A French League match between Nantes and Le Havre showed a human moment. In the 74th minute, Nantes goalkeeper, Portuguese Anthony Lopes, fell to the ground, clutching his hamstring, in what at first glance appeared to be a routine injury requiring medical attention. Play was halted for several minutes as the medical staff rushed to the veteran goalkeeper.

But behind this pause, another story was being written.

French League shamed

The French League has regulations prohibiting the suspension of matches for religious reasons, unlike some European competitions that allow a short break at sunset to enable fasting players to break their fast.

In England, for example, the Premier League has adopted a mechanism allowing referees to grant a minute of rest at sunset during Ramadan. In France, however, the situation is different.

As Lopez fell to the ground, the Muslim players on the pitch found those precious moments they had been waiting for. They quickly headed to the touchline, ate dates, and drank water, in a quiet scene tinged with gratitude.

There was no official announcement, no special refereeing decision, just a brief window of opportunity created by the goalkeeper.

After the moment passed, Lopez got up. He showed no signs of injury and didn’t ask to be substituted. He returned to his position under the crossbar, as if nothing had happened.

Solidarity beyond words

Such details might not be recorded in goal reports, but they are etched in the players’ memories.

Lopez’s action – whether spontaneous or deliberate – carried a clear message of solidarity: in football, there is more to it than just competition.

The match ended with Nantes winning 2-0, bringing their points tally to 17. But the most important statistic wasn’t in the standings, but in the 74th minute… when the match was paused, and some players quietly broke their fast.

Between law and spirit

This incident highlights an ongoing debate within French football regarding how to handle fasting players during Ramadan, at a time when other competitions are moving towards flexible solutions that respect the legal framework while also acknowledging religious sensitivities.

Amidst this debate, Lopez’s gesture offered a simple example of humanity: a non-Muslim player giving his teammates a moment they needed, without speeches or slogans.

Sometimes, solidarity doesn’t require an official statement; it’s enough for a goalkeeper to fall, and others to rise up and break their fast.

Featured image via the Canary

Analysts have documented over 900 cases of UK institutions and pro-Israel groups targeting supporters of Palestine with different types of repression.

The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and research group Forensic Architecture have put together an Index of Repression. Upon launching this public database, the ELSC said:

For too long, anti-Palestinian repression has been dismissed as incidental, exceptional, and justified. On 25 February, we confirm what the movement has long known: this repression is multi-sited, institutionalised and systematic, unfolding across varied stages.

This, it insisted, is a “coordinated system” seeking to undermine public criticism of Israel’s settler-colonial crimes and genocide in Gaza. And the Index of Repression has documented:

964 verified incidents of repression targeting Palestine solidarity documented across Britain (January 2019 – August 2025)

Those responsible, the Guardian said, were:

police (220 incidents), educational institutions (192), pro-Israel advocacy groups (141), and journalists and other media actors (141).

‘Strategic targeting to dismantle solidarity’ with people living under Israeli occupation

The UK’s crackdown includes smears, sanctions, and other repercussions for speaking out. And it:

focuses deliberately on sectors fundamental to shaping public discourse and holding public trust: Education; Activism and Protest; Workplace; and Culture.

It is a “strategic targeting across sectors” that:

aims to dismantle solidarity at every stage, from the formation of political consciousness in universities and schools, to its expression in culture, to its organisation in public spaces.

The cancel culture on behalf of a genocidal foreign state has targeted educators and those they teach in particular. As the Guardian summarised:

Students, academics and teachers (336 incidents) appeared most frequently on the index as targets of repression, followed by activists and organisers (229). The report says they are often targeted in different ways, with artists and cultural workers often having events cancelled (71 incidents).

The paper added that techniques included:

smears, disinformation, harassment, doxing (having private or identifying information published online), visa cancellations, financial blacklisting, loss of employment and arrest

Large-scale Western repression in service of Israel’s genocide

The UK has faced significant criticism domestically and internationally for its unlawful proscription of non-violent direct-action group Palestine Action. The government has already spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on its highly controversial ban. But it is still fighting the courts to keep it in place.

The ELSC’s Tara Mariwany clarified that it was “not our role” to discuss or determine whether allegations against targets were true or not, emphasising:

It’s simply our role to document it and to show that it doesn’t matter if you wear a watermelon sticker on your shirt, that might give rise to the allegation of antisemitism…

It’s simply about showing the scale of it and that should give enough of a cause to question the allegation itself and question the smearing itself.

The project is not a standalone piece of work either. Instead, as the ELSC explained:

It builds on Germany’s Index of Repression, which we have launched in May 2025, and is both a continuation of this work and an expansion into a broader transnational effort to document and expose repression across Europe.  The forthcoming Index of Repression for the Netherlands – alongside other country reports – marks the next phase of this sustained, cross-border project.

Featured image via the Canary

(Alamy)

5 min read1 hr

The Prime Minister said Zack Polanski’s party was no longer comprised of “harmless environmentalists” in a letter to all Labour MPs following their defeat in Greater Manchester.

Labour is reeling after finishing third in a constituency it had controlled for over 100 years and where it won with an absolute majority at the 2024 general election.

Green candidate Hannah Spencer won with 40 per cent of the vote, in the clearest sign yet of the threat posed to Labour’s left flank by Polanski’s “eco-populist” left-wing party.

Reform UK candidate, former academic Matt Goodwin, came second.

In a letter to Labour MPs on Friday, seen by PoliticsHome, the PM said: “We’ve seen the true colours of Zack Polanski’s Greens in this campaign. The Greens were able to capitalise on an endorsement from George Galloway to win over enough voters to push them over the line.

“Their willingness to welcome Galloway’s divisive, sectarian politics is a sign that the Greens are not the harmless environmentalists they pretend to be, and their position on legalising all drugs shows how unstable this electoral coalition is. It cannot survive a general election campaign.”

Galloway, a former MP for Labour and the Respect parties, is a controversial figure in British politics, accused of running divisive campaigns in areas with significant Muslim populations.

His Workers Party of Britain decided not to stand a candidate in Gorton and Denton.

In his letter, Starmer said he would continue to “warn of the risk the Greens pose” to the country, including “extreme policies like legalising all drugs and pulling out of NATO”.

He also sought to assure Labour backbenchers that Polanki’s party would not be able to replicate its by-election success on Thursday at a nationwide general election.

“The Greens may have won here, but they simply do not have the resources, the activist base or the local knowledge to replicate this victory across the country. We’ve seen that before.

“We’ve seen it with the Lib Dems, who have often won mid-term by-elections against both the Conservatives and Labour, but never been able to come close to winning nationally. We’ve seen it with George Galloway, who won two mid-term by-elections but held neither of those seats in a general election.”

Some Labour MPs have privately expressed concern that the lettercould further alienate progressive voters who supported the Greens on Thursday, with one calling it “appalling”.

One Labour backbencher complained to PoliticsHome: “That letter is what the Greens will use to raise the money. Slow clap.”

Additional reporting by Zoe Crowther

Here is the letter in full:

Dear Colleagues,

 

The result in Gorton and Denton is deeply disappointing. 

 

Instead of a Labour MP who can be a local champion delivering for Gorton and Denton alongside a Labour Government and a Labour mayor, the people of Gorton and Denton now have a representative who is more interested in dividing people than uniting them. We have to learn lessons from that, and we will.

 

I know this is a tough result for our movement but I still want to thank you for everything you did to support our brilliant candidate Angeliki Stogia. She did a fantastic job and Gorton and Denton deserved to have her as their MP.

 

We’ve seen the true colours of Zack Polanski’s Greens in this campaign. The Greens were able to capitalise on an endorsement from George Galloway to win over enough voters to push them over the line. Their willingness to welcome Galloway’s divisive, sectarian politics is a sign that the Greens are not the harmless environmentalists they pretend to be, and their position on legalising all drugs shows how unstable this electoral coalition is. It cannot survive a general election campaign.

 

It hurts, but this is the kind of result that we have often seen parties of government face. In by-elections people can make their voice heard without risking a change of government. I get it: people are rightly impatient to see the change they voted for.

 

It’s my job to make sure that happens. And I’m working day in, day out to see it through.

 

Over the coming months, people will feel the benefit of the long-term decisions this government is taking. Look at the good economic news we’ve had in the past week: inflation and borrowing coming down, retail sales and business confidence rising, energy bills falling. And look at the policies that are going to make a difference in people’s lives in the coming months: the landmark Employment Rights Act, money off energy bills, the cruel two-child limit scrapped, more free breakfast clubs opening, Pride in Place funding coming through, NHS waiting lists continuing to fall. It will show what we’ve been saying from the outset of this year: the country is turning a corner. These are all Labour policies, putting Labour values into action – policies no other party would or could deliver.

 

The Greens may have won here, but they simply do not have the resources, the activist base or the local knowledge to replicate this victory across the country. We’ve seen that before. We’ve seen it with the Lib Dems, who have often won mid-term by-elections against both the Conservatives and Labour, but never been able to come close to winning nationally. We’ve seen it with George Galloway, who won two mid-term by elections but held neither of those seats in a general election.

 

We will continue to warn of the risk the Greens pose: the risk of extreme policies like legalising all drugs and pulling out of NATO that most voters strongly reject, and the risk of splitting the progressive vote so that Reform come through the middle. 

 

The next election is too important to let that happen. It’s a fight we can win, and we’re going to win it.

 

Best,

Keir

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, is back doing what he does best – smearing left-wing leaders.

After his baseless attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, he’s now set his sights on Zack Polanski.

Dearlove described Polanski’s view of geopolitics as “verging on the absurd, this man is really dangerous” and a potential far-left alliance involving parties like Your Party and the Greens as “a very dangerous prospect for the UK’s national security.”

He also mocked Polanski’s suggestion of military alliances with other countries, particularly the idea of partnering with Global South nations like Mexico and Brazil.

He also was surprised that the Greens’ campaign in Gorton and Denton could “attract attention”. Additionally, he was surprised that it was designed to capture the muslim vote.”

Deja vu

Reactions on social media to Dearlove was one of deja vu!

Dearlove used similar words to describe Corbyn in November 2019, just a month before the December 2019 General Election, which led to a Tory victory with Boris Johnson as the PM.

Dealove previously wrote in the Daily Mail that

Corbyn as Prime Minister, together with his current advisers, could be a present danger to our country.

Do not even think of taking the risk of handing this politician the keys to No 10.

The soft-spoken, apparently gentle old man who is promising voters the world may not be quite as he now wishes to present himself.

John Smith said: “That old chestnut… Been there, done that.”

That old chestnut…Been there done that.

— John Smith (son of Harry Leslie Smith) (@Harryslaststand) February 26, 2026

Advertisement

Others had similar feelings.

They always wheel out this old chud lol https://t.co/9U0ILNKewX

— Dr Iain Darcy 🍉 🇮🇪 💚 (@doctoriaindarcy) February 27, 2026

They’re going to give him the full Corbyn treatment if he wins this by-election https://t.co/yakoHk1erb

— Manic Kieth Preachers KC (@wrb91) February 26, 2026

The establishment are out in force already. This is exactly the same shit these arseholes pulled on Jeremy Corbyn. https://t.co/onVPzyTqj7

— Bevan Boy 💚 (@mac123_m) February 27, 2026

Advertisement

If anyone is a threat, it is Dearlove

Craig Murray criticised the former intelligence head, as a man with the blood of millions on his hands.

The lies he told about Iraqi WMDs will not be easily forgotten.

This is the man responsible for the lies on Iraqi WMD, with the blood of millions on his hands. https://t.co/Ls2RUgEWl5

— Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) February 26, 2026

Matt Kennard called Dearlove a “clown” who, as head of MI6, helped get Putin elected in 2000 at Russia’s bidding, played a key role in the illegal Iraq invasion, then cashed out at oil company Kosmos Energy.

Kennard documented this at Declassified UK. He revealed how Dearlove and fellow spy chiefs profited from the very threats they promoted while in office.

As head of MI6, this clown mobilised the UK state to get Putin elected in 2000 election – at behest of Russian intelligence

He then played key role in illegal invasion of Iraq

After “service”, he cashed out at oil company Kosmos Energy

Join the Greens: https://t.co/LiEX2al4Jb https://t.co/owF3nrZGf9

Advertisement

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) February 26, 2026

Tony Greenstein noted that the same intelligence service employed Salman Abedi, who was sent to Libya to fight with jihadists before bombing the Manchester Arena. He said NATO is “not our friend” but “a cause of war.” In addition, he called the US the main threat to freedom with its posturing against Canada and Greenland.

this is the same intelligence service that employed Salman Abedi and sent him to Libya to fight with Jihadists. He came back and planted a bomb at the Manchester Arena.

NATO is not our friend – it is a cause of war. The United States is the main threat to our freedom with its… https://t.co/u5Ltj9xN2o

— Tony Greenstein tonygreenstein.com (@TonyGreenstein) February 27, 2026

Advertisement

Chris Nieham has previously written in Counterfire about Dearlove.

The former head of M16 was a close associate of Blair and Alistair Campbell during the Iraq War and was one of two security service heads responsible for the ‘dodgy dossier’ which was used as the main justification for the Iraq War, the biggest disaster in British foreign policy for fifty years or more.

The dossier was heavily criticised in the Chilcot report and is widely believed to have been the worst mistake made by the UK intelligence community in the post-1945 era.

Featured image via the Canary

Why is chocolate being kept in security boxes in supermarkets?

Why is chocolate so expensive?

Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag is a Manchester-based communal leader and International Liaison for the Coalition for Jewish Values UK.

Britain rightly prides itself on pluralism. But pluralism is not the same thing as passivity.

A liberal democracy cannot survive if it refuses to defend its own moral boundaries. Yet in confronting Islamist extremism, we have too often substituted hesitation for clarity and process for enforcement.

Recent commentary, including Paul Goodman’s article in The Times, reflects a growing recognition that the problem is not a lack of legislation, but a lack of consistent resolve.

This is not a question of Islam as a faith, nor of British Muslims as citizens. Islam is one of the great Abrahamic religions, and the overwhelming majority of British Muslims seek nothing more than peaceful participation in national life. The issue is not religion, but ideology — and the state’s reluctance to draw moral red lines.

For years, Britain has oscillated between alarm and avoidance. After atrocities, there is urgency, rhetoric and review. As public attention fades, so too does resolve. What follows is drift — selective engagement, bureaucratic caution, and a reluctance to confront ideological actors directly.

Yet a liberal democracy cannot endure without moral red lines.

Where sermons, educational settings, charities or public-sector spaces are used to promote antisemitism, glorify violence, endorse terrorist organisations or intimidate others, the response of the state must be firm, consistent and impartial. Tolerance of such behaviour is not pluralism; it is abdication.

Pluralism does not require neutrality between democracy and those who reject it. Nor does it oblige the state to subsidise or legitimise organisations that undermine constitutional norms while operating just within the letter of the law. A confident society does not apologise for enforcing its own standards.

Britain’s counter-extremism framework has too often been weakened by three recurring failures.

First, confusion between religious sensitivity and political timidity. There is a legitimate desire not to stigmatise communities. But that imperative has sometimes paralysed enforcement against clearly ideological actors who promote segregation, grievance narratives, hostility to Jews, and sympathy for proscribed groups. Avoiding discomfort is not the same as promoting cohesion.

Second, inconsistency. Islamist extremism, far-right extremism and far-left extremism are all incompatible with a free society. Addressing one does not excuse or minimise the others. Yet enforcement has at times appeared uneven — cautious in one direction, reactive in another. The rule of law cannot depend on electoral arithmetic or media pressure.

Third, an over-reliance on reviews rather than implementation. Britain does not lack legislation. We have laws addressing incitement, support for terrorism, harassment and discrimination. We have charity regulation. We have safeguarding duties. The question is not whether powers exist, but whether they are used consistently and without fear or favour.

From the perspective of Coalition for Jewish Values UK, several principles are essential if public confidence is to be restored.

Public institutions — schools, hospitals, prisons, universities and local authorities — must be neutral and safe spaces, free from intimidation and sectarian coercion. No pupil should feel unsafe because of their Jewish identity. No university campus should tolerate open endorsement of proscribed organisations. No publicly funded body should quietly outsource moral authority to groups that undermine democratic norms.

Charitable status, public funding and access to ministers are privileges, not entitlements. They must be contingent on basic standards of conduct. Where organisations repeatedly platform extremist rhetoric, promote antisemitic tropes or blur the line between activism and legitimisation of violence, consequences should follow — transparently and proportionately.

Clarity of language is also indispensable. Islamism is not synonymous with Islam. It is a political ideology that seeks to order society under a particular interpretation of religious authority, often hostile to pluralism and liberal democracy. Pretending this distinction is too delicate to articulate only strengthens those who exploit ambiguity.

A democratic state can respect religious liberty while rejecting theocratic political projects. Indeed, the defence of religious liberty depends upon that distinction. British Muslims who wish to practise their faith peacefully are ill-served when the state fails to confront ideological actors who claim to speak in their name.

The Jewish community’s experience is instructive. British Jews are deeply committed to pluralism and flourish in an open society. But when antisemitism is tolerated — whether on the far Right, within radical left movements, or in Islamist networks — it is rarely an isolated phenomenon. It is often a warning sign of democratic erosion. Historically, societies that struggle to defend Jews from ideological hostility struggle to defend liberal norms more broadly.

For Conservatives in particular, this should not be peripheral.

Ordered liberty depends on moral boundaries. A nation is not defined solely by markets or administrative competence, but by shared civic standards and the impartial rule of law. Where those standards are eroded incrementally — through intimidation, ideological capture of institutions or selective enforcement — the damage is cumulative.

What is required now is not another buried review, nor a temporary initiative designed to quiet headlines. It is a cross-cutting framework that restores confidence that Britain can be both pluralistic and serious.

Such a framework would include:

• Consistent enforcement of existing extremism and terrorism legislation.
• Clear conditionality for public funding and charitable status.
• Transparency in government engagement with community organisations.
• Protection of public institutions as ideologically neutral spaces.
• Equal application of standards across Islamist, far-right and far-left extremism alike.

None of this is radical. It is simply the application of equal standards.

Britain can be tolerant without being naive. It can defend religious freedom without indulging political extremism. It can welcome diversity while insisting on common civic norms.

But it cannot sustain those goods indefinitely without drawing clear moral red lines — and enforcing them.

A confident democracy enforces its standards not in spite of pluralism, but in order to preserve it.

Endometriosis cannot be cured, though

I mourn what my career could have been without endometriosis

Help and support: