Protest held outside BBC HQ over Gaza documentary
A protest has been held outside BBC headquarters after it emerged that a documentary on Gaza featured the son of a senior Hamas figure.
Demonstrators chanted, waved flags and listened to speeches from figures including actress Dame Maureen Lipman outside Broadcasting House in central London.
'We are gathering to tell the BBC: We refuse to fund terrorists with our licence fee,' organiser Campaign Against Antisemitism posted on X.
'Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen the BBC engulfed in scandal, following the broadcast of its so-called documentary… which was tantamount to a Hamas propaganda film.'
Now, we are hearing from actress and columnist Dame Maureen Lipman, who asks: 'Where is the balance?'
'As always, all I ask for is a level playing field.' pic.twitter.com/0CYXlnSmgv
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) March 6, 2025
'Where is the balance?' Dame Maureen told the crowd. 'As always, all I ask for is a level playing field.'
One placard at the protest read: 'BBC, I refuse to fund terrorists.'
Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone was removed from BBC iPlayer after it emerged that the child narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture.
The broadcaster has apologised for the making of the programme, about children living in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war, after conducting an initial review and it has now launched a further internal probe.
The BBC said it is 'seeking additional assurance' from production company Hoyo Films after it admitted 'they paid the boy's mother, via his sister's bank account, a limited sum of money for the narration'.
Other accusations have been made that parts of the documentary were mistranslated, and more children who appeared in it were linked to proscribed terrorist organisation Hamas.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy accused the BBC of failing to show enough urgency in its review of the documentary.
But presenters Gary Lineker and Anita Rani, and actors Riz Ahmed and Miriam Margolyes, are among more than 500 media figures who condemned the withdrawal from iPlayer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US criticises UK decision to sanction two Israeli ministers
The US has condemned the UK's decision to sanction two Israeli ministers over 'egregious abuses' of human rights in Gaza. Donald Trump's secretary of state Marco Rubio said that the travel ban and asset freeze imposed on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire' and called for the measures to be reversed. The UK is taking the action alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway. Mr Rubio said that the US 'stands shoulder-to-shoulder' with Israel. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said on Tuesday that the ministers had been 'inciting violence against Palestinian people for months and months and months, they have been encouraging egregious abuses of human rights'. In a post on X, Mr Rubio said that the 'United States condemns the sanctions imposed by the governments of United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, New Zealand, and Australia on two sitting members of the Israeli cabinet. These sanctions do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war.' The United States condemns the sanctions imposed by the governments of United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, New Zealand, and Australia on two sitting members of the Israeli cabinet. These sanctions do not advance U.S.-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and… — Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) June 10, 2025 He went on to say that America reminds 'our partners not to forget who the real enemy is'. 'The United States urges the reversal of the sanctions and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.' The sanctions against Israel's security and finance ministers were announced on Tuesday. Mr Smotrich and Mr Ben-Gvir both belong to right-wing parties which help to prop up Benjamin Netanyahu's fragile coalition government, and both have been criticised for their hardline stance on Gaza. Mr Smotrich has campaigned against allowing aid into Gaza, and also supported the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law. Meanwhile, Mr Ben-Gvir has called for Gaza's people to be resettled from the territory. In a joint statement with the foreign ministers of the other nations who also imposed sanctions, Mr Lammy said that the two sanctioned ministers had incited 'serious abuses of Palestinian human rights' and described their actions as 'not acceptable'. The statement added: 'We will strive to achieve an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the immediate release of the remaining hostages by Hamas which can have no future role in the governance of Gaza, a surge in aid and a path to a two-state solution.' Downing Street said that the two men had been sanctioned in their 'personal capacities' and not 'their ministries and departments'. 'As the Israeli ambassador to the UK has said in recent interviews, their statements in their ministerial capacities do not even represent government policy,' a Number 10 spokesman said. The UK and other allies have upped pressure on Israel in recent weeks, amid aid shortages in Gaza and suggestions a large-scale offensive could be launched into the territory. It has been reported that only scarce amounts of aid is making it into the hands of people, and the slow flow of food and medicines has prompted warnings of famine and starvation.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Funeral row causes chaos for mourners of Zambia's ex-president
Arranging a funeral can be testing at the best of times - let alone for a former head of state. Amid that intense, initial stage of grief, loved ones must juggle cost, the wishes of the deceased and numerous other factors in order to throw a fitting send-off. Add the clashing desires of a national government and its political opponents into the mix, and things become doubly complicated. Edgar Lungu, who led Zambia from 2015 to 2021, died last Thursday. His death at the age of 68 has shocked Zambians - and there is genuine sense of grief with all radio stations playing gospel music for the man who had remained influential in Zambian politics despite being barred from contesting last year's election. Zambia is officially a Christian country - and most people take their religion and periods of mourning seriously. But a standoff between his family, the government and Lungu's political party, the Patriotic Front (PF), has left mourners confused about how exactly the former president should be honoured. The government announced there would be a state funeral and declared that the official venue for mourning would be a lodge it owns in the capital, Lusaka, but the PF dismissed this plan, directing mourners to its headquarters instead. As for Lungu's family, they have said they are not opposed to a state funeral, but have insisted on choosing who will preside over it, family lawyer Makebi Zulu has told the BBC. Then there is the official book of condolence, in which mourners can pay tributes to Lungu. The government has set up an official book - at the lodge - but the PF has urged people to sign theirs instead - at their headquarters. The government wanted to repatriate his body from South Africa last week - Lungu died there after receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness. However, the PF and Lungu's family intervened, wanting to organise the safe passage of the ex-leader themselves. "The state was saying, 'We are giving him full military honours, therefore we're taking over from here' - as if to say that 'you have no say over what happens,'" Mr Zulu said. Plans for returning Lungu's remains are still unclear, though the family are now engaging with the government on this issue. There has also been confusion over the "official" mourning period when all forms of entertainment like big football matches and concerts are stopped. The government declared a seven-day national mourning period starting last Saturday, even though the PF announced one days earlier. This chaos is, in short, a continuation of the tumultuous relationship between Lungu and his successor, President Hakainde Hichilema. The pair are long-time rivals - in 2017, when Lungu was president, he had Hichilema locked up for over 100 days on treason charges after Hichilema's motorcade allegedly refused to give way for him. It took the intervention of the Commonwealth for Hichilema to be released. Four years later, and after five attempts at the presidency, Hichilema defeated Lungu. Now, the PF and the Lungu family's lawyer are accusing Hichilema's government of being partly responsible for the former president's death. Lungu returned to frontline politics in 2023, frequently accusing Hichilema's government of victimising him and other PF members. Now, after Lungu's death, his party allege that Lungu was banned from leaving the country for years and that if he had been allowed to travel to seek medical treatment sooner, he might still be alive. The government has vehemently denied any responsibility for Lungu's death, with spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa insisting that the ex-president was never prohibited from travelling. Mr Mweetwa told the BBC that the PF was trying to use Lungu's death as a "springboard" for a "political comeback". It is not the first time conflict has broken out following a Zambian leader's death. In 2021, the family of Kenneth Kaunda, the country's first post-independence president, said he wanted to be laid to rest next to his wife and not at the site designated by the government. Despite this, the government went ahead and buried Kaunda at Embassy Memorial Park in Lusaka. "The High Court ruled that national interest takes precedence over individual or family preferences because there is a designated burial place for former presidents, and there is a designated set of protocol to handle those proceedings that are conducted by the state, not a political party," Mr Mweetwa said. This argument - about the state's rights to a dead president's body - has played out numerous times across Africa. In 2019, Robert Mugabe died almost two years after being unseated as Zimbabwe's president by his former right-hand man, Emmerson Mnangagwa. Mugabe's family refused to allow him to be buried at the national Heroes' Acre, arguing that he had been betrayed by his former colleagues. After a bitter feud, the man who had led Zimbabwe to independence was laid to rest after his state funeral in his home village. But a legal row rumbles on over his burial site, with some still wanting him to be interred at Heroes' Acre, where a mausoleum has now been completed for him. And loved ones rarely won such disputes. The relatives of Angola's José Eduardo dos Santos and various Ghanaian presidents have clashed with the government over post-death arrangements, but all eventually had to yield to the state. In Lungu's case, the government has the constitution - the supreme law of the land - behind it, but the PF has significant clout as the former leader's long-time political home. In an attempt to break the standoff, the government has sent envoys to South Africa to negotiate with Lungu's family, where a private memorial service was held at Pretoria's Sacred Heart Cathedral on Tuesday - organised by the PF. This was attended by his widow and daughter and where it was announced to the congregation that the former president's body would not be flown home on Wednesday as had been expected. So for those in Zambia, there is still no clear direction on how to send off the nation's sixth president. 'My son is a drug addict, please help' - the actor breaking a Zambian taboo An ancient writing system confounding myths about Africa Zambia president orders ministers to stop sleeping in cabinet Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Africa Daily Focus on Africa
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hobbs vetoes antisemitism bill, says it's an attack on teachers
Image via Getty Images Arizona's Democratic governor has vetoed a GOP-backed bill that would ban the teaching of antisemitism in public schools and universities — and allow teachers to be personally sued for alleged violations. Critics claimed the proposal would put public school teachers, and comprehensive teaching about the Holocaust, at risk. House Bill 2867 sought to ban Arizona's public K-12 teachers and university professors from teaching antisemitism in their classrooms, and make it illegal for schools to provide antisemitic professional development. But combating antisemitism was just a smokescreen, Gov. Katie Hobbs wrote in her veto letter. 'Unfortunately, this bill is not about antisemitism; it's about attacking our teachers,' Hobbs wrote. 'It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Sponsored by Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, the bill would have allowed students or their parents to bring civil lawsuits against teachers who they claim violated the law. It would have required teachers to be held personally liable for damages, exempting antisemitism from laws that generally shield teachers from being sued for what they teach in the classroom. A handful of Democratic legislators also voted to pass HB2867, including sisters Alma and Consuelo Hernandez, who are both Jewish and have a history of support for Israel and advocacy for expanding laws to combat antisemitism. The bill's creation was spurred by increased antisemitism that occurred across the country and in Arizona after Hamas's brutal Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel that left more than 1,200 dead and 240 kidnapped, and Israel's violent and ongoing response to it. 'If you're pretending that this (antisemitism in schools) does not happen, shame on you, because it does and it's problematic,' Alma Hernandez said before the final vote in the House of Representatives on June 4. '…it is not your right to tell us what is offensive and what isn't antisemitism.' Lori Shepherd, the executive director of the Tucson Jewish Museum and Holocaust Center, asked Hobbs to veto the bill to ensure that teachers can continue with comprehensive lessons about the Holocaust and its aftermath. 'Teaching the Holocaust is not simple,' Shepherd wrote in a June 6 letter to Hobbs. 'It requires confronting moral ambiguity, exploring the roots of hatred, and examining how propaganda, nationalism, and apathy paved the way to genocide. It also invites students to ask tough questions about the legacy of the Holocaust today—questions that often touch on the history of Zionism, the founding of the State of Israel, and the persistence of global antisemitism.' During a Feb. 18 House Education Committee hearing, Republican Rep. Matt Gress, of Phoenix, said he didn't interpret HB2867 as possibly interfering with education about the Holocaust. 'Hate should not be existing inside of our schools,' Gress said. 'And I think this bill moves in that direction.' The definition of antisemitism used in the bill is a controversial one created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that includes 'claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour' as an example of antisemitism. Even Ken Stern, who helped to draft the definition 20 years ago when he was the American Jewish Committee's antisemitism expert, now advocates against its use in legal matters, arguing that it has been used as 'a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite.' When Sen. Mitzi Epstein of Tempe, whose husband is Jewish, proposed an amendment to the bill to ban the teaching of various other types of discrimination, remove personal civil liability for teachers and apply the law to both public and private schools, it was voted down along party lines. Hobbs wrote in her veto letter that parents and students can already report allegations of unprofessional conduct from teachers to the State Board of Education. 'I am confident that by using those tools, we can fulfill our moral and legal responsibility to eradicate hate and discrimination in our public school system,' she wrote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
