THOUSANDS of people took to the streets of London over the weekend in a counter-demonstration against far-right supporters of Tommy Robinson.
The protest on Saturday demanding the release of Mr Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, heard Islamophobic chants such as “F*** your Islam” and “Allah, Allah, who the f*** is Allah.”
One speaker at the far-right demo said: “Round them up and kick them out,” and “Start the deportation programme for those who refuse to assimilate.”
It attracted an estimated 5,000 marchers, far smaller than the 25,000 at the last national march called by Mr Robinson in October.
In contrast, the counter-protest by Stand Up to Racism (SUTR), also about 5,000-strong and largely attended by young people, heard calls for unity from community leaders, campaigners and trade union representatives.
David Rosenberg of the Jewish Socialists Group spoke at the opening rally at St James’s Street, saying that anti-racists “have a job to do, not just to defend [minorities]” but to “expose the Robinsons and the [Reform UK leader Nigel] Farages to their own supporters as the self-centred grifters and exploiters they are.
“We won’t achieve that by simply saying racism is bad or screaming ‘Nazi,’ but by showing how racism ruins and destroys lives, how fascism exploits everyone for the benefit of an elite,” he said. …
Protestors blockade an airport entrance to protest over plans to double private jet flights.
Residents and climate activists have blocked access to Farnborough Airport this morning (February 2) to protest against the proposed expansion of the airport which will almost double the number of private jet flights to 70,000 a year.
Scores of campaigners from Extinction Rebellion, Farnborough Noise campaign group, Blackwater Valley Friends of the Earth and Alton Climate Action Network joined local councillors and residents, to voice their opposition to the plans, which they say blatantly ignore the climate crisis.
The protest follows a consultation period on Farnborough Airport’s expansion plans which ended in October 2024 drawing fierce opposition from local residents and environmental campaigners.
The proposals include doubling the airport’s annual weekend flight limit from 8,900 to 18,900 flights and upping its annual flight limit from 50,000 to 70,000 flights.
The Department for Work and Pensions’ offices in central London. The review will look in part at why the DWP allowed carers to unknowingly accrue overpayments of thousands of pounds. Photograph: Benjamin John/Alamy
Staffer told by official it would be inappropriate for him to give evidence to review of scandal-hit benefit
The Department for Work and Pensions has been accused of blocking a whistleblower who repeatedly raised the alarm about carer’s allowance from giving evidence to an independent review of the scandal-hit benefit.
The DWP staffer was told by a senior official it was inappropriate to share with the review their knowledge of the inner workings of a system that has become notorious for its often cruel treatment of unpaid carers.
The review will examine how hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers ended up with huge debts and in some cases a criminal record for mostly minor and accidental breaches of carer’s allowance benefit earnings rules.
Approached by the Guardian last month with evidence that officials had rejected requests from individual staff members to make submissions to the review, the DWP said there was “no blanket ban” and it wanted “everyone” to contribute.
However, when the whistleblower, Enrico La Rocca, subsequently reapplied for permission he was told by the DWP’s personnel department that it would not be appropriate for him to give evidence.
Ministers announced the review in October after a Guardian investigation that revealed DWP officials and Conservative ministers had allowed flaws in the system to continue for years, despite promises to fix the problems.
With only a few weeks until Germany’s election, Elon Musk has unambiguously thrown his support behind the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. In a video address to a party rally last week, he appeared to urge Germans to “move on” from any “past guilt” related to the Holocaust.
It’s good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything.
Troublingly, the AfD is now firmly entrenched as Germany’s second-most popular political party, behind the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Like all parties in German elections, however, it cannot win an outright majority. It is also unlikely to be invited to join any ruling coalition that emerges from the February 23 election.
But the AfD’s anti-migrant, anti-government sloganeering has already seriously distorted Germany’s public debate and democratic culture, leaving many to ask whether it even needs to win elections to see its policies implemented.
This was evident following a dramatic week in Germany’s Bundestag.
First, in a radical break with Germany’s political norms, opposition leader Friedrich Merz deliberately drew on the votes of the AfD on Wednesday to ram a radical anti-asylum seeker motion through the parliament.
It was the first time in the history of the Bundestag that a parliamentary majority was reached with the help of the far right. Merz’s action was widely condemned as a “taboo-breaking” step towards legitimising the AfD.
The so-called ‘firewall’ was broken this week between mainstream German political parties and the far right. Clemens Bilan/EPA
Merz tried to take this a step further with a far-reaching bill to tighten immigration controls on Friday. Although the bill narrowly failed, all of the AfD voted with Merz. Twelve members of his own CDU party refused to back him.
Merz’s courting of the far right is widely seen as politically unnecessary, given his conservative CDU is already leading the national polls, making him the favourite to succeed the Social Democratic Party (SDP)‘s Olaf Scholz as chancellor.
This raises a couple crucial questions heading into the election. Is it insiders or outsiders that are playing the biggest role in bringing the far right into the mainstream? And just how big a role will the AfD play after the election?
The Musk effect
Musk’s embrace of the AfD should come as no surprise, given the integral part he played in Donald Trump’s election victory in the United States. In the German context, however, his behaviour and statements have taken on darker hues.
Germans know only too well what is at stake when democracy is eroded by those who abuse its freedoms to attack it. Had Musk’s now notorious Nazi salutes following Trump’s inauguration been performed in Berlin, for example, he might have faced up to three years in prison.
The catchphrase “never again” has underpinned German politics since the second world war. Yet, the response to Musk’s recent provocations was oddly muted in some sections of the German media.
With a few notable exceptions, it was left to activists to remind Germans of the severity of this gesture – projecting an image of Musk’s salute on a German Tesla plant, alongside the word “heil”.
Given the seriousness with which Germany patrols representations of its Nazi past, it was surprising just how few journalists were prepared to state without equivocation that “a Hitler salute is a Hitler salute is a Hitler salute”.
Merz’s embrace of the far right
Initially, there were some signs Germany’s main political leaders would decry Musk’s attempts to normalise far-right politics in the country.
Scholz has continued to label Musk’s blatant attempts to influence German politics as “unacceptable” and “disgusting”.
Merz claims to be keeping his distance from Musk. But it appears his strategy for winning the election is not far from what Musk is suggesting – mimicking AfD policies and collaborating with the party on anti-immigration votes.
In his most radical break with the centrism that characterised the CDU under former Chancellor Angela Merkel, Merz cracked the “firewall” against working with the far-right this week. Knowing just what it meant, he used the AfD’s support to pass the starkly worded nationalist border protection motion in the Bundestag.
Democratic party leaders, meanwhile, registered their shock and dismay. Merkel herself spoke out against Merz, saying it was “wrong” to “knowingly” work with the AfD.
Her intervention appears to have been critical to the immigration bill failing on Friday, with many of her former supporters in the CDU withholding their votes.
A defaced election poster for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) showing leader Friedrich Merz smeared with a Hitler moustache. Martin Meissner/AP
What AfD’s rise could mean
Given the two votes in the past week and Musk’s high-profile intervention, many in Germany now fear a CDU victory in the election could signal more collaboration with the AfD.
The Greens’ Robert Habeck, Germany’s vice chancellor, has said Merz’s nationalist coalition would “destroy Europe”. He has also warned Musk to keep his “hands off our democracy”, prompting Musk to label Habeck “a traitor to the German people”.
People attend the election campaign launch of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party on Jan. 25. Hannibal Hanschke/EPA
Musk is by no means the cause of the AfD’s popularity, but his embrace of the extremist party has given it a global profile and credibility in circles that might not have otherwise considered supporting it.
As some commentators have suggested, it is probably not coincidental the AfD’s plans for the German economy would benefit Musk’s business interests. Economic self-interest alone seems insufficient, however, to explain why Musk has gravitated to the extreme right.
The same might be said of Merz. Electoral calculations alone cannot explain his risky courting of the far right. He has long been the frontrunner to win the next election. Cosying up to the AfD will only make it harder to form a coalition with either Scholz’s Social Democratic Party or the Greens.
If these two parties refuse to deal with Merz, the only other bloc large enough to deliver his party control of the government would be the AfD. Would he go so far?
Whether it is formally part of the next government or not, the AfD and its camp followers (such as Musk) could be set to have a much bigger influence on German politics. How this will change Germany in the long term remains to be seen.
“How can the government decide what words a journal can use to describe a scientific reality? That reality needs to be named,” one journal editor said.
Employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been ordered to pull any articles under consideration for publication in medical or scientific journals so that they can be checked for certain “forbidden terms” including gender, transgender, and LGBT.
The order was sent in an email to CDC division heads on Friday by the agency’s chief science officer, a federal official told Reuters on Sunday. Inside Medicine broke the news on Saturday and provided a screenshot of the full list of terms that needed to be scrubbed.
“It sounds incredible that this is compatible with the First Amendment. A constitutional right has been canceled,” Dr. Alfredo Morabia, editor in chief of the American Journal of Public Health, told Reuters. “How can the government decide what words a journal can use to describe a scientific reality? That reality needs to be named.”
“We can’t just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating, or researching infectious diseases such as HIV.”
The order is an attempt to ensure that CDC is in compliance with U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order mandating that the U.S. government only recognize two sexes: male and female. The papers will be withdrawn so that a Trump appointee can review them.
The “forbidden terms” CDC employees are supposed to avoid are, in full: Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, and biologically female, according to Inside Medicine.
[In the spirit of the new authoritarian censorship] Sorry, this content could not be embedded. X
The order covers both papers under considerations and ones that have been accepted but not published. If a CDC employee worked on a paper with nongovernmental scientists but did not initiate it, they have been asked to remove their names, according to Reuters.
The new order is separate from a demand two days into the administration that government health agencies including CDC freeze all communications with the public. It follows reports on Friday that CDC webpages and datasets involving HIV, the LGBTQ community, youth health, and other topics were no longer accessible as the agency attempts to comply with the Trump executive order on transgender identity and another on banning government Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.
“It is Orwellian, it really is,” Steven Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center on Society and Health, told The Washington Post of the website purges. “The fact that so many websites are being scrubbed, it is an alarming development and endangers public policy and makes it difficult for decision-makers around the country, including doctors like myself, to make informed choices.”
[In the spirit of the new authoritarian censorship] Sorry, this content could not be embedded. X
In response to the purges, scientists, science journalists, and public health advocates have worked to preserve the datasets, with everything on the CDC website as of January 27, 2024 preserved at ACASignups.net and downloaded data sets also available on Jessica Valenti’s Substack Abortion, Every Day.
“Censoring data on ideological grounds is wrong. It is unscientific, and it is designed to eliminate opposition and erase dissidents,” virologist Angela Rasmussen, who was involved with the data preservation efforts, wrote on social media.
The journal article retraction order has created uncertainty and confusion at the agency, Inside Medicine reported:
How many manuscripts are affected is unclear, but it could be many. Most manuscripts include simple demographic information about the populations or patients studied, which typically includes gender (and which is frequently used interchangeably with sex). That means just about any major study would fall under the censorship regime of the new policy, including studies on Covid-19, cancer, heart disease, or anything else, let alone anything that the administration considers to be “woke ideology.”
Meanwhile, chaos and fear are already guiding decisions. While the policy is only meant to apply to work that might be seen as conflicting with President Trump’s executive orders, CDC experts don’t know how to interpret that. Do papers that describe disparities in health outcomes fall into “woke ideology” or not? Nobody knows, and everyone is scared that they’ll be fired. This is leading to what Germans call “vorauseilender Gehorsam,” or “preemptive obedience,” as one non-CDC scientist commented.
There are also concerns that censoring such a broad list of terms would have unintended consequences for public health.
“We can’t just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating, or researching infectious diseases such as HIV. I certainly hope this is not the intent of these orders,” Carl Schmid, the executive director of the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, told Reuters.
Donald Trump decrees forbidden terms denying sexual diversityElon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
