akehurst, who has also been funded by Roden, was quick to celebrate Burnham’s appointment of his “friend” Phillipson as party chair. Former Israeli embassy officer Shai Masot once described Akehurst as:

one of the best on the inside … of the [Labour] party.

ELNET UK

In 2023, lobby group ELNET UK paid for a member of Phillipson’s staff to visit occupied Palestine. Described in financial disclosures as a “study tour”, they were accompanied by Akehurst. A staffer for Burnham’s new Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, also travelled with the group.

ELNET lists the Israeli Foreign Ministry as one of their “partners”. A 2024 trip organised by the lobby group was led by Jeffrey Epstein “pal” and disgraced ex-Labour peer Peter Mandelson. Mandelson described Burnham’s new chief of staff, James Purnell, as “one of my boys”.

Other donations

In October, Phillipson received £40,000 from megadonor David Sainsbury and £15,000 from his daughter, Francesca Perrin. Phillipson has also admitted to accepting £14,000 in donations from Waheed Alli, Keir Starmer’s largest personal donor, for “lobby journalist” events.

In 2022, Phillipson accepted £15,000 from ex-Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy. Earlier this year, Murphy’s Arden Strategies lobby firm was caught offering companies access to a VIP dinner with “top advisers” to Starmer and Rachel Reeves in exchange for £30,000.

In the run-up to the 2024 general election, Arden helped raise funds for more than 30 Labour Party candidates. Their clients include arms manufacturer Northrop Grumman, which supplies weapons components to the Israeli military.

In November, Phillipson stood for deputy leader of the Labour Party. She received another £10,000 for her campaign from Murphy, a former director of Labour Friends of Israel. In 2015, Murphy promised to:

support Israel long after my political career is over.

Coup complete

In October 2024, Phillipson posted a short update on her personal website titled:

Good to meet with Andy Burnham.

At the time, Starmer had only been Prime Minister for three months.

Now, just two years later, Burnham has ousted Starmer and Phillipson is Labour Party chair. The Burnham coup is complete.

Featured image via Manchester Evening News.

By Jody McIntyre

Source link

Quick recap on the scandal

More than 700 people running small local post offices received criminal convictions between 1999 and 2006. Faulty accounting software made it appear that money had gone missing from their branches.

The Horizon IT system developed by the Japanese technology giant Fujitsu caused this. The Post Office installed the software in the late 90s, but flaws in its programming showed up deficits in branch accounts.

Postal service executives, refusing to acknowledge problems with the software, forced their workers to repay the shortfalls. Some were imprisoned or left out of pocket, while others failed to find other jobs and even lost their homes. However, in December 2019 a High Court judge concluded that the system contained a number of “bugs, errors, and defects”.

The UK government announced in September 2023 that every postmaster convicted would receive a payout of hundreds of thousands of pounds. This was the bare minimum for the damage caused.

As of 2026, more than 600 postmasters have seen their convictions overturned, and over £320m has been paid out in compensation. However, the DWP has still to review its departmental role in some 100 convictions.

A viral petition and the CWU sum up the corrupt cronyism that ‘Mr Bates vs the Post Office’ reignited public awareness of

British police accused of fabricating evidence with AI

Burnham hands cruel ex-DWP Minister the keys to No. 10

DWP boss McFadden making vague pronouncements about ‘helping people into work’ again

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

The University of Swansea has U-turned on a 2023 commitment to cut careers and recruitment ties with fossil fuel companies, against the wishes of student and staff campaigners.

Following one of the hottest Junes on record, the university has removed pledges from its Ethical Careers Policy to:

not knowingly devise marketing campaigns advertising […] roles which contribute to the detrimental effects of the fossil fuels, mining, arms and tobacco industries [and to exclude oil, gas and tar sands companies from access to] careers fairs and employer events.

In removing these statements, the university is effectively now permitting fossil fuel companies to promote their work and advertise to students. This comes after Met Office estimations that over 2,700 excess heat-related deaths occurred in May and June. The ban on tobacco companies remains in place.

In 2023, Swansea became the seventh UK university to exclude the fossil fuel industry from its careers and recruitment activities, after an 18 month campaign by students and staff. They were campaigning as part of the nationwide Fossil Free Careers campaign, coordinated by student-led charity People & Planet.

Since then, more than 10 additional universities have committed to banning the fossil fuel industry from promoting jobs to students. The campaign has had endorsement from the National Union of Students (NUS) and the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU).

Josie Mizen, co-director of Climate Justice at People & Planet, said:

After months of deadly heatwaves, it is absolutely shameful that Swansea University has backslid on its commitment not to work with the industry most responsible for the climate crisis.

This decision tells students and staff loud and clear: that their futures, their communities and the planet they live on matter less than their university’s cosy relationship with an industry that puts profit ahead of people’s lives.

We urge Swansea University to reverse its decision, and we stand in full solidarity with students and staff who resist university complicity in climate breakdown.

Advertisement

Swansea is one of 35 universities who this month have joined the Defence Universities Alliance (DUA). This is a scheme to promote greater collaboration between academia, the Ministry of Defence, and the arms industry.

A key criterion listed in the DUA Charter is to “promote careers in Defence” and to:

allow and support the attendance of defence sector firms […] at careers events.

The dropping of arms and fossil fuel exclusions from Swansea’s Ethical Careers Policy came just days after the university was announced as a founding member of the DUA.

A staff member at Swansea University said:

As a staff member I am extremely disappointed that Swansea University has chosen to remove the clause from their ethical careers policy which excludes fossil fuels, mining, and arms careers from any marketing campaigns.

Considering Swansea prides itself on positively impacting the ‘health, wealth, culture, and well-being of a global society’ this feels like a step in the opposite direction.

I hope that the university will reconsider this decision as I believe it has an ability and responsibility to show moral leadership for its staff, students, and community.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Four of the eleven unions officially affiliated with the Labour Party have announced that they will boycott the Labour Women’s Conference this year. Unison, Aslef, Usdaw, and the Musicians’ Union cited the party’s decision to ban trans women from attending the event.

The news follows Labour’s cancellation of the 2025 women’s conference after the Supreme Court’s ruling that ‘woman’ refers to sex-assigned-at-birth under the Equality Act 2010.

‘Compliance with the law’

In December, the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) then took a vote to formally exclude trans women from proceedings at the women’s conference.

Note, particularly, that the trans ban at the conference doesn’t apply only to the creation of ‘all women shortlists’, where the Equality Act might be most clearly applicable. Labour have ruled that trans women won’t be allowed in the main conference hall itself, quite literally relegating trans women to the fringe.

A party spokesperson claimed that:

This reflects our commitment to addressing the under-representation of women in the Party and compliance with the law.

Violating ‘policy on trans inclusion’

However, the High Court has since ruled that the law doesn’t require even ‘single-sex’ spaces like bathrooms to exclude trans women. In this light, Labour’s argument that it must exclude trans people from even entering the conference hall seems laughable at best.

Conversely, if the party’s intention is to generate an artificially transphobic consensus from its women’s conference, the blanket ban becomes a lot more understandable.

In reaction to the discriminatory decision, the boycotting unions stated that their attendance would violate their policies of trans inclusion. A Unison spokesperson said:

The union’s decided against sending a delegation to Labour women’s conference this year.

This is because the party’s restrictions on access run counter to UNISON’s policy on trans equality.

Likewise, the Metro quoted a representative of shop worker’s union Usdaw explaining that:

 The union’s decided against sending a delegation to Labour women’s conference this year.

This is because the party has excluded trans women, which runs counter to Usdaw’s policy on trans equality.

The Musician’s union simply stated that it has a “long-standing policy of trans inclusion”.

‘No real justification’

Whilst a less actively transphobic Labour Party might be embarrassed by its union backers criticising its nakedly discriminatory policy, we’re long past that point. However, the unions are also some of Labour’s most significant financial backers, which gives their dissent more weight.

Unison is Labour’s second largest union donor, contributing nearly £26m to the party since 2010. Usdaw gave just over £23m in the same period, making it the fourth-largest donor.

Meanwhile, trans-positive organisations have also raised their voices against the Labour policy. Grassroots group Labour for Trans Rights stated that:

For decades, trans women members have had a home in Labour’s structures, and it’s not acceptable that they’re being so blatantly excluded.

The trade union movement – including the Labour-affiliated unions – have been incredible allies to the trans community.

Advertisement

Likewise, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance director Alexandra Parmar-Yee said:

Clearly, there’s no real justification for banning trans women from a conference; this is just one example of a broken legal framework for trans equality.

For trans people, access to everyday public life is becoming harder and less safe – while organisations like businesses, charities and the NHS are getting caught in the crossfire of endless legal cases.

Andy Burnham can fix this, putting this issue to bed with a fair and workable approach, but if he doesn’t act this will end up being Labour’s legacy on LGBTQ+ rights for generations to come.

Feature image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link