Pride organisers reject anti-Semitism training
Pride's refusal to accept the training for its staff prompted fears among Jewish gay, lesbian and trans people that they would be targeted by pro-Palestine activists on Saturday over Israel's role in the Gaza conflict.
This is the second year running that Jewish LGBT groups have turned their backs on the Pride celebrations, which have been running in London for more than half a century.
Fears for the safety of Jewish gay, lesbian and trans participants follow repeated pro-Palestine demonstrations throughout the country since Oct 7, at which allegedly anti-Semitic banners and placards have been displayed.
The Jewish LGBT charity KeshetUK had offered to hold training for Pride stewards to raise awareness about potentially anti-Semitic behaviour.
A source told The Telegraph: 'The charity's requests for anti-Semitism training for Pride stewards were rejected, despite the training being offered free of charge and in the context of rising tensions and security threats against Jewish communities.
'Many Jewish LGBTQ+ people report feeling increasingly unwelcome in queer spaces since the October 7th terrorist attack in Israel.'
A number of LGBT venues and festivals have stated publicly that Zionists are not welcome since Israel launched its military response to the Oct 7 massacres by Hamas.
Jewish groups say that effectively excludes most Jewish queer people, as recent polling by Campaign Against Antisemitism shows 80 per cent of British Jews identify as Zionists, defined as supporting Jewish self-determination in Israel.
As a result of the boycott of the official London Pride celebrations, Jewish LGBT groups are hosting their own events this weekend.
The Hineni Project stepped in to organise a Jewish Pride Street Party in Soho's Broadwick Street on Saturday afternoon, saying it wanted to 'provide a safe space for LGBTQ+ Jews and their allies to celebrate Pride while feeling secure to express themselves as LGBTQ+, Jewish, and proud Zionists'.
A spokesman for The Hineni Project said: 'As Jewish groups are once again excluded from the main Pride parade, we are creating a space where LGBTQ+ Jews and allies can celebrate who we are safely and proudly. This isn't just about visibility – it's about our right to belong.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
Keir Starmer's Labour as chaotic as Tories, voters say
M inutes after Rishi Sunak stood in the pouring rain outside Downing Street in May last year and announced a general election, Sir Keir Starmer urged the public to vote Labour to 'stop the chaos'. Less than 14 months later, and a year after winning a landslide victory, the vast majority of the public (72 per cent) think his government is at least as chaotic as the previous Conservative one. This includes more than a third (37 per cent) who think it is more chaotic. The damning indictment for the administration, which was supposed to see 'no drama Starmer' put the grown-ups back in charge, caps off a terrible anniversary week for the prime minister. And things, according to an exclusive Sunday Times poll by the think tank More in Common, seem likely to get only worse.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: So, Chancellor, why is it so wrong to stand by a solemn election pledge?
Are Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves actually secretly pleased to have been publicly humiliated by their own backbenchers? A cynic might conclude this was so. Once upon a time, a Premier and a Chancellor whose most vital economic plans were brutally, publicly destroyed by their own MPs would have at least considered resignation. It seems that nowadays it is more than their jobs are worth to resign. They propose to carry on in their well-paid posts, and to be driven about with their red boxes in Government cars, even though they no longer have the confidence of their party and cannot get their most crucial plans through Parliament. It was surely Sir Keir who ought to have been weeping on Wednesday. But no. A very odd thing has happened. Government ministers have been liberated from their own manifesto pledges by their own startling incompetence. By losing the battle to cut welfare payments, they have now been released from all their previous promises about tax. In fact, they are pretty much compelled to increase tax, something which they probably always wanted to do anyway, but had to promise not to do to get elected. Asked by the pro-Labour Guardian newspaper whether she was prepared to rule out tax rises in the autumn, Ms Reeves replied: 'I'm not going to because it would be irresponsible for a Chancellor to do that.' If this was not so bitter, and if the price to be paid was not so high, it would be funny. Suddenly it has become 'irresponsible' to stand by a solemn, undoubted promise, made in letters of fire in the Labour manifesto a year ago. There it was, on page 19: 'Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.' Now, they will have to break at least part of this promise, or they will not be able to find the huge sums they will need to balance the national books. Having pretended to be hampered by a fictional black hole left by the Tories, Ms Reeves has now been presented with a real black hole, very wide and deep, by the Parliamentary Labour Party. This was bound to happen. Those who nowadays obtain nomination as Labour candidates are pretty unlikely to be moderates. But it has taken place surprisingly early in the life of the Starmer Government, because that Government is so badly run. The Labour leadership is simultaneously afraid of Nigel Farage and the voters he threatens to take away, and of Jeremy Corbyn and the voters – and activists – his new movement may seduce. What a terrible pity it is that the Opposition is currently so weak, and that so many voters were sweet-talked into complacency about the possibility of a Starmer administration a year ago. Even so, this is what has happened. The price must now be paid, probably in ways which will damage the economy as much as Ms Reeves's foolish increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. This new mess cannot be avoided. But we do not need any more of this. This week should be the turning point, when the voters decide that they made a mistake by choosing this Government and we start the long march towards replacing it with a competent, responsible administration.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Judges grant two out of three people taxpayer-funded benefits after their claims are refused by the Government
JUDGES grant two out of three people taxpayer-funded benefits after their claims are refused by the Government, The Sun on Sunday can reveal. In astonishing figures seen by this paper, 69 per cent of cases win the award on appeal after taking their case to a tribunal panel. Last night a Government source said: 'This is a staggering success rate because in many of the cases the judges see the same evidence the original Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) officer saw when they refused the application. 'It clearly shows that the whole system is becoming a joke.' More than one half of all applicants applying for state benefits are successful. Out of 721,100 Personal Independence Payments (PIP) claims processed during the period of 2023/24, 332,800 were declined - making the rejection rate 46 per cent. Claimants are able to appeal in two stages. One in five people win an award by simply asking the DWP to change its mind by way of a 'mandatory reconsideration' of their application. If this fails they are then allowed to appeal to a tribunal where two out of three people are successful at overturning the DWP's decision. The tribunals are headed up by lawyers and consist usually of a legally qualified judge who chairs the panel, a medical member and a disability member who has experience with related issues. The latest full financial year data published by the DWP shows that in 2023/24 there were 46,803 PIP appeals cleared at tribunal hearings. Of these, 32,222 - 69 per cent - were decided in favour of the applicant. Moment Starmer TRIPS as he leaves Downing Street amid welfare fiasco In 2007 Sir Ernest Ryder, former senior president of tribunals, said that the quality of evidence provided by the DWP is so poor it would be 'wholly inadmissible' in any other court. In an extraordinary outburst he called the department 'incompetent'. And said he and his fellow judges were so incensed by the volume of cases where there was 'no justifiable defence to the appeal' that they were considering sending them back – or charging the DWP for the cases it loses. It comes after Sir Keir Starmer's attempts to win over welfare bill rebels fell flat this week after Labour MPs opposed any attempt to bring it under control. Under the Government's original proposals, daily living assessments were to be tightened for millions with physical or mental health conditions who claim PIP. But ministers were forced to dilute the proposals - applying stricter PIP eligibility rules only to new claimants rather than those receiving the benefit - after 126 Labour MPs threatened to vote them down. Originally, the measures were due to save £4.8billion, then that figure dwindled to £2.5billion. But now any changes will affect only new claimants and only kick in after welfare minister Sir Stephen Timms has concluded a review with disability groups. Sir Keir had promised to stand firm over PIP changes, but caved in after days of protests. Rebel ringleader Rachael Maskell - whose bid to reject the entire package was defeated by 328 votes to 149 - said: "The whole bill is now unravelling and is a complete farce." Jon Sparkes, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, insisted: "Disabled people should not have to pay to fix black holes in the public finances." Proposals to cut the health element of Universal Credit by almost 50 per cent for most new claimants from April next year remain in place. Plans for an above inflation increase in the benefit's standard allowance also stand. 1
