Right-wing and anti-war protestors clash over Gaza aid trucks
We travelled there to find protesters attempting to stop them while counter protesters, anti-Netanyahu and anti-war activists tried to help them get through.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Reform has to distance itself from extremists
According to the National – a worrying phrase, I admit, given the Scottish newspaper's obsessive adulation of anyone pro-Scottish independence and its obsessive hostility to anyone who opposes it – this weekend saw a Scottish Reform councillor share a platform with a member of a far-right group at a protest outside a Falkirk hotel housing asylum seekers. What is most interesting about this story is not the protest itself, or even the Reform councillor's presence. It is the response of Reform to one of its councillors sharing a platform with this person and saying or doing nothing about it. Despite the widespread labelling of anyone who believes that our borders should be controlled as far right, and despite the usual bias of the National, the facts it has reported seem clear. At the protest, Claire Mackie-Brown shared a platform with one Richard McFarlane, a member of Patriotic Alternative, which describes itself as a 'ethno-nationalist organisation that campaigns for the rights and wellbeing of White Britons.' Last year, the government's anti-extremism advisor described Patriotic Alternative as 'a racist and anti-Semitic far-right group founded in 2019 by former BNP youth leader Mark Collett.' Cllr Mackie-Brown can be forgiven if she had no idea who McFarlane was when he began to speak. But once he did, no one could have been in any doubt about his views. In his seven-minute speech he asserted that, 'we need to give them the fingers, and say we are white, we are British, we are proud'. He concluded: 'Keep Britain white, keep Britain British.' According to the protest organiser, neither the Reform councillor nor the Patriotic Alternative member were invited to speak: 'The microphone was open to anyone who wished to share their personal concerns or experiences. No speakers were formally invited or endorsed by the organisers it was a platform for local people. If individuals with affiliations to political groups or outside organisations chose to speak, that was entirely their choice and not something we had pre-arranged or promoted.' That's fair enough, and in those circumstances it's easy to see how a local residents' protest was overrun by the far-right. But that is far from being a one-off. One of the recurring themes of these protests up and down the country is how they attract the far-right. Which makes it all the more obvious, and all the more important, that mainstream politicians from mainstream parties should have a serious and convincing response when the far-right are present. At the very least, that needs to involve denouncing the racism and the white nationalism of extremists. Otherwise, it becomes easy to label all the protests as being far-right, and to label representatives of parties such as Reform which stand alongside them as being part of the far-right. As far as one can tell from reports, which have not been contradicted, that did not happen this weekend in Falkirk. Cllr Mackie-Brown appears to have said nothing in response. But while Cllr Mackie-Brown may have been out of her depth and blindsided by what she heard, one might expect that Reform itself would have a ready-made response to such issues. And it has: but the response is useless. Reform told the National: 'Councillor Claire Brown was there to represent Reform and her concerned constituents, she is not responsible for the other people attending and will continue to stand up for residents on this extremely important issue.' Of course she isn't responsible for the other speakers. No one has suggested she is. But as a representative of Reform, she – and anyone else in a similar situation – has to react. You can't simply pretend you are in a bubble, removed from scene, when someone you are standing with is ranting 'Keep Britain white.' It's a similar point to what has been happening on the 'Free Palestine' hate marches. The argument is made that the majority present are ordinary, decent people simply concerned about the deaths in Gaza. They may indeed be. But if you turn up at a march to discover that a proportion of your fellow marchers are Jew haters, chanting anti-Semitic slogans and waving anti-Semitic banners, then you have a choice. You can leave, distancing yourself. Or – as has been happening – you can continue on the march and, even worse, come back the following week, again saying and doing nothing to condemn the hate around you. And in doing so you not only remove any claim to decency, you become part of the problem. Reform has the same choice to make. Does it pretend that it is not part of the same protest when the far-right arrives? Or does it denounce and condemn racists for leaching onto a legitimate protest by ordinary and decent local residents? This will be a recurring theme for Reform as its elected officials and members – entirely legitimately – attend protests outside asylum hotels and are joined by far-right agitators. Unless Reform finds a way to properly distance itself from them, it will be tarred with their brush.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Zarah Sultana reveals a faultline in YourParty
Photo by Kevin Hayes/Alamy Live News Six years ago, Jeremy Corbyn's failure to deal with accusations of anti-Semitism within the Labour party helped to fell his leadership. His response to the 2020 Equality and Human Rights Commission report into how the party dealt with these charges was deemed so inadequate by Keir Starmer that he exiled Corbyn from the party. To Zarah Sultana, the Independent (but former Labour) MP who is now co-founding a new left-wing party alongside Corbyn, the former Labour leader's response was too soft. Corbynism 'capitulated to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism,' she told the New Left Review (in a wide-ranging interview with New Statesman contributor, Oliver Eagleton). When Corbyn's Labour 'came under attack from the state and the media, it should have fought back,' Sultana said, 'this was a serious mistake'. In a post on X, responding to coverage of her comments, Sultana doubled down: 'I say it loudly and proudly: I'm an anti-Zionist.' Sultana's comments in the NLR, revealing her explicit criticism of Corbynism's dealings with anti-Semitism expose a crucial fault line in the development of YourParty. Many of Corbyn's allies see accusations of anti-Semitism as responsible for the destruction of his project for Labour. In describing his actions as 'capitulation', Sultana risks transferring these accusations to YourParty; and considering the historic weight of this criticism, it is a problem which YourParty – currently in its infancy – may find difficult to counter. The outspokenness of his co-founder is already seen by some around Corbyn as a fatal flaw. Briefings against Sultana by others close to the process have accused the MP for Coventry South of 'jumping the gun' with her shock announcement or have criticised her lack of experience. Concerns have also been raised over Sultana's refusal to engage with 'legacy media' (the only interviews she has done so far regarding the new party have been with Novara Media and NLR) and her disparagement of the 'media class' who she claims, 'tried to destroy Jeremy's reputation and the politics he represents'. But Sultana does not seem fazed by her detractors – in fact, she sounds galvanized. 'People who are supposedly on the left thinking it's appropriate to use the Murdoch press to broadcast smears is astounding,' she told the NLR. 'You cannot give these people an inch,' she said. For now, YourParty remains in an 'embryonic stage' with an impressive 700,000 sign-ups online in recent weeks. But without proper infrastructure, leadership, or direction it is also clearly at its most vulnerable. Sultana has explicitly outlined the direction she believes her new party must take on accusations of anti-Semitism: one which is less willing to relent to outside pressure. But will the grandees involved in the creation of YourParty – many of whom lived through the painful and protracted final moments of Corbyn's Labour – be prepared to listen? Or will Sultana's blatant call for a new, more stubborn direction on matters of principle only serve to make the grumbling rift in the burgeoning leadership of YourParty even deeper? Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
We voted for and against the ban on Palestine Action. Now we have a plan to end this mess
Is terrorism really a vicar with a peaceful placard? As parliamentarians who are passionate about democracy and civil liberties, we know that both are under threat. A growing number of organisations encourage violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims. MPs are besieged with threats, advised not to hold in-person surgeries and are grieving still for two colleagues killed in the past 10 years. Anti-migrant protests and threats are encouraged by the far right to take place across the country. Yet attempts to address all this are increasingly destabilising public confidence in politics, emboldening those who fan the flames of hatred by claiming a 'two-tier' response. Without change, the danger that someone will get hurt – or killed again – will only grow. Driven by both homegrown and overseas extremism, and social media algorithms, there is a growing trend for direct action to end in physical harm or destruction in order to get noticed. Proscription is the primary tool open to governments to put a hard stop to this, but with nearly 100 organisations and hundreds more Britons now labelled 'terrorists' in recent weeks, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain parity between the organisations proscribed within the public mind. For any law to be effective, it has to be workable and legitimate. For it to defend democracy, it must also not be designed – or be seen to be designed – to spare ministers the difficulties of dealing with dissent. Proscription puts the person peacefully expressing opposition into the same category as the person planting a bomb or shooting a bullet. We came down on different sides in last month's vote on whether to proscribe Palestine Action, and neither of us have ever supported the group. But we both agree what is happening now neither protects protest nor makes protest policeable. We have three shared convictions. First, no one – including elected politicians and the police – should face violent threats or intimidation for doing the job that we ask of them, even if we disagree with how they do it. Second, everyone should be able to protest and engage in non-violent disruption without being lumped in with Islamic State, al-Qaida or the IRA. Third, legislation to uphold our civil rights and to stop intimidation should be cause-blind: protecting those whom we wish to beat at the ballot box by enabling all citizens to be heard and parliamentarians to do our jobs. How, then, should the government respond? First and foremost with common sense. Urgent police guidance should be issued to head off the car crash that proscription enforcement is rapidly becoming, by setting out a test of proportionality for any interventions. Proscribing the original Palestine Action group was said to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after people with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty – some who may or may not even support Palestine Action but feel strongly about Palestinian rights – confuses rather than clarifies the government's intention. People must be able to protest about the horror in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not in Parliament Square. The government should be much more transparent about how it is upholding our constitutional rights. There is no free speech if one half of a political debate lives in fear of being targeted for disagreeing. We need mechanisms to stop those who use violence, threaten migrants or hound women instead of raising their voices to achieve their goals. Lord David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, argued that proscription should always be a time-limited process – and we agree. It should also be targeted at real terrorists whose explicit intention is to kill innocent civilians. No democratic state should make arbitrary decisions and must actively seek the consent of citizens. As it stands, how proscription is achieved – short parliamentary debates in both Houses and, in the case of Palestine Action, bracketing the organisation along with two far-right groups in a single vote – fails this test. To have the ability to proscribe a group as 'terrorists', ministers and government must do much more to show the public how and why that is the case. We must also address the glaring inconsistencies and real gaps in law these cases reveal. Legislation on public order focuses on specific practices; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits between this to recognise when organisations themselves encourage members repeatedly and deliberately to escalate intimidation in pursuit of their aim. Extreme groups create a climate of violence, leaving refugees waiting to be firebombed, Jewish citizens attacked, black and Muslim citizens living in fear, and women increasingly vilified. Getting the balance right means abolishing offences such as 'recklessly encouraging support' of a proscribed group and focusing instead on those who organise this criminality. Setting out how and when behaviour threatens our democracy – as distinct from criticising state policies – would also better maintain the integrity of the seriousness of terrorism charges. Stopping organisations that are not simply accidentally violent, but intentionally so, means a new offence is needed, distinct from the battery of existing criminal ones. This would recognise how groups that encourage violence and intimidation go beyond existing public order offences, disentangling non-violent direct action from violence or attacks on property and terrorism. The alternative – accepting that harm to individuals is an inevitable risk of protest because people feel strongly about something – is not tenable. Terrorism is different from terrifying opponents, but both are or should be criminal offences. The failure to make that distinction is both increasingly infecting the policing of protest and undermining the legitimate right to protest. Anyone who thinks this situation is simple – either an egregiously authoritarian power-grab from the government or a sincere intention to block violent thuggery – isn't paying attention. The status quo has come to mean equating peaceful witness with terrorism, and isn't sustainable. But neither is pretending there isn't a problem that threatens our ability to debate, disagree and ultimately decide in our democracy. Without action, it will be those with the loudest voices and the most lethal actors who win. Stella Creasy is the Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow. Peter Hain was the Labour MP for Neath from 1991 to 2015 and now sits in the House of Lords
