The following statement issued by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council in response to the MAGA president’s two-week “ceasefire” was published by Press TV on April 7. “Good news to the dear nation of Iran! Nearly all the objectives of the war have been achieved. * “The noble people of Iran . . .
From Workers World via This RSS Feed.
In the first hours of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, up to 175 young children and school staff were blown to pieces at an elementary school. Others were maimed and burned, and will be suffering from their injuries for the rest of their lives. Even any comparatively fortunate ones with minimal injuries will surely experience permanent trauma from having witnessed something so horrific. Witnesses describe scenes of unfathomable horror, with limbs and blood strewn across classrooms. "People were pulling out children's arms and legs. People were pulling out severed heads," said a woman whose child was killed. The Guardian cites verified videos that show "children's bodies lying partly buried under the debris":
In one video, a very small child's severed arm is pulled from the rubble. Colourful backpacks covered with blood and concrete dust sit among the ruins. One girl wears a green dress with gingham patches on her pockets and the collar, her form partly obscured by a black body bag. Screams can be heard in the background.
Drop Site News spoke to the father of a six-year-old girl, Sara Shariatmadar, who was killed in the attack. "I cannot understand how a place where innocent children learn can be bombed like this," he said. "We are talking about small children who knew nothing of politics or wars. And yet they are the ones paying the highest price."
The United States and Israel have not denied responsibility for the attack, although it is still unclear which country fired the missile. The U.S. said that it does not "target" schools, which does not mean that it does not bomb them. ("We take these reports seriously," a spokesman said.) Israel's spokesperson said the government was not "aware" of such an attack, which does not mean its military did not carry one out. Photos supposedly showing that a misfired Iranian missile caused it were debunked, although they spread widely online among Americans and Israelis desperate to believe that only the Bad Guys do things like this.
Domestic coverage of this horrible crime against humanity has been muted. U.S. media has a policy of not showing gruesome images of violence---the Guardian explicitly stated that it was concealing the photos and videos it had "due to their graphic nature." As a result, war is always sanitized, so that Americans can read that 150+ schoolgirls were killed without having to confront the full horror of what it means for their country to drive a missile into a crowded school in the middle of the day. (Saturday is a school day in Iran, a fact that the U.S. government would easily have been able to know when deciding how to time its attacks, but Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has been open about the fact that he regards such niceties as rules of engagement and international law as meddlesome hindrances that can be ignored, lambasting those who "wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force.")
I suspect that this attack is also difficult for U.S. media to cover because the basic facts of the situation are so twisted, so depraved, so evil, that they shatter the comforting narrative that the U.S. has the moral high ground over the Ayatollah. In fact, the U.S. government is on the moral level of the Sandy Hook school shooter, a fact that even president Trump's critics may have a hard time fully accepting.
And this was not the only massacre carried out by the U.S. and Israel in a war that has been going on just a few days. The Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that there have already been over 1,000 civilian deaths in Iran, including 181 children under the age of ten, with thousands more civilians injured. Drop Site reports on the nauseating scene in a middle-class Tehran neighborhood following a "double tap" strike (dropping one bomb first, and then dropping another on the survivors and emergency responders, a favorite war crime of the U.S. and Israel). Warning, the following description is extremely graphic and may undermine any love you may have for your country:
Videos of the immediate aftermath of the attack showed several individuals dead and wounded as well as massive destruction on the street outside. In Cafe Ahla, next to the square, blood and debris soaked the floors. Several patrons who had been sitting there when the attack struck could be seen dead on the floor or with their mutilated bodies still sprawled across their seats. "We were sitting here around 8:00-8:30 p.m. and suddenly there was the noise and explosion. We got up and a few people ran away. We turned around to get our belongings and we saw that blood was spraying everywhere. Someone's hand had fallen on the floor, a head had fallen on the floor," said Shahin, a witness who had been at the cafe and asked to be identified by first name only. "There were scalps torn off, hands severed, a few people were laying here all cut up and two people were martyred."
I will get to the many ways in which the Iran war is illegal, making us less safe, founded on lies, strategically insane, unbelievably costly, etc. But let us dwell for a moment on what we are doing to these people. The right-wing Telegraph newspaper reports that in Tehran, "millions of civilians are trapped under relentless bombardment as food and medical supplies dwindle and the death toll mounts," and the city is an "'apocalypse' of hospitals in flames and children buried beneath rubble." The paper records a total humanitarian disaster, with sick people lacking medicine, children going hungry, diabetics running out of insulin, and the repeated bombing of residential areas. While Americans pat themselves on the back for assassinating Iran's repressive head of state, everyday Iranians (even those with little love for their theocratic government) are facing the prospect of being killed at any moment, or watching their children be ripped to pieces. I realize that in the U.S., the devaluation of Middle Eastern lives means that little Iranian girls will receive a fraction of the compassion and concern that has arisen around, say, Nancy Guthrie. But if we apply our morality consistently, I cannot see how we can be anything other than completely revolted by the carnage our president is choosing to inflict (and will apparently soon be further escalating, according to Marco Rubio, who is promising an increased use of force to come, and Pete Hegseth, who is salivating about delivering "death and destruction all day long").
We are all complicit. If you are an American, you paid your government to murder those little girls and those Tehran cafe-goers. Money was withdrawn from your paycheck in the form of federal income taxes. If the attack was conducted with a Tomahawk missile (of which 400 were fired in 72 hours), that money would have been paid to the RTX Corporation (formerly Raytheon). Each missile fired costs somewhere between $1.3 million and $2.2 million, of which approximately $200,000 would be pure profit. Thus the killing of the Iranian schoolgirls, which left their bloody backpacks and tiny severed limbs scattered across classroom floors, transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars from us (the American taxpayers) into RTX's bank accounts. It also boosted the GDP. And the stock market.
Stock price of RTX (formerly Raytheon)
It is hard for me to write about this war, because I am so sickened every time I contemplate the full dark reality of the country I live in. I realize that not only are there people who will drop a bomb on a school without losing a wink of sleep, but there are people who get rich when we bomb schools, who have a direct financial stake in ensuring we keep dropping as many bombs as possible. (And that's just the weapons companies. Others are getting rich from betting on the atrocities on prediction markets.) The fact that many Congressional Democrats implicitly or explicitly supported this war (whether by outright goading Trump into it, as Chuck Schumer did, dragging their feet on opposing it, or raising meek procedural objections) further adds to my disgust. Many Democrats apparently declined to try to stop the war, reasoning that if it achieved U.S. foreign policy goals it would be embarrassing to have opposed it, but if it went south Trump would own it anyway. When I open the New York Times op-ed page, and I find resident foreign policy guru Thomas Friedman cautioning against adopting any "black and white narrative" about what goes on in "a complicated, kaleidoscopic region," I want to vomit. The moment calls for moral clarity: our country is engaged in a mass murder campaign. It must be stopped. It is depressing to see so many debates around strategic end-goals, congressional authorization, or the consistency of the justifications. They take us away from the basic fact that our president, with the blessing of his party and many members of the so-called opposition, is gruesomely murdering children by the dozen. Every day this continues, we are paying our government to commit some of the worst crimes humans are capable of.
Of course, the war is also based on a pack of lies. The Trump administration can't even get its story straight on why the war is being waged and has produced no justification beyond vague invocations of National Security. (Trump says Iran was a "bad seed.") Some Republicans won't even admit that this is a war. (Perhaps they might want to borrow a phrase from Vladimir Putin: "special military operation.") House Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to have it both ways, saying that while the Iranians "have declared war on us," we're "not at war right now." Others are tying themselves in pretzels trying to explain how this differs from the "regime change" wars that Trump has so vocally opposed. (Pete Hegseth: "This is not a so-called 'regime change war.' But the regime sure did change.") Sometimes there are direct self-contradictions within a single sentence, as with Tom Cotton declaring that "Iran has been an imminent threat to the United States for 47 years." This was too much for right-wing commentator Matt Walsh, who accused Republicans of "gaslighting" for suddenly discovering that Iran has been waging a half-century of war against the U.S. Even leading Iraq war hawk Bill Kristol is confused about the reasoning behind the war, saying there is "no coherent rationale." (Of course, Kristol's own favorite Middle East war was equally illegitimate, but that's an argument for another day.)
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. attacked because it knew Israel was going to attack, and needed to defend itself against the inevitable Iranian retaliation for Israel's attack---perhaps the most tortured and unpersuasive case for self-defense ever made. Perhaps because this seemed like an admission that Israeli choices dictate U.S. policy, Trump subsequently denied that Israeli decision-making had anything to do with the attack, although it's clear that Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied heavily for this, as he has been salivating at the prospect of a major war with Iran for decades, and has been scheming for a way to get the U.S. involved.
The idea that Iran was a threat to the United States was always laughable. U.S. intelligence has consistently assessed that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. The Trump administration itself declared that it had destroyed Iran's nuclear program with last year's bombings. Iran has in fact consistently shown itself very reluctant to engage in military confrontation with the U.S., often carefully limiting its retaliation after U.S. provocations. To the extent that Iran did want to become a nuclear threshold state, with at least the capacity to pursue a weapons program if it wanted to, credible analysts believe that Iran mainly wanted an insurance policy against potential U.S. and Israeli attacks. North Korea has shown that the possession of nuclear weapons is enough to make the U.S. think twice about forcible regime change, and there is a good argument that it would have been rational for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons for the sake of its own self-protection. As Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld observed, the world "witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy." (Van Creveld is wrong that Iraq was attacked for "no reason," however. It was attacked for the same reason Iran is being attacked: the establishment of U.S.-Israeli dominance over the Middle East.) While U.S. commentators often talk as if Iran would pursue nuclear weapons mainly in order to destroy the U.S. or Israel (which would, of course, be suicidal given both countries' superior nuclear forces), there's no evidence that Iran would want nuclear weapons for any reason beyond deterring potential external attacks. (A fear that recent events have proven to be well-founded.)
In fact, the entire prevailing narrative about Iran is completely backwards. It's the U.S. that has been a threat to Iran, not the other way around. It was the United States and Britain that overthrew Iran's legitimately elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953. (The New York Times was elated by the coup, commenting that "underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism.") Since 1979, when the Iranians ousted the dictator (the Shah) that the U.S. had helped install and maintain in power, the U.S. has had a virtually unremittingly hostile attitude toward Iran. This is not because of the government's (very real) human rights abuses, since the U.S. is happy to support human rights abusing states that are pliant and servile (see, e.g., Saudi Arabia and Egypt). But Iran is viewed as a threat to U.S. dominance in the Middle East. Thus, in the 1980s, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein as he waged a ruthless war of aggression against Iran, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians including with chemical weapons. (The U.S. concealed evidence of Hussein's chemical weapon use from the UN, because it wanted him to go on killing Iranians.) More recently, the U.S. and Israel have tried to destabilize the country through devastating cyberattacks, economy-wrecking sanctions, and assassinations. The sanctions have been explicitly aimed at harming civilians, with Mike Pompeo boasting in 2019 that "things are much worse for the Iranian people" thanks to sanctions and hoping that their suffering would lead them to overthrow their government.
Importantly, while U.S. policymakers in both the Republican and Democratic parties constantly affirm that "Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons," they rarely state their implicit corollary to this proposition, which is that Israel must be allowed to have nuclear weapons. As it happens, Iran actually agrees that it shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, and has long supported turning the entire Middle East into an official nuclear weapons free zone, much as Africa and Latin America have done. The problem is that the U.S. and Israel demand a double standard, with Israel refusing to contemplate giving up its nuclear weapons. The entire nuclear disagreement, then, is not about whether Iran should have nuclear weapons, but about whether Iran should hold itself to a different standard to Israel. (Amusingly, Chuck Schumer recently accidentally declared that "no one wants a nuclear Israel," and had to correct himself, because he does want a nuclear Israel.)
Anyone who values human life should treat war as an absolute last resort, to be engaged in only once every diplomatic option has been exhausted. In this case, it was the Trump administration that sabotaged diplomacy. First, even though asking Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons means imposing an unfair double standard that imperils Iran's national security, Iran had agreed under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to severely constrain its development of nuclear technology, and agreed to a detailed monitoring and compliance regime. It was confirmed to be adhering to that agreement until Donald Trump ripped it up in 2018, subsequently criticizing Iran for failing to adhere to the agreement that he himself had destroyed. Joe Biden declined to pursue the revival of that agreement, even though Iran signaled that it was open to it. But to this day, Iran has shown that it is willing to consider even highly unfavorable agreements in order to avoid war---it has never shown any sign of launching an unprovoked strike, only deploying military action in response to violence by others, such as an Israeli attack on its embassy or the assassination of its allies' leaders.
Iran has long wanted to keep a war with the U.S. from breaking out, which is why its responses to U.S. and Israeli attacks have previously been notably measured and cautious. (This time around, Iran reasons that unless it inflicts major damage, it will be perceived as weak and attacked further, since previous restraint only encouraged the U.S. and Israel to press their advantage.) Diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing, and Oman, mediating talks, saw "the most promising diplomatic opening in years" and thought "diplomacy was producing tangible results and that a negotiated settlement was imminent." The U.S. and Israel decided to sabotage diplomacy and assassinate the Iranian head of state, possibly because they felt they just couldn't forgo the opportunity to kill as many high-ranking Iranians as possible in one fell swoop. (They killed so many Iranian government officials that Donald Trump admitted the U.S. had killed all of the people who had been considered likely candidates to take Khamenei's place.) Iran professed itself baffled as to why the U.S. attacked. "I do not know why the U.S. administration insists on beginning a negotiation with Iran and then attacking Iran in the middle of talks," said the country's foreign minister. He told NBC: "We were able to address serious questions related to Iran's nuclear program. We obviously have differences, but we resolved some of those differences, and we decided to continue in order to resolve the rest of [the] questions."
Because mass civilian casualties are a predictable consequence of intense airstrikes, to choose to unnecessarily end diplomatic engagement and start bombing is unconscionable depravity. But it's clear that the Trump administration didn't really care whether Iran was genuinely willing to engage in diplomacy, because Trump's position is that Iran should simply do what we say, period. There is nothing to negotiate, because for Trump, the only choice is whether a country is willing to comply with U.S. demands, or whether we will have to use force to ensure their compliance.
I haven't even gotten to the illegality of the war. Leaving aside the ridiculous Republican denials that this is a war (if a country assassinated our head of state and bombed our cities, would anyone doubt that they were waging war?), it's plain that all of this is unconstitutional. The Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress, not the president. Congress didn't declare war, therefore the war is illegal. Case closed. I know presidents have stretched their powers as far as possible (Obama's drone strikes, etc.) but if a president has the power to wage a relentless bombing and assassination campaign without Congressional approval, the Constitution simply ceases to mean anything. Congress has plainly failed in its responsibility to ensure that Trump complies with the Constitution, but the failure of our politicians to enforce the law doesn't change what it says.
Of course, it virtually goes without saying that the war violates international law. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force (or even the threat of force) except in response to an armed attack. Iran had not attacked the U.S., nor was there any evidence Iran was going to attack the U.S. Propagandists assert that Iran (and its "proxies") have killed "hundreds" of Americans over the years, but they decline to specify who these Americans are or discuss the Iranians killed by the U.S. and our own "proxies." There's no real point discussing international law, because Trump has made it clear he simply doesn't care about it, saying he doesn't need it and is unconstrained by it. Unfortunately, other countries have been just as pathetically weak as members of the U.S. Congress, with countries like Britain and France issuing statements that were de facto supportive of the assassination of a foreign head of state. (Canada issued a supportive statement and then appeared to regret it after noticing that letting the U.S. and Israel tear up the last vestiges of international law might be unwise.) Germany's chancellor has even made the stunning statement that Iran shouldn't be protected by international law, waving away the obvious illegality of the attacks by saying that "now is not the time to lecture our partners and allies." The killing of a head of state is a major crime, the normalization of which would open a horrible Pandora's box of lawless state action, and the world should be unified in condemning U.S.-Israeli lawlessness, but even among the Arab states there is a reluctance to antagonize the U.S.
None of the long-term consequences of this war will be good. The Trump administration does not appear to have any kind of strategic plan for what will happen next in Iran. (Lindsey Graham says it's "not [Trump's] job" to have a plan for what happens to the country's government next.) We could see the country's collapse into civil war, Libya-style. (Obama adviser Ben Rhodes recently admitted that Obama's decision to topple Libya's dictator without a plan for the country was a major error.) We could simply see the hard-line theocrats be replaced by more hard-line theocrats who are more convinced than ever that there can be no negotiating with the U.S., that the only language this country understands is force, and that the best thing for Iran's safety would be for it to obtain a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible. What we are unlikely to see is a pro-American government emerging, and this war puts Americans everywhere in considerable danger. (Ask yourself: if what happened to Sara Shariatmadar happened to someone you love, would you see the country that carried out the bombing as a liberator? Or would you want revenge?) Although plenty of Iranians are justly celebrating the end of the Ayatollah's rule, like the Iraqis who celebrated in 2003, they will soon find out that the U.S. has no interest in their well-being, and will happily watch their country slide into civil war if this serves America's perceived "national security" interest.
Six Americans have already died in addition to the 1,000 Iranians. Because this is a war of choice, totally unnecessary and unjustifiable, their blood is on Donald Trump's hands, and he (as well as Congress) should be treated no differently than we would treat someone who murdered these Americans with their bare hands. But the costs to this country are only just beginning. Of course, if you're an RTX shareholder this may be a bonanza, but the rest of us are likely to see major economic disruption, in addition to all the resources that are put into the production of weapons. Eisenhower famously tried to warn Americans that war spending is an act of "theft" from the public, because it's money not spent on schools and hospitals, and the "opportunity cost" is therefore enormous. But Eisenhower's warning has largely been ignored.
Worse, as Abby Martin notes in the terrifying and important new film Earth's Greatest Enemy, military action has catastrophic climate consequences, since the U.S. war machine is the world's biggest polluter and the carbon emissions of our vast, brutal empire are driving us toward ever-worsening climate catastrophe. Unfortunately, that's just fine with some in the administration and the military---terrifying recent reporting suggests that some evangelical Christian officers are celebrating the war as hastening the apocalypse, claiming Trump was "anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth." These people would sacrifice the rest of us to the inferno to fulfill their delusional prophecies.
Of course, the war reveals that Trump and his coterie were complete frauds when they pledged to keep the U.S. out of senseless Middle East wars. Trump fooled a lot of people with this stuff, although hopefully their illusions will now be hard to maintain. (Former hardcore MAGA types like Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes are now admitting they were duped.) If there is one silver lining here, amid all of the horror, it is that because this war is deeply unpopular and Trump has no idea how to deal with its consequences, perhaps we will finally see the MAGA movement collapse politically. Trump's approval rating was already in the toilet, and while I sadly have no illusions that public opinion will be especially moved by the bombing of a school, when the fallout in cost, lives, and global chaos begins to come home, perhaps Americans will turn once and for good against their warmongering president.
But it is hard for me to think hopefully right now, as I see pictures of the remnants of former schoolchildren, schoolchildren whose lives were brutally extinguished with the help of my tax dollars. All I can feel is horror and rage at the sociopaths willing to do such things, who claim to want peace while ensuring that humanity will be consigned to a future of endless, senseless conflict.
PHOTO: Graves being dug for the elementary school girls killed in the bombing of the Minab school. Iran Foreign Ministry.
From blog via This RSS Feed.
President Donald Trump is looking to eliminate funding in fiscal 2027 for the agency that serves as the primary federal funding source for libraries and museums nationwide.
From MR Online via This RSS Feed.
Regions:
Facts:
Workers' conditions and struggles
Publications:
The fire that devoured 1.2 million square feet of paper products in the Ontario, California Kimberly-Clark warehouse was lit by capitalism. Figuratively of course. Non-figuratively, it was (allegedly) lit by 29-year-old warehouse employee Chamel Abdulkarim, who posted a video of a man holding up a lighter to pallets of toilet paper on his private Facebook page.
From Leftcom via This RSS Feed.
Prosecutors say that the five broke into Elbit Systems’ premises early on September 8 2025, and caused an estimated €200,000 (£173K) worth of damage to the arms manufacturer by smashing up office equipment with axes.
From MR Online via This RSS Feed.
Washington is using sanctions and naval power to decide which oil can move and which refineries can buy.
From MR Online via This RSS Feed.
It’s just nine days until the local elections, where establishment parties are expecting a bit of a kicking at the ballot box. In their place, the country is seeing a huge rise in independents, Greens, and Your Party. These groups intend to turn the tide for local communities.
We spoke to Your Party candidate Daniel Ansell who is standing in Lewisham Central, alongside fellow YP Davis St Marthe. Ansell, Marthe, and Callum Carter – standing in Rushey Green. Together, they are working to rebuild trust in their local communities, which establishment parties have squandered.
View this post on Instagram
Ansell: “it’s a very different experience than what you see online”
We asked Ansell about how many are standing for YP, how it’s going and whether it’s been hard breaking through to local people:
People are weary, right? So, it’s hard.
We just started this in March. You’re not going to sway people’s opinions on politicians in just two months, because we’re not doing anything yet really. Like, maybe we’re talking a good game, but will we do it or are we just turning up for votes and then they won’t see us for four years?
There are three of us standing. It’s good. It’s interesting to see the difference in understanding or perspective between people that are very into politics, and the actual electorate we’re introducing ourselves to. We’re new, so we’re trying to just do an introduction because a lot of people haven’t heard of Your Party. Some people don’t even know Jeremy Corbyn’s left the Labour Party.
People have opinions on big things, but not everyone has an opinion of little things, which perhaps people that follow politics or are active in politics have a bit more of an opinion on and understand a lot more. So, dealing with elections and getting people out on the door, it’s a very different experience than what you see online.
He then pointed to the legacy of broken trust in politics as a result of establishment parties failing to deliver on their promises. In contrast, Ansell told us about how he is working to show his local community that he intends to act as opposed to making empty, lofty promises:
That’s how people see politicians: extractive, like wanting something from you, not wanting to give anything back. And that takes a while to change that opinion. You have to start doing stuff.
There was a lot of hope and excitement around this new party. So, I went to a meeting with a collective called Lewisham People’s Assembly and I just liked the energy of the room.
There were lots of people from different places. There were Green Party people, there were people from local campaign groups, peace groups. It was a really nice mix of different interests, but people wanted to work together. I got involved in that group last summer, and then we started the campaign to Save Lewisham Shopping Centre.
I gradually got more involved and then kind of helping to lead it. And there’s a guy called Faris Luke – he actually put in an article in the Tribune in November.
“The local Labour Party hate us, which is always a good sign.”
He [Faris] outlined what we’re doing, which he’s been leading. And yeah, I’m kind of taking a prominent supporting role in the campaign and it’s been going well.
The local Labour Party hate us, which is always a good sign. Yeah, they put up an attack piece in the Evening Standard against us, saying there were ‘shadowy, Green, and Corbyn agents coming from outside the borough to cause problems’.
Of course, Labour never draw attention to the shadowy people they work at the behest of – much to the disadvantage of our communities and wider society.
However, it appears that Starmer feels threatened by these local independents. Probably because they’re actually trying to change things for their communities, as Ansell underscored:
Yeah, they’ve been sending leaflets around saying we are conducting a misinformation campaign, because they know we’re making a difference. But it’s a zero-sum game, so if they are having to put energy into tackling us, then they can’t throw energy on their own campaign.
So, I got involved in that campaign, and with the local Your Party proto-branch bubbling along, there were conversations around, “shall we stand any candidates in the race?” And the natural place to try and stand candidates would be Lewisham Central, because that’s where there’s the issue of the shopping centre, but also the gateway redevelopment, which has seen a whole load of problems.
Novara actually did a piece on that, which went up this week to promote Liam Shrivastava’s mayoral campaign. So yeah, he kind of was outlining, I guess, in that, his opinion on it. So, we decided not to stand the mayoral candidate in our proto-branch because Liam, the Green candidate, has got a pretty strong campaign.
And ultimately, one of our goals is to get rid of Labour. And we’re not in a position to have a policy program in place to actually deliver, but on a personal level, I didn’t think we were at the point where we wanted to do that. I don’t think there’s a line that we don’t support the Greens. I think everyone has their own position on it… I think Liam’s the best to get rid of Labour at a mayoral level.
Labour and its “sham consultation” in Lewisham
Speaking about his active work alongside Faris Luke to demand better for Lewisham Central, Ansell told us:
Yeah, so we did a rally in March on Sunday. Yeah, Faris, the lead organiser, he spoke, I spoke, Liam Shrivastava spoke.
This is a big issue – it’s kind of housing and gentrification wrapped in one. It really is quite good at capturing people, because people care about housing, people care about their heritage.
Like, why get rid of a shopping center that’s functional and that people are fond of? There’s a lack of consideration about what people actually want.
They did this sham consultation, kind of shoehorned in – they put in some nice, shiny things, saying you’re going to get all these nice things, but didn’t mention the housing proposal at all. [They also] didn’t mention the fact that the things are actually for this whole new set of people they’re bringing in, into these expensive flats.
The housing has not been designed to benefit the community; it’s been designed to push out the community, and yeah, that’s something I’m not willing to accept.
View this post on Instagram
Ansell also works collaboratively and in respect with other independents across London, referring to Shake It Up, who have been working in solidarity across London:
I went on to a housing meeting they [Lambeth] had a few weeks ago. There’s this group called Shake It Up. They were there and Laura Graham was there and it was really good just to chat and meet different groups. I think one of the really heartwarming and brilliant things that’s coming out of this is getting a network of people doing the same things, against all odds, just trying to do something different rather than allowing this kind of negativity to get to them.
Ansell: “I’m not here to get power for myself – let’s get power for the community”
Refusing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Ansell explained why he chooses active work and optimism rather than factional bickering in YP:
It’s like, no – actually, I’m going to use this as a platform. It might not be a great platform yet, but it is a platform to actually do good work, and I’m going to use it.
And that’s kind of it. I think, for Your Party, despite its faults, it’s the best vehicle around right now if you want to promote the working class, want to promote socialism. I guess if you’re already in the Green Party, or you’ve already made a decision, then whatever – you’re attached to that project. But I wasn’t, so it was kind of easy for me to go this way.
I mean, I’m not here to get power. If I wanted power, I could have joined the Green Party, definitely. I could have got in, because they’re doing very well locally. They’ve got momentum. They’re quite organised. If I wanted to go that way, I could have done that.
But I’m not here to get power for myself – let’s get power for the community. It’s not always about sitting on the council to do that.
Whilst he has clearly been proactive in local campaigns, Ansell intends to go much further if elected on 7 May:
Yeah, we’ve not done enough yet. Presenting what I’m doing is important – talking about my involvement in this campaign to save the shopping centre. People are really interested in that. People are interested in the idea that everyone deserves affordable housing. It’s not a controversial thing – even people who have nice housing are ‘for’ everyone having affordable housing.
As a basic principle, people agree that everyone should be able to afford to live and not be in poverty. So that’s been a good way of introducing myself.
There’s this Vote Palestine campaign – that’s, again, another way of introducing who I am and where I stand and things like that. Also, pointing out – because a lot of people aren’t aware – that the council does have investments through their pension fund in Israeli companies that are complicit in the genocide. It’s important to point that out. I’m not here to do negative campaigning, but you need to tell people what’s happening, because a lot of the time they don’t understand.
Some of the housing associations could be doing better work, and people tell us the issues they’re having with the owners of the building – because you’ve got blocks of flats, and housing associations who are not doing the best work. You can see poverty a bit more now. In the town centre, you see people not in great shape, perhaps with mental health issues, just roaming the streets, probably needing a lot more support than they’re getting.
When people see that, they maybe feel less safe because of it – I think safety is a big one. Obviously, from a left-wing perspective, you have to think about how you want to talk about that, because that’s something the right wing quite often takes advantage of – people’s feelings of not being safe – and the left probably needs to do it a bit better.
I’m not always talking about that, but we think it’s about the community coming up with the solutions. Whether it’s down to security or development, the community should be leading these conversations, not being given some crumbs and told to be grateful.
View this post on Instagram
Unfortunately, the Green Party has decided to stand a full slate in Lewisham, which raises the risk of a split in the local progressive vote.
Nevertheless, Ansell refuses to be discouraged:
It’s a shame they decided to run a full slate. I think communication could be a bit better between us and them [the Greens], but… I wouldn’t say it’s antagonistic
They’re not actively campaigning in their seat. I’ve kind of accepted that’s just what they’re doing, which is fine. We are different parties. Perhaps, in a way, this settles the mind of, yeah, I made the right decision.
Ansell: People are “given some crumbs and told to be grateful”
Ansell also explained how he intends to change things for his local community:
I think you just need to be doing things, right? You know, you start a running club, you organise Zumba classes, you do stuff. And it’s not about taking over and controlling that. You just help people help themselves.
Community building is not telling people, you know, just… the top-down central kind of … “We’re going to do this for you, so what do you want?” [Instead, it’s:] “How can we help you do that”, you know?
Asked about whether Labour are a credible threat locally, Ansell told us:
People don’t like Labour – I don’t know, yeah, just to see what their vote is like. I think maybe there’s that thing previously of shy Tory voters – voting Tory, but not wanting to say. I think maybe that’s going to come back a little bit with the Labour Party. I mean, their vote is still out there, but quite often people are very angry towards the Labour Party.
You can start a conversation just by saying – I don’t want to focus on being negative – but, you know, the Labour Party have been letting us down, and people are nodding along. People feel that and are ready for a change, even lifelong Labour supporters – culturally Labour people – thinking, “well, maybe I need to change things, things aren’t going well here.”
So, I think it’s definitely an opportunity. It’s an opportunity for Reform as well, and that’s something we need to tackle. I think we’d probably be in a better place to tackle that than the Green Party. I think the kind of voter that might be looking at Reform – they may look at the Green Party as well – but I think maybe we’re better positioned as [we’re] more focused on the working class.
I mean, maybe I’m projecting a little bit there – my personal politics or who I am – but that’s the way I see it.
“People are confused now as well, and fatigued”
Refreshingly, it appears Reform votes are likely to swing towards these local independents. This is arguably due to their clear intention to fight a broken system on behalf of people who feel forgotten and neglected.
Speaking about how people no longer trust traditional party politicians, this independent intends to repair that broken trust with locals:
Yeah, when people look to see what’s around, right – there’s definitely, from talking to people on the doorstep, a kind of cohort who, when we introduce ourselves, are considering voting for us, whereas before they were looking to vote for Reform. There’s only one Reform candidate where we are, and it’s a two-seat ward, so it’s not – you know, we might even get their second vote or something.
It’s quite complicated. People’s politics are complicated. People are confused now as well, and fatigued, aren’t they?
I just – I mean, it’s much the same thing. You just pitch yourself in, because people want – there’s a lack of trust in politicians. You have to present yourself in a way that they can trust in.
In fact, adding to his credentials as a man of his community, Ansell already works with young people as an athletics coach. He coaches local kids twice a week, benefiting local families, and explains that getting involved in politics isn’t that dissimilar:
Well, I’m more competent than the councillors we have right now…
Locally, I’m involved in athletics and coach athletics twice a week. I’ve been doing that like 4-5 years. You get to know people, you get to know your community. And you become an important figure in that, especially helping people’s children. People respect you if you’re helping their children.
It’s interesting, you know, getting people’s numbers, and building your network, and you’re monitoring that all the time and all these groups. I’m not looking to step back from that. But doing that, I’ve got to know so many different families. Especially when you try and organise for a competition, you’re chatting to 30 different mums at a time, trying to get them to bring their kid along.
And it’s kind of similar to [local] politics, having all these conversations with people just trying to like build something organised, you know?
“Let’s try and do something” for Lewisham
Ansell is a signatory to the Vote Palestine pledge and is working to challenge oppression across British society. He intends to draw a line under the factional bickering that has long plagued YP. Instead, he prefers to move forward with positive action:
I’m coming from a perspective of doing stuff in the community.
Labour won every seat last time around and they’ve had four defections to the Greens. There are four Greens now [on the council]. Now, that might be hard to take down in one round, and obviously we are standing two candidates. Because we’re not in a position to do more. But we wanted to start something to be a positive team in the Your Party project, rather than people just starting on each other.
So, let’s try and do something, and it’s interesting for people to see another person turning out, you know, that actually wants to do the work.
We at the Canary recognise how people are sick of the political establishment. Therefore, we urge local people in Lewisham to vote for candidates who bring hope and humility.
After all, councillors who genuinely care about Lewisham are far more likely to fight for their communities.
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Over the past two years, Israel has lost the support of the American public and is now losing one of its last bulwarks in the political arena — prominent voices in the mainstream media.
From Mondoweiss via This RSS Feed.
Arsenal arrive in Madrid with a clear line of sight, two matches stand between them and a first Champions League final since 2006.
Manager Mikel Arteta, and captain Martin Ødegaard, have framed the tie as an opportunity rather than a threat. They insist the squad is ready to take the next step after two seasons of steady progress.
This is a team built on a plan, recruitment, coaching and a style that has matured into genuine European competitiveness.
Arteta’s side have earned their place in the last four through a mixture of tactical discipline and moments of attacking quality. The narrative now is simple: convert potential into a result over two legs.
Arsenal face Atlético Madrid tonight
There are practical reasons for measured optimism. Arsenal is in back-to-back Champions League semi-finals, a sign of consistency at the highest level that the club lacked for years.
Arsenal has also shown defensive resilience in the knockout rounds, conceding just once across ties with Bayer Leverkusen and Sporting. That defensive backbone gives them a platform to play with confidence away from home.
But optimism must be balanced with realism. Arsenal’s form in recent weeks has been patchy. They have struggled for goals, managing only five in their last seven matches across all competitions.
That lack of cutting edge is the clearest vulnerability heading into a tie with Diego Simeone’s Atlético Madrid, a team built on organisation, experience and the ability to make big matches ugly for opponents.
Tactically, Arteta faces a familiar test: how to impose Arsenal’s possession-based game on a team that will happily cede the ball and strike on the counter.
The Gunners’ October meeting with Atlético was a 4-0 league phase win, which showed what they can do when they find rhythm and finish chances. But one result from the league phase does not erase the tactical discipline Atletico bring to European nights.
Gunners must be clinical and patient in equal measure
The psychological side matters as much as the tactical. Players and staff have spoken openly about the weight of expectation that comes with chasing major trophies. The pressure has shaped previous campaigns and will shape this one.
The difference now though is experience. Many of the squad have been through deep runs and know how to manage the noise.
The job for Arteta and his coaching team is to keep the focus narrow — one game, one step, one moment at a time — to reach another final.
Game management will be decisive. Arsenal’s recent reliance on defensive solidity suggests Arteta values control, but the manager has also been clear he wants to attack and decide ties rather than sit back.
That balance between protecting a lead and hunting a decisive goal will define the first leg at the Metropolitano.
Expect Arsenal to try to take the initiative early, but also to be ready for Atletico’s set-piece threat and counter-attacks.
We’ll be on the edge of our seats
For supporters, the stakes are both immediate and historic. A place in the final would be a landmark for a club that has rebuilt its identity and ambitions over several seasons. For the players, it is a chance to turn progress into legacy.
For the manager, it is a test of tactical flexibility and mental management. Win or lose, the way Arsenal approach this tie will tell us a lot about where the project stands.
Arsenal has the structure, the personnel and the belief to make history, but they must solve a recent scoring slump and navigate a tactically astute opponent. The first leg will be a measuring stick, not just of quality on the pitch but of temperament off it.
If Arteta’s team can marry discipline with the attacking intent they’ve shown at their best, they will give themselves a real chance to reach a final that has eluded the club for decades.
Featured image via Arsenal
By Faz Ali
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
France-based TotalEnergies on Wednesday became the latest fossil fuel giant to report massive profits juiced by the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has sent global oil prices surging and jacked up costs for consumers.
TotalEnergies announced in its first-quarter earnings report that it would increase returns to shareholders through a higher dividend and stock buybacks after seeing $5.8 billion in profits and $8.6 billion in cash flow during the first three months of 2026. The company attributed its profit growth to its "ability to capture price upside," corporate-speak for cashing in as consumers face rising energy costs.
“While families watch their bills skyrocket, TotalEnergies posts some of its best financial results without even paying its fair share of taxes," said Fanny Petitbon, France country manager at the environmental group 350.org. "We are witnessing an obscene transfer of wealth: The war enriches shareholders as it impoverishes citizens."
"We demand that France stop yielding to oil lobbyists and introduce, without delay, a permanent and ambitious tax on fossil fuel profits," Petitbon added. "Every day of inaction is a deliberate political choice in favor of shareholders and against citizens.”
TotalEnergies' report came a day after the British oil giant BP reported that its profits more than doubled compared to the first quarter of last year.
In an analysis released over the weekend, Oxfam projected that six of the world's largest fossil fuel companies—including BP and TotalEnergies—will rake in $2,967 in profits per second this year, an increase of roughly $37 million per day compared to last year.
"Families around the world continue to be pushed into energy poverty as geopolitical instability, the impacts of escalating violence in the Middle East that has already taken many lives, and the sharp increase in the wealth of the super-rich in contrast to everyone else are leaving ordinary people struggling to make ends meet," said Oxfam.
350.org warned earlier this week that energy market disruptions caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran could hit households, businesses, and governments around the world with more than $1 trillion in extra costs.
“It is a staggering injustice that fossil fuel corporations are once again posting record-breaking profits while families struggle to keep the lights on," said Rukiya Khamis, 350.org's East Africa country manager. "Right now, power is concentrated in the hands of those who thrive on crisis and scarcity."
"It’s time to end our forced dependence on fossil fuels, tax the profiteers who benefit from our hardship, and redirect that wealth into building a fair, clean energy system," Khamis said. "We aren’t just asking for a lower bill; we are demanding a system that values human dignity over corporate greed."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
Hailey Baptiste pulled off one of the biggest upsets of the clay season, beating world number one, Aryna Sabalenka, in a wild tennis quarter-final at the Madrid Open.
The 24-year-old won 2-6, 6-2, 7-6 in a match that swung back and forth, and refused to end until the very last point.
Sabalenka started like a steamroller. She grabbed two breaks early and took the first set 6-2, hitting hard and moving the American around the court.
Surprisingly, Baptiste stayed in the game. She fought her way back in the second, breaking twice to level the match and force a decider.
The third set was a test of nerves for both players. Breaks were traded, momentum flipped and both players had chances.
Baptiste saved five match points while serving in the tenth game to stay alive, then later survived a sixth match point in the tie-break before closing out the win. The match lasted two hours and 32 minutes.
View this post on Instagram
WATCH: Hailey Baptiste’s winning moment
This is Baptiste’s biggest win to-date. It’s also her first victory over a top-five opponent and a career milestone that will stick with her. Baptiste showed grit, big hitting when it mattered, and a calm head in the pressure moments.
For Sabalenka, the loss is a shock and a reminder of how thin the margin is at the top. She’s a three-time Madrid champion and came in as the favourite, but the clay court draw in Madrid has been brutal for the top seeds this year. The tournament has already seen the top seven seeds exit early, and Sabalenka’s defeat only added to the chaos.
Baptiste’s path now leads to a semi-final against Mirra Andreeva, who beat Leylah Fernandez earlier in the day. That match will be another big test. Andreeva is a rising star with a fearless game, and Baptiste will need to keep the same fight and focus to go further.
Nerves of steel
What stood out was Baptiste’s refusal to panic. When Sabalenka piled on pressure, Baptiste answered with clean serves and aggressive returns. She mixed power with smart placement, forcing Sabalenka into longer rallies and taking advantage when the world number one missed.
The mental edge came down to a few points and Baptiste won them.
This result will ripple through the tour. A win like this boosts Baptiste’s confidence and ranking points. Her triumph also sends a message to the rest of the field that on any given day, the top spot can be challenged.
For Sabalenka, it’s a reset moment. She’ll go back to the drawing board, sharpen the serve and work on closing out tight matches. The loss stings, but it’s also a reminder that even champions must fight for every point.
An unforgettable game of tennis
Fans got drama, tension and a classic underdog story. Baptiste’s celebration at the net was simple and earned. She’s a young player who seized her moment on one of the sport’s biggest stages.
Madrid’s clay has a way of producing surprises, and this was one of the loudest.
In short, Baptiste kept fighting, saved six match points and stunned the world number one tennis player in a match that will be replayed in highlights for days.
It was a career-defining night for her and a tough exit for Sabalenka. Baptiste’s win is proof that in tennis, the scoreboard never lies and the next point is always the one that matters.
Featured image via Reuters/ Violeta Santos Moura
By Faz Ali
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
On Sunday 26 April, Green Party MP Hannah Spencer complained that MPs are boozing at work. Her comments went down incredibly poorly with soused MPs and journalists, but the public overwhelmingly backed her.
Now, the debate has turned nasty, because the only establishment figures left fighting are the grimmest perverts imaginable:
Great to see that the Spectator have wheeled out their finest to attack Hannah Spencer. Only in the UK can you write a column about how you cannot be trusted not to r*pe children and still keep your job. https://t.co/REJSHUnpDn pic.twitter.com/aehRlPbsO0
— Dr Iain Darcy
(@doctoriaindarcy) April 28, 2026
Send in the creeps
Self-confessed mind-paedophile Rod Liddle’s article begins:
I think the best and most succinct description of the Green party was Tim Stanley’s ‘Stalin with a nose ring’. It gives a nod to the witless middle-class skankery of the party’s members and supporters but posits that there might be, underneath, a darker undercurrent.
This ‘dark undercurrent’ he’s talking about is not wanting MPs to drink at work – something the public overwhelmingly backs:
A total of 76% of people agree that it is unacceptable — and 52% completely unacceptable — for MPs to be drinking at work.
Labour MPs and grifter lobby journalists spent 48 hours telling us that this is a working class tradition! And that the Greens are “puritanical.” pic.twitter.com/E2f2qn3CwK
— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) April 27, 2026
Liddle also said:
I’m sorry Spencer doesn’t like the smell. I suspect her fellow MPs aren’t too keen on the stench of semi-digested kale which emanates from the woman, either, but we have to put these minor inconveniences aside. She represents a party which sees no harm in legalising Class A drugs, but cavils at alcohol. And she does so because alcohol is enjoyed largely by people who don’t like the Greens. It is alcohol as a signifier which annoys her, not the state of being incapacitated by it.
Rod – like your establishment media friends – you’re pretending not to understand what she said:
The UK's political culture relies on performative and aggressive stupidity to make sure nothing actually ever changes for the better. https://t.co/qlF7ePXWyX
— Marl Karx (@BareLeft) April 27, 2026
To make it simple for you:
- The Greens have spoken about legalising drugs to remove a source of income for criminal enterprise and to ensure that anyone taking hard drugs does so safely; they’re not advocating for crack pipes in the office.
- Spencer very clearly said her issue was with MPs drinking at work – not with people drinking in general.
We’d provide a longer numbered list, but we suspect Liddle wouldn’t be interested in anything past 16.
Menace to society
The next establishment figure to wade in is literally famous for being a drunken menace in Parliament. Here’s what MP Neil Coyle had to say:
I haven’t drunk alcohol in over 4 years but I don’t believe a total ban is necessary in Parliament and know Southwark brewers have loved being the guest beer in Strangers.
I’m also unaware of any Labour MP who took money from women to hypnotise their breasts larger. https://t.co/CaamewxhhD
— Neil Coyle (@coyleneil) April 28, 2026
First off, fair play to Labour politicians for sticking with the ‘hypno-boobitism’ schtick. Since they first cracked it out, the Green have overtaken them in the polls and nearly quadrupled their membership, and yet Labour MPs are still convinced the attack line is going to land at some point – an attack line which originated with the Sun, no less!
A Scottish Labour candidate in next months election using the S*n to attack Zack Polanski.
I stood on the picket line at Wapping in 1986 (I went with my mum & dad!) and I saw at first hand what the Murdoch owned scum thinks of the labour movement. https://t.co/vz0up5xbvV
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 28, 2026
Back to Coyle, people were quick to point out he’s literally the poster boy for not allowing alcohol at work:
Four years ago he got drunk, sexually harassed a woman and was racially abusive to a journalist. And got away with it. Coyle should have maybe kept out of this one. https://t.co/mE7nBXomLi
— Dr Iain Darcy
Neil Coyle has been reinstated as a Labour MP, following a Commons suspension for breaching Parliament’s harassment rules.
He was suspended as an MP for five days in March, after a parliamentary probe found he had made racist comments towards a journalist.
He was also found to have engaged in “foul-mouthed and drunken abuse” of a parliamentary assistant to another MP.
Labour sources said his conduct would be monitored by its chief whip.
Mr Coyle, the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, was suspended by the party last year after allegations about his comments to the reporter emerged.
The move meant he had to sit as an independent MP in the House of Commons. He was also banned from bars in Parliament for six months.
The problem with giving MPs access to cheap booze at work is it essentially encourages them to drink.
This is just another way our political establishment is at odds with the public, because Britons are overall drinking less and less. Largely, this is because people’s increased awareness of health and fitness means they understand they shouldn’t feel rundown and tetchy all the time; they should actually feel alive and happy.
Do the MPs attacking Spencer seem alive and happy to you?
Fresh, un-bloodshot eyes
While the attacks on Spencer are getting grimmer, they’re also getting lazier:
I thought this was a Green making a joke but their account is anti-Green. They thought people were gonna fall for that beer png they photoshopped onto it
I mean I commend them for not using AI at least. https://t.co/zIyHKszBLC
— cez (@cezthesocialist) April 28, 2026
We predict that, a year from now, you’ll struggle to find a single MP who publicly condones drinking at work. This is the benefit of having politicians like Spencer who aren’t a product of the establishment pipeline. They point out things that are obvious to the rest of us, but are completely mystifying to the degenerates who rule the country.
Featured image via Parliament
By Willem Moore
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
On 28 April, MPs voted on whether Keir Starmer should be probed for misleading Parliament. As we reported, this is something the PM seems to have done several times. Despite this, relatively few politicians voted in favour of Starmer facing the sort of transparency he promised to deliver in office.
Interestingly, Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick were among those who didn’t even bother to vote:
This is why @reformparty_uk are such an unserious party.
Neither Nigel Farage or Robert Jenrick voted on this, that’s 25% of their parliamentary party simply couldn’t be bothered to vote.
Decisions are made by people who turn up, Reform are not serious people. https://t.co/wRDGnowq28
— Mike Prendergast (@MikePrendUK) April 28, 2026
Part-timers
PM Keir Starmer stands accused of multiple instances of misleading Parliament. This is why his opponents tabled a vote to try and force a probe into his behaviour – a tactic Starmer himself once deployed against then-PM Boris Johnson
Starmer described the vote as a “stunt”:
Keir Starmer, "What my political opponents are doing tomorrow is a political stunt"
Cathy Newman, "It's a stunt you pulled in opposition against the last, Conservative, government"
Keir Starmer, "The reason they're doing it is because they don't believe what we're doing as a… pic.twitter.com/QXUdZJ86jZ
— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) April 27, 2026
The vote has now gone ahead, with Labour MPs voting against Starmer facing scrutiny. One rebel MP who voted in favour of Starmer facing accountability said the following:
My speech in today's #PrivilegeDebate
https://t.co/B8cURwI3ur
— Emma Lewell MP (@EmmaLewell) April 28, 2026
Reform have sought to capitalise on this situation, with the full post from Zia Yusuf above reading:
Friendly note to Labour MPs ahead of the vote tomorrow to decide if Starmer should face an ethics probe:
If you vote against it, Reform will carpet bomb your constituency to ensure all your constituents know you voted to save the most unpopular PM of all time.
Vote wisely.
Some are upset by the term “carpet bomb”, but come on, in this context it’s abundantly clear Yusuf isn’t planning to literally bomb voters.
Zia Yusuf. This unelected evil little waffle goblin is unhinged.
Threatening to 'carpet bomb' an MPs constituency. Does he understand what carpet bomb means. He should be reported to the police. Idiot.#BBCBreakfast #r4today #Evil pic.twitter.com/quFGiY9zly— Alethea Bernard (@Tush27J) April 28, 2026
We all use words like ‘explosive’ and ‘nuked’ in day-to-day language, and pretending that’s not the case comes across as cynical.
To be less fair to Reform, however, you can’t talk this strongly about a vote and then just not bother voting:
Reform threatened to ‘carpet bomb’ the constituencies of Labour MPs who didn’t vote for Sir Keir Starmer to face an inquiry over the Mandelson affair.
How did their leader Farage vote? He didn’t.
— Simon Harris (@SimonHarrisMBD) April 28, 2026
And as Reform Party UK Exposed highlighted, Farage has said questionable things about Peter Mandelson himself:
Hi @Nigel_Farage, how did you vote?
You didn’t.@ZiaYusufUK – you going to “carpet bomb” Clacton? pic.twitter.com/zR6Bf25dK2
— Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) April 29, 2026
Excuses
Nigel Farage excused his absence as follows:
The vote in Parliament tonight was great theatre, but the three-line whip meant it would never be close.
I want Starmer out, which is why I spent the day campaigning for it.
If Reform crush Labour next week, he will be gone.
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) April 28, 2026
Tory candidate George McBride said this in response:
A weak defence from a man who couldn’t be bothered to turn up.
The local elections will not see Starmer leave office.
If he actually wanted Starmer out, he would have rocked up to Parliament (for once) and voted to do so.
What an awful MP Farage is proving to be.
We hate to say it, but Farage might have a point.
The vote was never going to pass, because Labour MPs are spineless, self-serving worms with no direction or purpose. Given that, Farage was possibly correct to think it wasn’t worth losing a day of campaigning.
It’s certainly the case that his opponents are kicking up a fuss, but what do you think will get more attention today:
- The fact that Labour MPs overwhelmingly voted in favour of not probing Starmer – forever tying themselves to the Peter Mandelson scandal?
- Or the fact that Farage didn’t show up, even though it wouldn’t have mattered anyway?
This isn’t to say Farage doesn’t deserve criticism; this is literally an article giving him just that.
Farage’s absence is something people will highlight every time Reform try to challenge Labour’s handling of the Mandelson scandal – something which is happening already:
Your party leader didn’t even bother to turn up pic.twitter.com/Vb1RHMWzn8
— Imogen (@Imogenlemon02) April 28, 2026
While it’s fine for the public to make this point, it’s galling to see Labour MPs attempting the same thing:
(Setting aside the “carpet bomb” threat), I note that Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick both missed the vote … that’s 25% of your MPs. Not that important to you then. https://t.co/Zq5D03xPxn
— Lucy Powell MP (@LucyMPowell) April 28, 2026
Lucy Powell – you literally voted against the transparency probe – you cannot be point scoring on this!
For reference, by the way, the following are the 15 Labour MPs who had the backbone to vote for transparency:
- Apsana Begum
- Richard Burgon
- Ian Bryne
- Mary Kelly Foy
- Imran Hussain
- Brian Leishman
- Emma Lewell
- Rebecca Long Bailey
- Andy McDonald
- John McDonnell
- Graham Morris
- Luke Myer
- Kate Osbourne
- Cat Smith
- Nadia Whittome
No show
Farage’s broader problem is he has a reputation for not showing up, and this is just another example of that. It may not be the worst example, but it’s certainly one people will remind him of in years to come.
Let’s hope by then everyone realises this guy is a part-timer, and that he has no intention to seriously lead this country.
Featured image via Parliament
By Willem Moore
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) edged Bayern Munich 5-4 in a first-leg Champions League semi-final that delivered everything the fixture promised, plus more.
An electric pace, finishing and a tactical chess match that rarely settled into a defensive contest. The scoreline tells the crazy story, nine goals, momentum swings and a slender advantage for the holders to take to Munich next week.
How the PSG vs Bayern Munich match unfolded
Bayern struck first when Harry Kane converted a penalty in the 17th minute, but PSG responded quickly.
Khvicha Kvaratskhelia levelled with a high-quality strike before João Neves headed the hosts in front from a corner.
Michael Olise pulled Bayern level again just before half-time, and Ousmane Dembélé restored PSG’s lead from the spot in stoppage time to make it 3-2 at the break.
The second half began in similar fashion, Kvaratskhelia and Dembélé scored within minutes to push PSG 5-2 ahead, only for Bayern to rally with headers from Dayot Upamecano and a Luis Díaz finish that reduced the deficit to 5-4.
What mattered?
Clinical finishing.
PSG scored with all five of their shots on target, an efficiency rarely seen at this level and a decisive factor in a game where both defences were stretched.
And big-game players really delivered.
In this game, Dembélé and Kvaratskhelia both scored twice, carrying PSG’s attacking threat through moments when Bayern looked set to dominate. Harry Kane’s penalty underlined Bayern’s threat, but the German side were repeatedly undone by quick transitions and individual moments of quality.
VAR and fine margins for PSG and Bayern
The match featured a contentious stoppage-time penalty for PSG after a VAR review. A later VAR check that allowed Díaz’s goal to stand after an initial offside flag was also overturned.
Those marginal decisions shaped the scoreboard and the tactical choices both managers will make ahead of the return leg.
Tactical takeaways
Luis Enrique set PSG up to attack and to invite moments of chaos. The plan worked because PSG’s forwards were sharper and more decisive in the final third.
Bayern, coached to press and probe, created chances but were vulnerable to quick counters and set-piece moments, the route by which Neves scored.
Both teams showed an appetite to win rather than to protect a result, which explains the open nature of the game and the high goal count.
Attack vs defence
Defensively, neither side can be absolved. There were positional lapses and moments of poor concentration, but the quality of the goals, long-range strikes, well-worked finishes and clinical headers, suggests this was as much about attacking excellence as defensive failure.
That context matters when assessing how the tie might play out in Munich. It has all the ingredients for another goal fest.
View this post on Instagram
What does this mean for the tie?
PSG take a one-goal lead to the Allianz Arena. In isolation that is not decisive.
Bayern showed they can score away from home and will be confident of overturning a single-goal deficit in front of their crowd. But PSG’s five goals in Paris give them a psychological edge and force Bayern to balance attack with caution in the return.
If Bayern score twice in Munich, the tie will be wide open. If PSG can nick an early goal, the pressure on Bayern increases significantly.
Players to watch in the return leg
- Ousmane Dembélé — He proves how decisive he is in the final third and how comfortable he is taking responsibility in big moments.
- Khvicha Kvaratskhelia — The timings of his two goals underline how dangerous he is in transition. When given space on the flank, he is able to change the dynamics of a game in an instant.
- Harry Kane — He is still Bayern’s focal point, as he has been for most of this season. Kane’s penalty and general ball movement will be central to Bayern’s plan to unsettle PSG. The fourth goal scored by Diaz was created by a killer pass from Kane.
The final verdict?
This was not a football match that will be remembered for defensive masterclasses, but it will be remembered for entertainment and for the way both teams committed to attack.
PSG leave Paris with a lead that is valuable but fragile. Bayern leave with belief that the tie is far from over.
The second leg promises to be tactical, intense and, given what we saw in Paris, likely to produce more goals. For neutral observers, that is exactly the kind of semi-final football the Champions League exists to provide.
An exciting potential awaits us in the second leg. If five goals are scored in the return leg, this tie would set a new record for the highest-scoring Champions League knockout tie in history.
Featured image via Getty Images/ Alexander Hassenstein
By Faz Ali
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Stockport Green Party local candidate and GND Media podcast producer Andrew Glassford hosted a ‘Greens in Power’ event on 21 April 2026 to discuss local government strategy with Hugo Fearnley and Keir Milburn. This write-up highlights some of the many valuable insights from those conversations, ahead of the local elections on 7 May.
Conversations unfolding at a recent Stockport Green Party event offered revealing snapshots of an unprecedented political moment that’s damningly easy for the left to misread.
On the surface, it was about local government strategy: devolution deals, council budgets, and institutional reform. But it went deeper: growing recognition on the left that power in Britain is severely structurally constrained, and that any meaningful challenges to that constraint must begin locally.
Hugo Fearnley and Keir Milburn approached the issue from slightly different angles, but their diagnoses of our present converged neatly. Local government isn’t simply underperforming; it has been systematically reshaped over decades into a delivery mechanism for ideological austerity politics.
As Milburn put it, councils today inherit a “massive poison chalice”, tasked with maintaining services while operating with “around 20% less” spending power than in 2010. This all takes place within a system designed to dissipate responsibility downwards, whilst retaining power in central government.
This framing matters. It shifts debates away from managerial competence and towards political structure. The question is no longer why councils fail to deliver, but how they have been structurally set up to do so.
The system: designed to constrain
The UK’s model of governance remains highly centralised, even after successive waves of devolution.
Combined authorities – now covering roughly 60% of the UK population – sit uneasily above local councils, often with overlapping responsibilities and competing priorities. As Fearnley notes, this has created a “new layer” of regional government that is not fully integrated with the tier beneath it.
At the same time, the underlying inequalities between regions persist. Poorer health outcomes,lower wages, and weaker educational attainment continue to define large parts of northern England. The institutional architectures supposedly designed to address these disparities have, in practice, struggled to do so.
Part of the problem lies in the erosion of local capacity. Decades of (often wasteful) outsourcing and budget cuts have left councils, in Fearnley’s words, “bereft of … in-house skills” and increasingly risk-averse. This creates feedback loops: less capacity leads to more reliance on external actors, which further entrenches dependence and thereby limits innovation.
Milburn situates this within a broader political project. The rise of public-private partnerships and market mechanisms in public services, he argued, has not only shifted resources but reshaped behaviour. Councillors and officers are “trained … to see development from private capital’s perspective”, while citizens are encouraged to view each other as competitors, rather than obvious collaborators.
The cumulative effect is a form of “anti-democratic” conditioning, where collective problem-solving is replaced evermore by market logics.
Incremental changes within tight constraints
Despite these structural limits, the discussion highlighted areas where local authorities have been able to act, often by reframing existing priorities rather than securing new resources. One example from the North of Tyne Combined Authority illustrates this.
Faced with central government’s emphasis on job creation, Fearnley and colleagues under Jamie Driscoll’s mayorship argued for a partial reallocation of funds towards child poverty prevention. Their rationale was straightforward: “if the kids who are too hungry to learn today can’t access those jobs,” then job creation alone is clearly insufficient.
The resulting programme – offering welfare advice outside school gates – recovered over £1 million in unclaimed benefits within a year. In one case, a family received £13,000 in backdated support.
The broader context is striking: an estimated £1.33 billion in unclaimed benefits across the region. Often support is there, but it’s underutilised (contrary to tiresome sensationalism).
Similarly, changes to the adult education budget – focused on flexibility and accessibility – led to a 60% increase in enrolment, from 22,000 to 35,000 learners, without additional spending.
These examples were rightly framed as evidence of what can be achieved through “creative thinking” at the local level. However, they also underscored the limits of that approach. As Fearnley acknowledged, such interventions rely on genuine political will and remain inevitably constrained by the broader political system and context within which they operate.
Keir Milburn highlighted the Greens Organise faction’s emphasis on grassroots community mobilisation efforts in ‘re-commoning’ local political arenas – via Keir Milburn.
Limits to community capacity
One of the more instructive moments in the discussion came from a failed initiative: an attempt to establish a supply teacher cooperative to replace private agencies. The model was economically viable and politically aligned with broader authority-level goals of community wealth-building. But it did not materialise.
The reason was not lack of interest, but sheer lack of capacity. Teachers, already overstretched, were unable to take on the additional organisational burden.
This example highlights recurring tensions in left-wing approaches to localism. While community-led solutions are often presented as an alternative to market-based models, they can place significant demands on individuals already under pressure. Without institutional support, these initiatives risk remaining aspirational.
Milburn’s response is to argue for new forms of partnership that combine state support with community participation – what he terms “public-common partnerships.”
An abstract diagram of the Public Common Partnership organisational structure – via Keir Milburn.
Reframing ownership and control
Public-common partnerships were presented as structural alternatives to extractive and often wholly unproductive public-private partnerships.
Rather than relying on private capital to unlock investment, they seek to mobilise the “knowledge, resources and energy” of local communities, in collaboration with public institutions and workers.
The model centres on shared ownership and democratic control, particularly over how financial surpluses are used. In practice, this involves the creation of “common associations” – local bodies through which residents can participate meaningfully in decision-making that affects them and their families.
One case study discussed was the Latin Village market in Tottenham, where a long-running anti-gentrification campaign led to development of community-led plans for the site. The proposed structure included a three-way partnership between traders, a public authority, and a community body responsible for allocating surplus funds.
Financial modelling suggests that such an asset could generate £2.3 million within three years of redevelopment – funds that would be reinvested locally rather than extracted. Milburn spoke of parallels with Barcelona’s community-run Can Batalla.
Milburn’s argument is that this approach not only retains wealth within communities, which is vital, but also rebuilds genuine democratic engagement. By involving residents directly in decision-making, it seeks to reverse what he described as a 40-year process of “training people away from democratic sensibilities.”
Another case study discussed was the Wards Corner Community Benefit Society planned in Harringay where London’s Greens expect possible council control on 7 May – via Keir Milburn.
Next steps in power?
The broader political context is significant. The Green Party’s recent electoral gains have raised expectations about its potential role in local government especially. However, both speakers cautioned that electoral success alone is insufficient.
Milburn noted:
Winning an election is just the first stage.
The challenge lies in translating that hard-won mandate into structural changes within institutions that are de facto resistant to them – “the day after the revolution,” as Milburn paraphrased Lenin.
This includes navigating internal party dynamics for starters. As Fearnley pointed out, political parties are inherently coalitional, and increased support brings increased scrutiny. (Greens know this as well as anyone right now, as Britain’s right-wing press doubles down on its incessant smear campaign.)
The key, Fearnley suggested, is not complete ideological alignment. It’s instead a focus on asking:
What can we win together?
Both speakers implicitly recognised that local action must be linked to national change. The constraints facing councils – budget rules, centralised funding, regulatory frameworks, etc. – cannot be fully addressed at the local level.
Any attempt to “escape the trap” will therefore require broader political mobilisation.
Test time for the left
This discussion was not a fully formed blueprint, but it nevertheless offered overlapping strategies: incremental reform within existing structures, experimentation with new institutional models, and longer-term efforts to shift the slanted balance of power.
Whether these approaches can be scaled, of course, remains an open question.
The examples cited are often context-specific and dependent on particular conditions. Simultaneously, they offer counter-narratives to the idea that local government is inherently limited to managing decline. But the stakes couldn’t be higher.
With trust in political institutions at low levels – Fearnley cites figures suggesting only around 10% of people trust major parties to do what they promise voters – the ability to demonstrate tangible change at the local level could have profound wider implications.
In that sense, local government is not just a site of service delivery, but a potential arena for significant and necessary political renewal. The question is whether the current generation of councillors and activists can navigate the constraints they’ll necessarily inherit, whilst also building the capacity to transform them.
If they can, the implications will extend far beyond council chambers. If they cannot, the risk is that local government will continue to function as intended: a buffer between centralised power and local dissatisfaction, absorbing pressure without resolving it.
Dr. Keir Milburn is a writer, researcher, and consultant. He has a background as an academic in political economy and organisational theory. He authored the widely acclaimed book, Generation Left and is an internationally recognised expert on economic democracy, the commons and Public-Common Partnerships. His most recent book, Radical Abundance, was co-written with Kai Heron and Bertie Russel.
Hugo Fearnley is a Research Fellow at Northumbria University, investigating perspectives on social welfare policy and how it relates to health outcomes. This involves engagement with policymakers to explore differences in approaches in different geographic and cultural contexts. The project builds on previous work in policy as Mayor Jamie Driscoll’s Political Adviser in the North of Tyne Combined Authority.
Andrew Glassford is a freelance audio engineer and theatre worker, member of Red Co-op and a founder of the the Retrofit Get in Project, helping theatre workers affected by the covid-19 pandemic with reskilling into jobs retrofitting homes. He’s standing as a candidate on 7 May in Stockport’s Davenport & Cale Green ward.
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
The risks inherent in that possibility of closure are now painfully realized, but they were not factored in before.
From MR Online via This RSS Feed.
**
**
It demands the withdrawal of the persistent questions of historical truth raised by the sacrifice of the 200 communist heroes of Kaisariani
The Commission is provocatively demanding the withdrawal of the Question submitted by the KKE’s MEPs**.** Based on the striking photographic evidence of the 200 communists who stood up face to face with the Nazi monster, the Question exposes the unhistorical nature of the EU’s ideology, which equates communism with the monster of fascism, as well as its undermining and deliberate stance towards the still-unfulfilled demand that German war reparations be paid for the Nazi atrocities in Greece.
“Historical narratives and war reparations do not fall within the Commission’s remit”, the Commission brazenly asserts, urging the withdrawal of the Question.
The 200 of Kaisariani and the magnitude of their sacrifice are not a mere “narrative”, as the EU claims, but an indisputable historical truth that remains a thorn in its side.
It is evident that the EU is profoundly unsettled by such questions, as they demonstrate that the sacrifice of the 200 heroes of our people exposes the bankruptcy of its own “two extremes” theory, the equation of the perpetrator with the victim, in an attempt to whitewash Nazi atrocities and to sideline the demand for the immediate and full payment of German reparations.
But who, in truth, is hypocritically invoking lack of jurisdiction?
The European Union, which:
- has designated 23 August (the day the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed) as the “European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Nazism and Communism”;
- has designated 9 May , the day of the Great Anti-Fascist Victory of the Peoples, as the day of the European Union, in a futile attempt to recast historical memory;
- turns a blind eye to member states that attempt to ban Communist Parties, such as Poland;
- promoted myths such as those concerning the Holodomor or Katyn as settled historical truth, while readily accommodating a wide range of fascist events within the European Parliament;
- has cultivated a steady stream of anti-communist resolutions that distort the history written in blood by the peoples;
- provides cover for imperialist attacks and atrocities worldwide, including those carried out by its allies, the US and Israel;
- prohibits events within the European Parliament expressing solidarity with the people of Cuba while supporting imperialist plans to suppress them.
All of this , evidently, falls within its remit. Yet reparations for Nazi crimes, the forced occupation loan, and the looting of archaeological treasures —all matters governed by international treaties binding two of its member states— do not.
The EU’s deeply reactionary, class-based policy is in the DNA of every imperialist transnational alliance. That is why it cannot conceal its aversion to anything that lays bare the fundamental divide between two opposing worlds: on the one hand, the workers —the creators of wealth— and, on the other, those who exploit them.
Anti-communism goes hand in hand with military involvement and the shift towards a war economy, the exploitation of the workers. Above all, it reflects the fear that the peoples, through their struggle, may overthrow the present decayed system —one the EU itself upholds— and build a new, socialist–communist society.
The Question cannot be withdrawn, nor can the historical truth and the persistent questions it raises, be dimmed!
The most powerful response will come from the masses of protesters, workers, and youth who will fill the squares and boulevards across the world, on their own day, the day of their class —1 May— honouring the day of the sacrifice of the 200 communist heroes.
From In Defense of Communism via This RSS Feed.
In the latest ‘turkeys voting for Christmas news’, a professional ‘diversity champion’ is running to become a Member of Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Reform UK.
This is a deeply hypocritical move for the party because Reform is supposedly against this sort of thing.
Reform UK candidate runs diversity training courses which her party wants scrappedhttps://t.co/ykV7PXti9A
— Reform Party UK Exposed
Reform’s Ross will not advocate scrapping DEI
As reported by the Edinburgh Inquirer, Angela Ross isn’t just a regular diversity champion. Ross is the co-founder of a company that provides compliance training and DEI courses.
The company ran diversity training for Northumbria Police in 2020, and Ms Ross delivered a talk promoting National Inclusion Week in 2022, including a section on “unconscious bias” and how to identify protected characteristics.
Given this, do you think Ross actually wants DEI scrapping? Or do you think she knows what we know — i.e. that Reform is a Tory-style status quo party which will make far fewer changes than it threatens to because it relies on its supporters being mad all the time?
Make no mistake, Farage has said he plans to scrap DEI as BBC Radio 5 Live reported in May last year.
Nigel Farage says Reform would end promotion of diversity programmes in the workplace.
He says it’s costing the taxpayer £7bn.
What will actually happen is: Farage gets in power, he says he can’t scrap the Equality Act because of lefty judges, and then he dines on the outrage for as long as possible. Eventually — like with the Tories — voters will wise up to the fact that this stuff was mostly just window dressing.
Oh, and according to Byline Times, the real DEI bill is actually £27 million, not £7 billion.
Is it a problem that Reform can’t do maths? Maybe the real ‘equality’ they should be worried about is that of the numbers they’re adding together.
Difficulties
Of course, none of this is to say Reform won’t do actual, serious damage to the country nor is it saying they won’t make people’s lives miserable. While Reform is incredibly unlikely to deliver on the universal deportations many of their supporters desire, that doesn’t mean they won’t make the system as pointlessly cruel as possible.
DEI stuff will be harder for them because many Britons don’t like to think of themselves as racist, ableist or sexist. Should Reform actually try to abolish DEI, they’d have to explain which bits of the Equality Act need abolishing and why. When pressed on the matter, this is something they’ve struggled with.
So… Essentially, millionaire Zia Yusuf wants to ADD a section on economic inequality to the protections under the Equality Act?
Because he claims he doesn’t want to get rid of any other protected characteristics, just also make sure white working class men are protected?
OKhttps://t.co/AfB8ZS6dHP
— Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) February 18, 2026
In response to their diversity champion candidate being exposed, Reform said that Ross:
shares our view that many diversity, equity and inclusion programmes have gone too far, becoming bureaucratic, divisive and often ineffective. Having seen these initiatives from the inside, she is well placed to understand their shortcomings.
Reform UK’s position is clear: we support equality under the law and merit-based opportunity, but we oppose costly, box-ticking exercises that do not deliver real results.
Okay, so which bits are you planning to remove, lads? Can’t answer? It’s a very simple question and one which Reform is refusing to provide any detail on.
Local election section
In other local election news, another Reform politician has demonstrated an inability to understand numbers.
Reform Senedd candidate mocked for blasting 20mph speed limit while standing on a 50mph roadhttps://t.co/zJ99fZRSMp
— Reform Party UK Exposed
The party also has a politician who has decided they’re afraid to show their face online.
— Cllr Wayne Dixon (@Wayne_Dixon) April 27, 2026
The Canary’s coverage of Reform’s local election campaign includes the following stories:
- Reform UK now ‘rejecting’ Tory defectors following poll slump
- Reform candidates are making promises they can’t keep
- Reform activist said ‘Hitler was right’
- Reform candidate wants to ‘tear down’ the NHS
- Reform candidate exposed as a horny nincompoop
Featured image via Flickr/ European Parliament
By Willem Moore
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
MANILA — The International Criminal Court (ICC) has announced the constitution of Trial Chamber III to hear the case of former president Rodrigo Duterte on three counts of crimes against humanity.
In a decision dated April 24, the ICC Presidency assigned judges Joanna Korner, Keebong Paek, and Nicolas Guillou to form part of Trial Chamber III.
The judges are selected in consideration of the overall judicial workload of the Court, the workload and individual concerns of respective judges, their previous involvement in cases, experience and expertise.
The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I concluded that there are substantial grounds to believe that Duterte is responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder, committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019, while the country was a member of the Rome Statute.
“Duterte meant to engage in the charged conduct, and intended, or was aware that violent crimes including murder would be committed in the ordinary course of events as a result of the implementation of the Common Plan,” the decision read.
Read: It’s final: Rodrigo Duterte to face ICC trial for crimes against humanity
The judges
Judge Joanna Korner
British judge Korner has practiced criminal law for 45 years. She has served as a judge of the Crown Court of England since 2012, before she assumed full duty on September 1, 2021.
Judge Joanna Korner. Photo courtesy of ICC-CPI.
She was the presiding judge of the ICC case of Abd-Al-Rahman, who was guilty of 27 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur, Sudan, between August 2003 and April 2004.
She is also one of the judges of the ICC case of Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaissona, declaring them guilty of a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Bangui and the west of the Central African Republic between September 2023 and at least February 2014.
Judge Keebong Paek
South Korean judge Paek served as a public prosecutor for the Republic of Korea for 22 years. He was instrumental in drafting the implementation bill for Korea’s ratification of the Rome Statute.
Judge Keebong Paek. Photo courtesy of ICC – CPI.
He also worked for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to support member-states in implementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
He was part of Trial Chamber X that ordered the reparations for the victims in the ICC case of Al Hassan Ag Abdou Aziz, a member of the Islamic Police in Mali, guilty of three counts of crimes against humanity and five counts of war crimes.
He also took part as a judge in deciding the case of Yekatom and Ngaissona with Korner.
Judge Nicolas Guillou
French judge Guillou held several high positions in the French Ministry of Justice.
He also worked as the chef de cabinet (head of office) to the president of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon from 2015 to 2019, and as liaison prosecutor at the US Department of Justice from 2012 to 2015.
Judge Nicolas Guillou. Photo courtesy of ICC-CPI.
He is the presiding judge of Pre-Trial Chamber I in the ICC case of Palestine, issuing arrest warrants for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant bear criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts, as well as the war crime of starvation committed in Gaza.
It also ruled that both individuals bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.
He is the judge with the most number of cases in various ICC Trial Chambers.
Moving forward
The Trial Chamber with the current set of judges will hold status conferences with the prosecutor, victims’ representatives, and Duterte’s counsel to set the date of the commencement of the trial and adopt the procedures necessary to facilitate the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings.
ICC Assistant to Counsel Kristina Conti said that this process may take weeks or months since the physical and virtual documents will also be transferred.
“The work of lawyers and the victims’ families is to register more participating victims,” Conti said. “But this will be challenging because first, we do not have access to all their contacts, and second, this entails a heavy toll for them. The influence of Duterte remains. Their relentless intimidation to the victims online and offline is a consideration for the victims to surface.”
Read: As ICC confirms charges vs Duterte, women kin amplify call for justice
Duterte will be on trial for three counts of murder and attempted murder.
The first count refers to the killings during his time as mayor of Davao City. The second count refers to the “high-value targets” across the Philippines during his term as president. The third count refers to those killed in barangay clearance operations across the country.
Out of the more than 30,000 victims documented by human rights groups, only five cases resulted in court convictions, according to Amnesty International 2026 state of human rights report.
“We know that the lives of our loved ones can never be brought back but let this serve as a reminder to the Philippines and international community that no leader, no matter how powerful, has the right to commit such crimes and repeatedly violate our rights,” Jane Lee, wife of drug war victim Michael Lee, said in Filipino. (AMU, JDS)
The post ICC constitutes Trial Chamber on Duterte crimes against humanity appeared first on Bulatlat.
From Bulatlat via This RSS Feed.
The US Senate on Tuesday defeated a Democrat-led bid to stop President Donald Trump from following through on his threat to wage war on Cuba, whose long-suffering people are reeling from the American administration's tightened economic stranglehold.
Upper chamber lawmakers voted 51-47 on a procedural motion to block further debate Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) SJ Res. 124, "a joint resolution to direct the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against the republic of Cuba that have not been authorized by Congress."
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted to advance the resolution, while John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joined his GOP colleagues in voting to sink the measure.
The vote effectively sidelines the measure, one of many failed attempts to curb Trump's ability to wage war on countries including Iran and Venezuela, as well as rein in his high seas boat bombing spree.
“The American people are not asking for another war," Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—one of SJ Res. 124's dozen co-sponsors—said following Tuesday's vote. "They want us focused on building housing in Arizona, not bombing housing in Havana. They want us to lower the cost of healthcare not condemn a generation of veterans to a lifetime of hospital visits. They want us to make their lives more affordable, not spend their tax dollars on unnecessary wars."
Kaine called the GOP move "purely a regime change effort."
"Why do they want it? You'll have to ask them," he added. "What we're doing with respect to Cuba, if somebody was doing it to us, we would consider it an act of war. But because they don't pose a security threat to the United States, it's clearly an effort to change the regime."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who also co-sponsored the resolution, said, "The last thing working Americans need right now is another war—let alone one that’s 90 miles south of the US."
Resolution co-sponsor Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) said on Bluesky after the vote, "A conflict with Cuba would cost hardworking Americans billions of dollars, deepen the humanitarian crisis in Cuba, and put American service members in harm’s way."
"The Constitution is clear: Only Congress has the authority to declare war," Alsobrooks added.
Trump has attacked seven countries since returning to office and 10 since the start of his first term—more than any other president.
The situation in Cuba is dire, as a result of both the 65-year US economic chokehold on the island and mismanaged central planning by its socialist rulers.
Trump has been ramping up military threats and economic pressure on Cuba, whose people were already suffering from generations of US sanctions. His administration's tightened embargo has severely restricted fuel imports, worsening an energy emergency in which blackouts have become the norm, threatening the lives of vulnerable Cubans—especially sick people and children.
The US president said that “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished" with the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran that’s killed thousands of people, including hundreds of children. Trump has also said that he believes he’ll “be having the honor of taking Cuba."
The United States already took Cuba once, during an 1898 war waged against Spain under highly dubious pretenses that ended with the US also acquiring Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam—with Hawaii also annexed that year under the guise of security.
American presidents have been trying to force out Cuba's socialist government since shortly after the revolution that overthrew a US-backed dictatorship in 1959. US efforts have included carrying out or backing an armed invasion, terrorist attacks, assassination attempts, and other acts of aggression.
Cuba commits no such acts against the United States or anyone else, yet Trump added the country to the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
Following Tuesday's vote, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "Trump should learn the law of holes: If you find yourself in one, stop digging."
"Instead of threatening that ‘Cuba is next,’ President Trump should remove his blockade against Cuba, which has devastated Havana’s economy and healthcare system, and has created a deepening humanitarian crisis," Markey added.
The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the blockade 33 times since 1992.
“With its catastrophic Iran war of choice, the Trump administration has lost all credibility on issues of war and peace," Markey asserted. "The American people do not want yet another endless war that will only costs more lives and more taxpayer dollars, and undermine US security.”
Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler warned Tuesday that "Trump is preparing military action against Cuba," calling the Senate vote possibly "the last chance for US Congress to stop it."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
Pravda News!
