Politics
Why Islamists and progressives have so much in common
At a time when political language is routinely muddled, there can be few topics more confused than that of Islam and Islamism. The failure to make a clear distinction between the two – an error across the political spectrum – makes it harder to understand the true dynamics of Islamist movements, and particularly their relationship with the left. Indeed, those ‘progressives’ who align themselves with Islamists are often described as ‘useful idiots’ or cowardly ‘appeasers’. But when Islamism is properly understood, it becomes clearer why the left has such an affinity with it.
Although the term is often used in public debate, the precise meaning of Islamism is typically unclear. It is not synonymous with more observant or fundamentalist Muslims. Its true character was well summarised by Bassam Tibi, a Syrian-German political scientist, who said: ‘Islamism is about political order, not faith.’ Nonetheless, it is not mere politics, but religionised politics, that is at its core. Essentially, Islamism is best seen as a form of politics in a religious wrapping.
Islamism first emerged against the backdrop of anti-colonial struggles in the wake of the First World War. But unlike the radical nationalist movements that initially gained power in the Arab world, like that led by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Islamists did not aspire to embrace the benefits of modernity for those living in poorer parts of the world. On the contrary, Islamist movements were implacably hostile to cultural modernity, democracy and liberal values. They were also extremely sceptical of the nation state, if not outright hostile to it. Instead, they aspired to some kind of nizam Islami, or new Islamic order, transcending national boundaries in the name of a shared theocratic vision.
As Tim Black has noted on spiked, the first Islamist movement was the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Many of today’s Islamist groups, including Hamas, are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. The first Islamist movement in the Indian sub-continent was Jamaat-i-Islami, founded in 1941. It too has many contemporary offshoots, including Islamist organisations in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Iran and Turkey both have Islamist governments, and Islamist movements are also prevalent in north Africa. Many of these groups have affiliated networks which operate within Muslim communities in the West, particularly the UK.
Although Islamism is routinely described as ‘medieval’, many key Islamist doctrines were developed in the 20th century, not the 7th. The idea of Sharia as an immutable Islamic legal system is a prime example. Although a concept of Sharia law did develop in the Middle Ages, it was seen at the time as being of human origin, and so open to dispute. In contrast, for Islamists, Sharia is a divinely ordained political order. It cannot, from their perspective, be modified or secularised.
Violent anti-Semitism as a central element of Islamism is also, despite appearances, a modern development. It is true that Islam has often adopted discriminatory practices against Jews. The Ottoman Empire’s branding of Jews and Christians as dhimmis, subjecting them to an inferior legal status and extra taxes, is a well-known example. But modern Islamism goes a lot further. It holds that Jews are a force for Satanic evil, which must be purged from the world.
Hamas’s founding covenant from 1988 makes this all too clear. Its Jew hate is not influenced by the Koran, but by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic forgery originating from Tsarist Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Among other things, Hamas argues that Jews ‘were behind the First World War, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources’.
‘They obtained the Balfour Declaration [and] formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind the Second World War, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.’
Clearly, none of these events or institutions could have been described in the Koran or the Hadith. The ideas in the passage were adopted from the racial thinking embodied in modern European anti-Semitism.
The violent language of Hamas reflects the ascent of a particular strain of Islamism, namely jihad. The jihadis are those Islamists who are openly willing to engage in violence. These people can be distinguished from what are sometimes called institutional or ‘participationist Islamists’ – those who support the use of violence, but do not practise it themselves.
Islamists typically operate covertly, within front organisations, including student organisations and charities. They are hard to identify with certainty as they deliberately try to blend in with broader Muslim communities. Islamists typically see themselves as true Muslims and take a derisive view of any co-religionists who do not share their politics.
Given this, it is hardly a surprise that Islamism and progressivism have such an affinity for one another. They have an awful lot in common: an aversion to modernity, hostility to democracy, cynicism towards the nation state and intolerance towards alternative views. Despite differences on some questions – most notably in relation to gay rights – the overlap is considerable.
There is also a particular affinity between mainstream identity politics and Westernised Muslims. As French political scientist Olivier Roy has noted, many Muslims in the West do not identify with the nations in which they live. For some of them, Islam is not so much a religion but a form of identity, one that precludes any attachment to a secular country. Such individuals are often attracted to Islamist ideas and networks. In effect, they embody a particular variant of the anti-nationhood trend that dominates identity politics in the West.
The progressive indulgence of Islamism is not primarily driven by cowardice or a propensity for appeasement – although that is certainly a factor. Neither is it solely a case of, as the hackneyed phrase goes, ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’. It is because progressives and Islamists agree on so much that they march arm in arm together.
The fundamental problem is not only that an extreme strain of Islam is corrupting an otherwise healthy body politic in the West. It is also that Islamism and progressivism share so much in common. The modern Western left offers fertile ground for Islamism to flourish on.
Daniel Ben-Ami is an author and journalist. He runs Radicalism of Fools, a website dedicated to rethinking anti-Semitism.
According to Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf, “failed Tories” are trying to “infiltrate” the party. While no one is disagreeing with this sentiment, the problem is these failed Tories are walking in through the front door:
"Failed Tories are trying to infiltrate us."
Suella Braverman — Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) April 21, 2026
Lee Anderson
Robert Jenrick
Andrew Rosindell
Danny Kruger
Nadhim Zahawi
Nadine Dorris
Andrea Jenkyns
Jonathan Gullis
Jake Berry pic.twitter.com/12DwdTyPBa
Reform UK aka The Tories 2.0
As a startup party, we have already made history and smashed the two-party system.
To be fair, this is accurate, as the Canary reported.
Labour/Tory support has dropped 37 points since last elections
Following years of failed neoliberal guff from the duopoly, it's clear to see why Labour and Tories' polling is in the toilethttps://t.co/tBSDC2yQs8https://t.co/tBSDC2yQs8
— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) April 21, 2026
However, Reform isn’t solely responsible for this because the Green Party has also taken votes away from the duopoly. The difference is the Greens actually offer some sort of alternative to the dead end neoliberal failures of the past few decades by:
- Seeking to minimise the gap between the billionaires and the rest of us.
- Targeting the issues driving the Affordability Crisis.
- Identifying solutions to the problems faced by renters and homeowners.
- Opposing cruel immigration and policing policies
- Listening to experts on how to solve the ‘War on Drugs’.
- Supporting its candidates when they’re smeared by the media and Zionists (finally).
Meanwhile, Reform looks to:
- Double down on failed immigration policies at the expense of the economy.
- Prevent the UK achieving energy security by blocking cheap renewable energy projects.
- Promote crypto (a technology many have compared to a pyramid scheme).
- Produce an endless supply of candidates who praise Hitler and British fascists.
Yusuf is correct that they’re outside the two-party system, but Reform isn’t an alternative; it’s just the Tories on steroids.
Yusuf: ‘We will not back down’
Reform’s spokesperson for home affairs continued:
We will not back down.
We will defeat the uniparty and break the establishment that has failed and betrayed the British people.
Clearly, Yusuf is thinking: ‘To beat the uniparty we must think like the uniparty. We must accept all of their worst MPs and copy their worst policies’.
It’s obvious why Yusuf would think this because Yusuf is himself a failed Tory.
It’s hilarious that people don’t realise Zia Yusuf was a Tory less than 2 years ago.
Being he’s never been elected to anything, you might say he’s a #FailedTory. https://t.co/1Sf51t6yK3
— Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) April 22, 2026
Yusuf is far from the only failed Tory to join up, and Farage and co often weren’t kind about their new friends.
Jenrick is a fraud. I’ve alway thought so, this quote proves it. pic.twitter.com/pMcuhe88mw
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) August 18, 2025
Nigel Farage appears to have changed his mind… pic.twitter.com/IUfhE388vN
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) January 26, 2026
Oh, and as the Canary reported on 20 April, many of these ex-Tories are currently predicted to lose their seats to their old party come 2029.
Chicken Run Alert — Kevin Hollinrake MP (@kevinhollinrake) April 19, 2026
https://t.co/H9YAaH9K71
Turquoise takeover
Yusuf finished his post by claiming:
Nigel Farage will be our Prime Minister, supported by a majority of turquoise-blooded Reform MPs.
A brighter future awaits Britain.
‘Turquoise-blooded’ doesn’t have the same ring to it as ‘red-blooded’ or ‘blue-blooded’, does it?
The colour is fitting, however, because Reform’s turquoise is really just a louder version of Tory blue. We can see it, and so can all these Tories who keep ‘infiltrating’ the party at the invitation of Nigel Farage.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ Chris McAndrew/ David Woolfall
By Willem Moore
An Israel-based AI firm, Generative AI for Good, claims to be using deepfake technologies for positive ends. ‘Positive’ appears to mean creating deepfake videos to help the illegal US-Israel war on Iran.
Like this clip that the company showed recently at an UN event in New York. The film is intended to show women who claim to have been raped by Iranian security forces during the CIA/Mossad-coordinated riots in Iran in January 2026.
Generative AI for Good claims that it uses AI to “help survivors testify safely — in their real voice, without revealing their identity”. But Israel and its mouthpieces have been shown to have used false allegations of rapes and other atrocities on 7 October 2023 to justify its genocide in Gaza.
The claims have been repeatedly exposed as fiction, yet continue to be quoted by politicians and media as grounds for supporting Israel’s crimes.
One of the firm’s handful of employees, ‘creative director’ Tal Harari, still has a post on her Instagram profile repeating those claims of rape and beheaded babies which are complete fiction.
View this post on Instagram
‘AI impact leader’ Mlamdovsky Somech founded the tech company
The post mentions Noa Argamani. Israel has attempted to use Argamani as a poster child for its genocide propaganda, but she has refuted the occupation’s claims of her supposed mistreatment in Gaza. Likewise, she debunked its claims that Palestinians had killed one of her friends, when in fact the IOF killed him.
Harari does not list her military service on her LinkedIn profile though like any Israeli, she will almost certainly have been in the IOF. However, her colleague, marketing manager Noa Rosenberg, speaks on hers.
Rosenberg talks about her pride in leading an event for military veterans and includes in her list of jobs her service in the IOF’s ‘Psychotechnical Headquarter’. No doubt useful in her current company.
The firm’s founder, Shiran Mlamdovsky Somech, doesn’t list her military record either. But she did tell the Jewish Post and News in early 2024 that “Artificial intelligence is a secret weapon of ours” in what the paper described as “using the revolutionary technology to bolster [the military’s] efforts both online and on the ground” in the “information war being waged alongside the military battlefields in Gaza”.
More links with Israeli military
In 2023 — before 7 October — Mlamdovsky Somech also claimed that Jews are pitted against “two billion Muslims”.
We are only 15 million Jews around the world, versus 2 billion Muslims…Our slingshot is technology.
Mlamdovsky Somech made that comment at an event she organised in cooperation with the IOF’s notorious Unit 8200. Unit 8200 is the cyberspy outfit whose operatives mark their headsets for each Palestinian they help kill and which played a key role in the murder of Iran’s leader in its war of aggression.
Nonetheless, just as with Israel’s atrocity propaganda against the Palestinians and its denials of its own atrocities, we’re supposed to believe that its AI videos of ‘Iranian women’ depict reality. That AI is only being used to protect identities and not because, yet again, it’s all made up and Israel is trying to bolster support for its crimes.
If you’re even tempted to believe that, there might be a bridge or two for sale.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
Politics
The House | Cut pensions to fund defence? That’d be electorally unwise and socially irresponsible
(Alamy)
3 min read
The call from a handful of Labour ministers, peers and backbenchers to fund higher defence spending via welfare cuts ignores the purpose of our social security system.
Most welfare spending goes to pensioners, largely through the state pension. And much of the attention has focused on the triple lock that uprates payments according to wages, inflation or 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest. But even after years of this mechanism being in place, 1.9m older people still live in poverty, with millions more just about managing. In fact, when the Chancellor announced the disastrous decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance in 2024, it exposed just how many pensioners have incomes too low to pay any tax at all.
Triple lock critics often miss that the state pension is our clearest expression of intergenerational solidarity. Every working generation pays national insurance, which funds the state pensions of their predecessors. Today’s retirees aren’t getting something for nothing – it’s just their turn to have their pensions funded by today’s workers. To argue that this should be taken away is to misunderstand the case for the welfare state.
Any functioning society needs state intervention to ensure that everyone is able to thrive. Welfare also mitigates the effects of deep inequality, which otherwise risks social division and weakened cohesion. To treat it as a cash cow for the latest spending spree overlooks its core purpose.
And despite what the Conservatives and Reform might claim, our welfare system is far from generous. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates that Universal Credit falls short of covering essential living costs by at least £22 per week for single adults and £51 per week for couples. Local Housing Allowance remains frozen, falling far short of the actual cost of rent in many parts of the country. Millions, including people in work, rely on the support of food banks.
Cutting the state pension would be short-sighted. Future generations of retirees will likely be even more reliant on the state pension for the bulk of their income after a lifetime of work than today’s pensioners. That is because the era of decent, final salary occupational pensions is long past its high watermark. Making the state pension less generous would inevitably push more pensioners into poverty, only adding pressure on future governments to intervene. Such short-termism is not what’s needed, especially when there are other ways that the government could raise money.
We could properly tax income from wealth, for example by applying National Insurance to investment income, raising up to £10.2bn a year. Reforming the Capital Gains Tax system, by increasing rates and closing loopholes, could raise around £12bn a year. And a two per cent tax on assets above £10m could raise up to £24bn a year.
It is a shame that the current fervour to divert money from welfare to defence in some quarters of the Labour Party has not matched by an enthusiasm for taxing the wealthiest. Such measures could allow us to build the council houses we need, fix our broken social care system or bring water back into public ownership.
Government isn’t just about deciding how to spend the money you raise – it’s also about whether enough is raised in the first place. If it isn’t enough, the answer lies in raising more, rather than simply moving money from one department to another. Asking pensioners, including those in poverty, to give up the triple lock so that we can spend more on defence is yet another electorally foolhardy and socially irresponsible suggestion. Let’s hope someone sees sense.
Neil Duncan-Jordan is Labour MP for Poole
Jonathan Portes reflects on the language used in political discourse following a debate he partook in to debunk the notion that the UK could be heading towards a civil war.
Is civil war coming to the UK? My King’s College London colleague David Betz has suggested that it might. In a recent debate at the Oxford Literary Festival, I set out why this claim is not only unconvincing, but potentially harmful.
There is no credible evidence that the UK is anywhere close to civil war, defined in the political science literature as sustained, organised violence between a state and non-state actors. Could it happen? Nothing is impossible, but Professor Betz’s estimate of a ‘18.5% chance over five years’ is the sort of speculative extrapolation of invented numbers that brings serious quantitative social science into disrepute.
More broadly, the UK remains a stable, high-income democracy, with functioning institutions, competitive elections and peaceful transfers of power. Comparative research shows that civil wars are strongly associated with weak state capacity and low levels of democratic accountability, rather than with established democracies like the UK. While trust in institutions has declined, this is neither new nor unique to the UK – and long-term data from the British Social Attitudes Survey shows it remains far from collapse. Protest is not insurgency, and polarisation is not civil war.
Professor Betz’s thesis became even more absurd when he tried to explain to a bemused audience the “sides” in this civil war, which will apparently be a three-way contest between the non-white population and their allies in the metropolitan elite, the “white British” outside the cities, and the remains of the state. My family, like millions of others, contains representatives of all three factions. While of course there are occasional tensions, I find it difficult to picture us “drilling out each others’ kneecaps” in Professor Betz’s lurid language.
More broadly, the idea that the UK is dividing into coherent blocs along racial or geographic lines does not withstand scrutiny. Social and political identities in the UK are overlapping and complex. Most families and communities span multiple such categories. This is not a society organising itself for violent internal conflict. Indeed, where civil wars do emerge, the actors and cleavages are typically visible well in advance, with organised groups, territorial control and escalating violence. There is no evidence of such dynamics in the UK,
The more relevant question is why this language is being used at all. References to ‘civil war’ are no longer confined to fringe spaces; they increasingly appear in parts of mainstream commentary. But this is not a neutral description of political conditions. It is a framing – one that shapes how those conditions are understood.
That framing matters. Language influences how people interpret politics. Repeated claims that institutions are illegitimate, that democratic outcomes cannot be trusted, or that the state no longer represents “people like you” do not simply reflect dissatisfaction. They help construct a narrative in which democratic processes are seen as fundamentally compromised. The claim by Reform that they lost the recent Gorton and Denham byelection because of “foreign” voters is just one example. A substantial body of research suggests that democratic institutions reduce the likelihood of political violence by providing channels for the peaceful resolution of differences. Framing politics in terms of impending civil war implies that these mechanisms have already failed.
This rhetoric is also rarely confined to abstract concerns about governance. It is frequently tied to arguments about identity – about who belongs, and who does not. Claims of crisis are often linked to the idea that “ordinary” Britons are under threat, whether from immigration, from ethnic or religious minorities, or from broader social and cultural change. The structure of the argument is familiar: an “us” that is being displaced, and a “them” that is being privileged.
There is nothing new about this as a political strategy. What is different is the escalation in language. Talking about “civil war” suggests that social and cultural divisions are not only a matter of concern but fundamental – and potentially irreconcilable except through violence.
This has several consequences.
First, it makes serious policy debate more difficult. Take immigration. It is entirely legitimate to disagree about its economic and social impacts, or about the appropriate policy response. But if immigration is framed primarily as a threat to national or ethnic survival, those debates become harder to conduct in a meaningful way.
Second, it risks weakening social cohesion. Democratic politics depends on a basic level of mutual recognition: that even where we disagree, we accept one another as legitimate participants in a shared political community. Evidence from UK-focused research highlights both the extent of perceived polarisation and the risks of misperceiving divisions.
Third, while the UK is not remotely close to civil war, such rhetoric may have effects at the margins. A small number of individuals may take it literally, or use it to justify confrontational or even violent behaviour. Studies of political violence in democratic contexts suggest that inflammatory narratives can play a role in legitimising such actions.
None of this is to suggest that the UK does not face serious economic and social challenges. Weak productivity growth, pressure on public services, regional inequalities and political dysfunction are all real issues. Analysing these problems – and proposing workable solutions – should be the focus of serious debate.
Framing the situation as one of impending civil war does the opposite. It distracts from underlying issues, while contributing to a more polarised and less constructive political environment.
So the answer to the original question is straightforward. No, the UK is not heading towards civil war. But the increasing use of that language is not a harmless exaggeration. It reflects – and reinforces – a way of thinking about politics that is more polarised, more exclusionary, and ultimately less helpful for understanding the challenges the UK actually faces.
By Professor Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Department of Political Economy, King’s College London.
Politics
‘The GOP should’ve done more’: Virginia Republicans point fingers after gerrymandering loss
After a narrow loss in Virginia, Republicans are pointing fingers as President Donald Trump’s national gerrymandering fight slips into a stalemate.
Multiple Republicans say the party should’ve spent much more, much earlier to have a better shot at blocking Democrats’ Virginia map, which could give the party as many as four more House seats. And pressure is now growing on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to make up for Democrats’ gains with a GOP-led redistricting effort in his state, as soon as next week.
“You’d be hard pressed to find a single Republican tonight who doesn’t think the GOP should’ve done more in Virginia. It actually hurts more that it was so close,” said a GOP operative, granted anonymity to speak candidly, like others in this article.
There are mounting signs that Trump and the GOP have used valuable time and political capital on an arduous tit-for-tat that is so far looking like it will be close to a draw. Even if Republicans squeeze out gains in a new Florida map, their total gains are likely to be modest at best.
“I just don’t think that Republicans looked at the map and said, ‘Okay, what’s the worst case scenario, what could happen if all the Democrat-controlled legislators rebel against this?’” said one Virginia Republican. “We’re seeing a thing that felt really good at the moment erase gains that we fought for elsewhere.”
Tuesday’s results in Virginia, combined with gains in California and a new court-drawn seat in Utah, have effectively erased the advantage Republicans built off new maps in Texas, North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri. It’s a stark reversal nearly nine months after Trump first urged Republicans in the Lone Star State to redraw maps, upending the midterm battlefield.
“Just so you get the truth and not the partisan spin here, Republicans came up with the idea of the mid-decade redistricting fight and started in Texas,” Erick Erickson, a conservative radio host and an influential voice with evangelical voters central to the MAGA base, wrote on X after the amendment passed in Virginia.
“Now, as drawn, the Democrats have an advantage from the redistricting fight,” he said.
The RNC and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
National Republican Congressional Committee chair Rep. Richard Hudson is holding out hope that the state’s Supreme Court, which reserved the right to weigh in on the new map after the election, voids Democrats’ effort.
“This close margin reinforces that Virginia is a purple state that shouldn’t be represented by a severe partisan gerrymander,” Hudson said in a statement. “That’s exactly why the courts, who have already ruled twice to block this egregious power grab, should uphold Virginia law.”
Still, several Virginia Republicans said their party could have done more to prevent Democrats from edging out a victory Tuesday. Democrats outspent Republicans by a roughly three-to-one margin, putting Republicans at a disadvantage on the airwaves until the late stages of the race. Virginians for Fair Elections — which led the “yes” effort — raised $64 million, according to Virginia Department of Elections data, boosted by nearly $38 million in support from House Majority Forward, a political nonprofit aligned with House Democratic leadership.
Even though Republicans have far more money stacked up in outside groups — including $297 million brought in by the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc. since the start of last year alone — they ultimately never matched Democrats’ investment.
“If they had spent some money, they could have won tonight and someone’s got to own that and explain why that decision was made,” said a second Virginia-based GOP strategist.
Some Republicans turned their ire to the Indiana Legislature, where GOP lawmakers rejected the White House’s push to draw a new map that would give them two additional red-leaning seats. Chris LaCivita, Trump’s former campaign co-manager and a longtime Virginia-based GOP strategist, shared a social media post on Tuesday calling out Republicans in Indiana for not being more aggressive.
It’s now too late for the state to redraw its lines, and Trump allies have spent time and millions of dollars to defeat the GOP legislators who opposed the effort.
With most states off the table, Republicans are now looking to DeSantis as one of their last and best chances to win back the upper hand ahead of November. The Florida governor delayed a special session to take up redistricting in the state until after Virginia’s election, and he has yet to release a new map proposal.
Former Trump White House spokesperson Harrison Fields urged Republicans in Florida to respond to the Virginia outcome with an aggressive gerrymander.
“To my friends in Tallahassee: in a state that is ruby red, it’s time to respond to what we saw tonight in Virginia with a redistricting plan that reflects Florida’s true partisan lean — and adds 3–4 GOP seats to our supermajority,” Fields said in a social media post. “Virginia is a purple state being drawn as deep blue. Florida should draw a map that’s even redder — and get it passed ASAP.”
Not everyone is on board with escalating the redistricting arms race. Rep. Kevin Kiley, a Republican-turned-independent who was targeted by California Democrats’ gerrymander, said the result was further proof that the redistricting war never should have been started.
“It’s very unfortunate that it’s happened in Texas. I think it’s very unfortunate that it happened in California and Virginia and everywhere else where it’s happened,” Kiley told POLITICO after the Virginia race was called Tuesday evening. “Now that this whole thing has just gotten completely out of hand, there have been no winners, and it’s created such instability, maybe this is the time that we can come together and say, ‘Alright, enough is enough.’”
Yet for all the recriminations over Republicans losing ground in the president’s redistricting campaign, one person escaped largely unscathed: Trump himself.
The president mostly stayed on the sidelines until he hosted a tele-rally alongside Speaker Mike Johnson to urge people to vote “no” in the race’s final hours.
Some Republicans in the state were glad he stayed away, given his flagging national standing, particularly in a light blue state. Thirty-three percent of adults approve of Trump’s job performance, according to an AP-NORC poll released Tuesday.
“If I was the Democrats, I’d want Trump on the stump every day,” Virginia-based Republican strategist Brian Kirwin said.
Blake Jones contributed to this report.
It was just two days ago that we suggested Invest Northern Ireland (Invest NI), Stormont’s business development agency, needs:
…a full review into all current… spending to see if further skeletons lurk in the closet.
That was following revelations in the Belfast Telegraph that showed Invest NI was ploughing public money into a software company helping ICE’s murderous intimidation campaign across the US. Now campaign group Act Now has shamed the corporate welfare body again, by highlighting its role in assisting Cooneen Group.
Act Now spoke to the Belfast Telegraph, who report that the County Tyrone-based company’s subsidiary Cooneen Protection Limited secured from Westminster:
…two Israel export licences for one of the group’s subsidiaries, Cooneen Protection Limited.
Defensive equipment still aids war crimes
That was in 2015. One license permitted the subsidiary to provide “armoured plate, body armour, helmets”. Often, those supplying the illegitimate settler-colony attempt to justify sales of military equipment on the basis that it is for defensive purposes.
This is a meaningless distinction. Defensive equipment enables continued offensive action. Iron Dome interceptors can protect offensive ‘Israeli’ hardware from damage, enabling the terror regime to continue its genocidal violence. Body armour can sadly protect an Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) soldier from death, enabling them to continue raping and murdering their way round Palestine and beyond.
Despite this, Invest NI have continued to pump funds into Cooneen Group. The company has:
…received more than £1,397,000 from Invest NI since 2004.
The Telegraph also report that as recently as September 2025:
…Invest NI sponsored and exhibited with the group at the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition in London, the world’s largest arms fair, attended by companies that sell weapons to Israel.
Roan Ellis-O’Neill of Act Now emphasised this continued support long after the first export licenses to the Zionist entity were granted:
Invest NI have been using taxpayers’ money to provide specialised financial support to drive overseas trade before and after the UK government granted the Cooneen Group the military export licences in 2015.
Act Now: revelation is “clearest link yet” between Invest NI and ‘Israel’
He suggested that Act Now’s findings show:
…the clearest link yet between publicly funded local companies exporting military goods and Israel.
He continued, regarding Invest NI:
Our research reveals that public money has been provided to the Cooneen Group to expand their overseas trade.
There is a real chance that Invest NI provided specialised support so that the Cooneen Group could build the relationships and networks that must be first established before applying for a military export licence.
Even if the funding was not for the purpose of securing an export licence to Israel, the grant types and the reasons support was offered by Invest NI demonstrate how crucial that funding was to develop trade links with countries such as Israel.
The likelihood is that Invest NI and those running the department of the economy of the years just didn’t care about the ethics of potential involvement in human rights abuses. They were just focused on corporate handouts to potentially profitable firms.
After all, they didn’t care when it came to helping to build F-35 warplanes, or when assisting ICE. Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) apparently saw nothing wrong with buying software and body armour from the land thieves of so-called ‘Israel’.
The fact that we now know a company inside the north of Ireland makes body armour, renders the PSNI’s purchase all the more shameful. We’ll say it again and go further – Invest NI, and all public bodies, need to ensure they have an ethics code that prevents this shit happening again. A good start would be to simply have a rule forbidding the funding of anything arms-trade related.
Featured image via the Canary
Micheál Martin’s government has failed to disclose 248 flights by US military warplanes over Irish airspace since August 2025. There is a strong chance that many of these aircraft are involved in war crimes committed by the Washington terror regime. The Irish Times says they used “open source software” to track the flights, after official figures showed a major drop-off in the number of passing warplanes to just a couple each month. Previous government figures showed 30 to 50 aircraft per month. The government blamed the discrepancy on “administrative error”.
After the Times notified the government, the latter published corrected figures on Thursday 16 April, which were in line with those provided for earlier periods. However, the revised figures show some revealing trends. There was a large drop-off in military traffic around October 2025, when so-called ‘Israel’ agreed to its fraudulent ‘ceasefire’ in Gaza.
While the illegitimate settler-colony has maintained its genocide, killing over 750 Palestinians since the agreement to stop hostilities was reached, the intensity of bombardment has dropped off. This decrease in mass murder is paralleled by a decline in US military flights over Ireland, suggesting Irish airspace is indeed being used to ferry weapons of genocide to the Zionist land theft project.
US military flights over Ireland likely involved in war crimes against Iran
Similarly, another change in flight numbers matches the launching of the illegal US-‘Israeli’ attack on Iran. The Irish Times says:
The figures show a 56 per cent surge in US military overflights of Ireland last month as the US launched hundreds of strikes on Iran.
The overflight of US warplanes is governed by the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952. This mandates that all foreign military aircraft must obtain diplomatic clearance to enter Irish airspace. Exemptions can be granted on this basis, provided the plane is unarmed, not carrying weapons, not involved in intelligence gathering and not part of a military operation.
The Irish government takes this on trust from the US government. That is, they trust a government led by a war criminal and pathological liar. However, Micheál Martin’s band of sycophants have found it impossible to conceal the appalling truth. They admitted in October 2025 that they:
…allowed munitions of war – onboard a US military plane authorised by Simon Harris to touch down at Shannon Airport – to travel through Irish territory on their way to Israel.
The Irish Times point out the government breached the no surveillance aircraft rule when it allowed:
…multiple overflights of Poseidon P-8 surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft in early January.
These too were engaged in illegal activity by aiding:
…in the pursuit by the US military of a ship in the North Atlantic which had earlier attempted to collect sanctioned oil from Venezuela.
This was part of Trump’s illegal sanctions against the Central American nation, culminating in the murderous abduction of the country’s president Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
The Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Orders 1973 and 1989 permit exemptions to allow civil aircraft to carry weapons through Irish airspace, if granted an exemption by the minister for transport. According to Al Jazeera:
In 2024, the Department of Transport approved 1,354 applications for civil aircraft or Irish-registered aircraft to carry military weapons or ammunition through Ireland…
Government maintains absurd pretence that Ireland isn’t aiding US atrocities
Despite the fact that weapons transfer through Ireland has literally been confirmed by the Irish government itself, ministers and the Taoiseach himself are still happy to shamelessly lie about the matter. In the face of the damning new overflights figures, and evidence Shannon is a stop-off point for US warplanes on their way to the main German staging post for the assault on Iran, Martin said:
First of all, Shannon [Airport] is not being used for those purposes and there have been repeated attempts to conflate Shannon with both the war in Gaza – which was absolutely false, and there were false claims – and this is a continuing narrative from certain quarters politically within Ireland, which I think will damage Shannon.
Minister for foreign affairs Helen McEntee similarly insulted the public’s intelligence when she said there is “no reason to believe” weapons of mass murder are being moved through Ireland. She said of the rules prohibiting weapons transfer:
…we have no reason to suggest that they’re not [being adhered to].
Oh yes no reason at all, until you recall that the US, even pre-Trump, were serial liars when it came to their illegal killing sprees abroad. These kind of comments from the government are only likely to further enrage anti-war activists, and prompt more direct action against the criminal use of Shannon airport. Until Martin and co. stop participating in atrocities, long may these acts of resistance continue.
Featured image via the Canary
Trigger warning: themes of sexual violence and abuse.
The UK state-corporate press and broadcasters are continuing to ignore a CNN report. The report shows that over 64 million men signed up for an online ‘rape academy.’ In this academy, they learned how to drug and rape wives, girlfriends and other women.
MSM turns the other way
Although the report was published in March 2026, searches confirm that none of the UK ‘mainstream’ media have covered it:
The case of Gisele Pelicot
Singer and activist Annie Lennox pointed out the similarity to the case of Gisèle Pelicot, the French woman whose husband drugged her while a string of men raped her:
View this post on Instagram
The Pelicot case and the sentencing of her rapists received media attention in isolation. However, it appears UK media are uninterested in reporting the widespread phenomenon of millions of men studying how to do what her husband did.
Whyever would the establishment media in country riddled with powerful paedophiles and rapists not be interested in covering the existence of a mass rape ring?
Featured image via CNN
By Skwawkbox
The UK can now roll out a racist surveillance measure that had been delayed by a legal challenge filed by anti-facial recognition campaigners. The appeal has now been lost. Met commissioner Mark Rowley has once again praised facial recognition measures. He believes that the technology helps to catch criminal, while civil liberties groups are not quite so sure…
Imminent roll out
Rowley said facial recognition technology would:
help us catch more criminals quickly and precisely, saves officer time, and ultimately saves money.
And police minister Sarah Jones, channeling every authoritarian since time began, says only the guilty should be fearful…
I welcome today’s ruling because there can be no true liberty when people live in fear of crime in their communities.
Live facial recognition only locates specifically wanted people — law abiding citizens have nothing to fear.
Jones’ bizarrely inferred that criticism from people challenging the excessive deployment of facial recognition technology was unwarranted, saying:
This technology puts dangerous rapists and murderers behind bars — and I question any group who call that uncivil.
We are rolling out facial recognition across the country with record investment to keep communities safe.
A bit of a reach, minister…
Lost appeal ushers in surveillance state
Two concerned citizens had challenged the roll-out in the courts:
Youth worker Shaun Thompson, and Silkie Carlo, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, brought the challenge over concerns that facial recognition could be used arbitrarily or in a discriminatory way.
The pair had argued that the use of the van-mounted technology:
breaches the right to privacy outlined in the European Convention of Human Rights.
Judges presiding over the case ruled:
We are not able to accept, on the thin submissions advanced before us, that concerns about discrimination infect the legality of the policy.
The government and police claim that the technology has resulted in few mistakes. However, Thompson said he had been misidentified by facial recognition:
No one should be treated like a criminal due to a computer error, I was compliant with the police, but my bank cards and passport weren’t enough to convince the police the facial recognition tech was wrong.
He likened its reliability to:
stop-and-search on steroids.
For several years now, the Canary has been covering the risks of facial recognition. On 1 November 2025, we shed light on the ways in which AI-integrated facial recognition is inherently racist, noting that the:
UN’s office for human rights, as well as anthropologists and tech experts, have long known that AI systems are inherently racist, either by design or through the biases of their creators — but the police facial recognition systems are going above and beyond in the service of racist discrimination.
Facial technology’s race bias
Examples include the case of the appeal claimant in the latest ruling, Shaun Thompson. The other claimant, civil liberties NGO Big Brother Watch, warned in the same month that cops were feeding passport photos into their AI.
Further evidence of the racialised use of AI facial recognition emerged on 15 September 2025. Police used the technology at Notting Hill Carnival—an annual celebration of black British culture—but not at the fascist-organised Unite the Kingdom event.
British securocrats have gotten their way today. Those of us who care about basic, hard-won freedoms must continue to challenge the UK’s bipartisan authoritarianism wherever we can.
Featured image via Unsplash/ the Canary
By Joe Glenton
This past weekend has been a good one for peacemakers, but disappointing for those of us who were enjoying the medieval-style spat between the papacy and the secular powers in the person of the American presidency.
Having been told by US president Donald Trump that he was ‘WEAK on crime and terrible on foreign policy’, Pope Leo offered a textbook display of turning the other cheek. He assured reporters on Saturday that his recent comments about the world ‘ravaged by a handful of tyrants’ had not been made in response to Trump’s earlier outpourings, but had been written separately, a fortnight beforehand, ‘well before the president ever commented on myself’. It was ‘not in my interest at all’ to debate the president, he added.
On Sunday, US vice-president JD Vance thanked the Pope for his pacific remarks. ‘While the media narrative’, he tweeted, ‘constantly gins up conflict – and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen – the reality is often much more complicated. Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day… He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we’ll be in his.’
This outbreak of amity among the three men – just as Isaiah prophesied, the ‘calf and the young lion and the fatling’ dwelling together again in concord – may be a blessed relief for those who find it a trifle undignified for the Vicar of Christ and the Leader of the Free World to be engaged in a social-media slugging match. However, we should not be too enticed by the desire for seemliness. The clash is stimulating, epitomising the worth of the resurgent presence of Christianity in politics, both for church and state alike.
Of course, no one wants an overbearing church, like the 12th-century papacy, locked in a bloody struggle with secular authorities. We are not calling for heavies to chase after archbishops, or Keir Starmer, like Henry II, to be whipped by monks through the streets of Canterbury in his underclothes for his manifold offences (the prime minister would surely find such a prospect displeasing). But spats like that between Trump and Leo show that the church is contributing to political debate in a way that other actors are not able to manage.
The frequent fury directed towards the church and Christian advocates demonstrates that their messages – even in this apparently post-Christian age – are still able to pique the conscience. Consider the permanent rage directed towards Christians by Humanists UK and the National Secular Society during the assisted-suicide and late-stage-abortion debates. Christian statements about fundamental human dignity and freedom from coercion are met not with reasoned rebuttals and debate but rather hysterical eruptions warning of Christians in public life bringing an ‘ultra-conservative form of religious nationalism’.
The resort to an ad hominem response demonstrates the hollowness of their own position, aware that these Christian contributions to the debate are forcing people to think seriously about the fundamental origins of the right to life. Can they be tied to mere assurances given by governments in human-rights conventions, or do they need a more serious metaphysical foundation?
The Christian contribution to the debate about the merits of the Iran War has been equally important. Even for a doctrinaire supporter of war to bring about regime change in Tehran, it would still have been worthwhile to have listened to Rowan Williams’s warning based on the formal Christian criteria for a just war. Such a war would require, among other things, ‘a clear and immediate need for self-defence’, and ‘a clear definition of what would count as a successful outcome’.
He also cautioned that, ‘The real urgency in Iran is for a new political order that responds to what Iranian people are actually hoping for themselves – not some kind of covert annexation designed to serve geopolitical manoeuvring, not a puppet government, not a military protectorate’. Perhaps the rumblings of politicians against the churches are merely a grudging acknowledgement that they should have thought more carefully about political and military strategy.
However, these quarrels are also invigorating for the church. It is easy for any institution to fall into a comfortable consensus, and the churches are not immune. Their clashes with politicians are a salutary reminder for them to examine and challenge their own ethical pronouncements, which might not always be fully thought through.
One example is in the field of migration. In the US, Catholic cardinals have lined up to complain about the rigorous enforcement of the border by ICE. In the UK, Anglican bishops recently made Nigel Farage the target of their opprobrium after he announced his intention to deport 600,000 migrants over five years. ‘I heard no compassion in what you said for those who are at risk from people traffickers…’, wrote the Bishop of Oxford in an open letter. ‘The British people, as I understand them, want public policies founded on the deeply British and Christian values of compassion and care for those in need.’
The bishop, like the American cardinals and the Pope himself, is quite right to insist on Christian ideas of human dignity and compassion, and to ensure their presence in the debate. However, the stridency of the reply is an unconscious acknowledgement that Farage and like-minded politicians have a point, even in terms of a strand of Christian thought that the churches have so far been reluctant to acknowledge.
Christians owe a duty of compassion – protect the stranger, says scripture – but this compassion is owed as part of a wider matrix of obligation: one must also protect the widow and fatherless at the same time. How does one balance the duty of compassion towards the vulnerable in one’s own society and to those further afield? And what of the biblical injunctions to respect and preserve the laws and customs of one’s own society, and for guests to behave respectfully to their hosts? The engagement between politicians and the church puts questions in the air that it behoves the churches to answer properly.
One does not need to be a medieval fetishist to see that there is a benefit for public life in a creative tension between a confident, politically engaged church, and politicians who, like Trump, are bold enough to say, ‘Tell that to the Pope’. Let us hang on to our turbulent priests.
Bijan Omrani is the author of God is an Englishman: Christianity and the Creation of England.
Cyprus president says EU needs a clear playbook on helping members under attack
McDonald’s UK Launches 2,500 Paid Work Experience Placements to Tackle NEET Crisis
How Maker’s Spark and USDC are winning the $10 billion Aave breakup
Manchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
Steven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
US brings back mandatory military draft registration
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Theodora Dress
-
Sports5 days agoNWFL Suspends Two Players Over Post-Match Clash in Ado-Ekiti
-
Politics5 days agoPalestine barred from entering Canada for FIFA Congress
-
Entertainment2 days ago
NBA Analyst Charles Barkley Chimes in on Ice Spice McDonald’s Fiasco
-
Business3 days agoPowerball Result April 18, 2026: No Jackpot Winner in Powerball Draw: $75 Million Rolls Over
-
Politics3 days agoZack Polanski demands ‘council homes not luxury flats for foreign investors’
-
Crypto World4 days agoRussia Pushes Bill to Criminalize Unregistered Crypto Services
-
Politics2 days agoGary Stevenson delivers timely reminder to register to vote as deadline TODAY
-
Tech3 days agoAuto Enthusiast Scores Running Tesla Model 3 for Two Grand and Turns It Into Bare-Bones Go-Kart
-
Tech6 days ago‘Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender’ Leaked Online. Some Fans Say Paramount Deserves the Fallout
-
Business6 days agoCreo Medical agree sale of its manufacturing operation
-
Crypto World4 days agoRussia Introduces Bill To Criminalize Unregistered Crypto Services
-
Crypto World3 days agoKelp DAO rsETH Bridge Hack Drains $292M as DeFi Losses Top $600M in Two Weeks
-
Sports6 days agoBritish climbers complete new route in Swiss Alps
-
Tech6 days agoFord EV and tech chief leaving automaker
-
Sports6 days ago“Felt Much Better Today”: Josh Hazlewood Opens Up On His Recovery Win Over LSG
-
Business17 minutes agoRolls-Royce Voted UK’s Most Iconic Trade Mark as IPO Register Hits 150
-
Business6 days agoCheaper Doritos and Lays helps PepsiCo win back struggling snackers
-
Entertainment6 days agoClavicular Says Streaming May Not Work Without Substances
-
Entertainment7 days agoRuby Rose Accuses Katy Perry Of Sexual Assault, Police React
You must be logged in to post a comment Login