Ireland’s SDLP confirms full Washington boycott for St Patrick’s week in Gaza protest
SDLP leader Colum Eastwood speaking during the Social Democrat and Labour Party (SDLP) spring conference at St. Columb’s Hall in Derry, March 25, 2023
THE Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) has said it would not be sending any representatives to Washington DC for St Patrick’s Day due to the conflict in Gaza.
The party had already announced a boycott of celebratory St Patrick’s events at the White House, in protest against the situation in Palestine and the Biden administration’s support for Israel, but it was still planning to send a delegation to Washington to raise its concerns.
Announcing the plan in January, the party said its delegation would “engage with senior lawmakers, Irish Americans and Palestinian Americans to make the case for an end to violence.”
However, party leader Colum Eastwood has confirmed the party is no longer planning to send a delegation.
“The situation in Gaza has continued to deteriorate,” he said.
“More children have been killed, communities obliterated and thousands of people displaced as a result of this horrifying conflict. And now, during the holy month of Ramadan, we have clear warnings that starvation is being used as a weapon of war against the Palestinian people.
With over 17 million subscribers, the Morning, the New York Times’ flagship newsletter, is by far the most popular newsletter in the English-speaking world. (It has almost three times as many subscribers as the next most popular newsletter.)
Since October 7, as Israel has waged an unprecedented war on Palestinian children, journalists, hospitals and schools, the New York Times’ highly influential newsletter has bent over backwards to blame everyone but Israel for the carnage.
Waging a legitimate war
According to the Morning—led by head writer David Leonhardt—Israel’s war on Gaza is a targeted operation designed to eliminate Hamas. The Morning propagates this narrative despite well-documented declarations of collective punishment and even genocidal intent by high-ranking Israeli officials—a tendency that South Africa has forcefully documented in their case before the ICJ (UN, 12/29/23). Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s comments on October 12, 2023, are typical: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved.”
This sentiment has been echoed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, multiple cabinet-level ministers and senior military officials. Speaking from a devastated northern Gaza, one top Israeli army official said (UN, 12/29/23): “Whoever returns here, if they return here after, will find scorched earth. No houses, no agriculture, no nothing. They have no future.”
The Morning (10/13/23) expresses what it sees as the main problem with mass death in Gaza: “The widespread killing of Palestinian civilians would damage Israel’s global reputation.”
Despite these statements and the body of supporting evidence, the Morning has consistently portrayed the war on Gaza as a focused campaign targeting the military infrastructure of Hamas.
For instance, in one October edition (10/13/23), Leonhardt and co-writer Lauren Jackson explained, “Israel’s goals are to prevent Hamas from being able to conduct more attacks and to reestablish the country’s military credibility.”
In similar fashion, in a late January edition (1/28/24), the Morning argued that Israel’s 17-year-long blockade of Gaza is primarily designed to debilitate Hamas—rather than to collectively punish Gazan civilians, as many analysts and human rights groups have argued:
For years, Israel has limited the flow of goods into Gaza, largely to prevent Hamas from gaining access to military supplies.
The Morning did, in the same edition (1/28/24), quote Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s comments in the immediate aftermath of October 7:
After the Hamas-led October 7 terrorist attacks, Israel ordered what its defense minister called a “complete siege” of Gaza. The goal was both to weaken Hamas fighters and to ensure that no military supplies could enter.
This is, however, a downright fictional interpretation of Gallant’s quote (Al Jazeera, 10/9/23), given that the Morning failed to quote the next words out of his mouth:
There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything will be closed. We are fighting against human animals, and we are acting accordingly.
Blame the terrorists
The Morning (10/30/23) insists that “Hamas is responsible for many of the civilian deaths” caused by Israel—a division of responsibility it would never apply to civilians killed by Hamas on October 7.
The Morning consistently has argued that Hamas makes densely populated civilian areas legitimate targets for Israeli attacks by conducting military operations nearby. This deflects blame from Israel and frames civilian casualties as a necessary evil, as in the October 30 edition of the newsletter:
Hamas has hidden many weapons under hospitals, schools and mosques so that Israel risks killing civilians, and facing an international backlash, when it fights. Hamas fighters also slip above and below ground, blending with civilians.
These practices mean that Hamas is responsible for many of the civilian deaths, according to international law.
Similar rhetoric was deployed in this December edition (12/20/23):
Hamas has long hidden its fighters and weapons in and under populated civilian areas, such as hospitals and mosques. It does so partly to force Israel to make a gruesome calculation: To fight Hamas, Israel often must also harm civilians.
The Morning has not yet found it pertinent to report on, for instance, the Israeli soldiers who dressed as doctors to gain access to the Ibn Sina Hospital in the West Bank, and proceeded to assassinate three Palestinian militants in their hospital beds.
To the Morning (11/14/23), Israel’s mass slaughter of civilians is unavoidable:
The battle over Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza highlights a tension that often goes unmentioned in the debate over the war between Israel and Hamas: There may be no way for Israel both to minimize civilian casualties and to eliminate Hamas.
It repeats this line again in a late January edition (1/22/24), once again framing the mass murder of civilians as a “difficult decision”:
The Israeli military faces a difficult decision about how to proceed in southern Gaza…. Israel will not easily be able to eliminate the fighters without killing innocent civilians.
Longer term, there will be more difficult choices. Many steps that Israel could take to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza, such as advance warnings of attacks, would also weaken its attempts to destroy Hamas’s control.
These themes are repeated across all editions of the Morning, and echo throughout the New York Times’ reporting on Israel. Israel’s motivations in the war (beyond eliminating Hamas) go unquestioned, while the openly genocidal statements made by high-ranking politicians and military leaders go unacknowledged.
And when Israeli mass murder of Palestinian civilians is mentioned, it is constantly qualified by the line that Hamas is fully or partially to blame.
‘Civilian death toll in Gaza’
David Leonhardt assures readers of the Morning (12/7/23) that “military experts say that there is probably no way for Israel to topple Hamas without a substantial civilian toll.” The possibility that this means that Israel should therefore not try to “topple Hamas” is not addressed.
Let’s break down one emblematic newsletter (12/7/23) written by Leonhardt in December, in which he “puts the [civilian death] toll in context and explains the reason for it.”
Leonhardt began by qualifying the Palestinian death toll—around 17,000 at time of writing in early December. First, he delegitimized the Gaza Health Ministry, which, he wrote, “seems to have spread false information during the war.” Though he acknowledged that “many international observers believe that the overall death toll is accurate…as do some top Israeli officials,” he wrote that “there is more debate about the breakdown between civilian and combatant deaths.” Leonhardt went on:
A senior Israeli military official told my colleague Isabel Kershner this week that about a third of the dead were likely Hamas-allied fighters, rather than civilians. Gazan officials have suggested that the combatant toll is lower, and the civilian toll higher, based on their breakdown of deaths among men, women and children.
Leonhardt only informs readers that Hamas has spread false information, while neglecting to mention Israel’s documented history of lying to the press (IMEU, 10/17/23; Intercept, 2/27/24). He also declined to investigate the implausibility of his source’s figure: At this point in the war, about 30% of Palestinian fatalities were adult men, meaning the Israeli figure implies that essentially every adult man killed by Israel was a Hamas fighter—all civilian men being miraculously spared.
Next, Leonhardt attempted to explain “who is most responsible for the high civilian death toll”—concluding, even before describing them, that “different people obviously put different amounts of blame on each.”
First he named Israel, and contextualized and rationalized Israel’s war crimes:
After the October 7 attacks—in which Hamas fighters killed more than 1,200 people, while committing sexual assault and torture, sometimes on video—Israeli leaders promised to eliminate Hamas. Israel is seeking to kill Hamas fighters, destroy their weapons stockpiles and collapse their network of tunnels. To do so, Israel has dropped 2,000-pound bombs on Gaza’s densely populated neighborhoods.
Note that Leonhardt framed the war as a campaign only to “kill Hamas fighters, destroy their weapons stockpiles and collapse their network of tunnels,” despite the evidence that Israel has targeted civilian infrastructure, journalists, healthcare workers and aid workers—actions backed by the aforementioned statements of genocidal intent.
Though Leonhardt briefly mentioned that Israel’s war has drawn international criticism, he made no mention of international law and concluded with his refrain that Israel can hardly avoid causing the deaths of “substantial” numbers of civilians:
Nonetheless, military experts say that there is probably no way for Israel to topple Hamas without a substantial civilian toll. The question is whether the toll could be lower than it has been.
Next, Leonhardt turned to his condemnation of Hamas:
The second responsible party is Hamas. It hides weapons in schools, mosques and hospitals, and its fighters disguise themselves as civilians, all of which are violations of international law.
This approach both helps Hamas to survive against a more powerful enemy — the Israeli military—and contributes to Hamas’s efforts to delegitimize Israel. The group has vowed to repeat the October 7 attacks and ultimately destroy Israel. Hamas’s strategy involves forcing Israel to choose between allowing Hamas to exist and killing Palestinian civilians.
Hamas is simply not prioritizing Palestinian lives.
It is notable that—unlike with Israel—Leonhardt did not attempt to contextualize Hamas’ actions by noting the horrifying conditions that Israel has imposed on Gaza for years, or the over 900 Palestinian children killed by Israel in the decade preceding October 7. To Leonhardt, history is only relevant when it justifies Israeli aggression.
While Leonhardt states unequivocally that Hamas is violating international law, he does not find it worthwhile to investigate Israel’s flagrant and abundantlydocumented violations of international law. He also does not mention the Palestinian right to resist occupation, a right enshrined under international law.
This unequal treatment leads straight to the jarringly contrasting conclusions, in which he essentially excuses Israel’s genocidal war as unavoidable, while he condemns Hamas for “simply not prioritizing Palestinian lives.”
Leonhardt’s December 7 piece is not an aberration: It is emblematic of the language, selective contextualization and framing that the Times‘ Morning newsletter wields to provide ideological cover for Israel’s crimes.
Trucks carrying aid supplies to Gaza are seen at the Karem Abu Salem border crossing on February 17, 2024. (Photo: Abed Rahim Khatib/Anadolu via Getty Images)
The decision demonstrates “why there can be no end to the genocide of Palestinians without an end of Israel’s control over Gaza,” said one human rights lawyer.
With the level of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza residents perilously low and creating what one group last week called “famine-like conditions” throughout the enclave, the United Nations’ top official overseeing relief for Palestinians on Tuesday condemned Israel’s latest reason for blocking a shipment: It included medical scissors for caring for children.
Israel flagged the scissors as a so-called “dual-use” item, suggesting the government feared medical workers in Gaza—where more than 600 attacks on hospitals have pushed the healthcare system toward collapse—would use the scissors as weapons instead of to care for people who have been injured in relentless bombings.
“Medical scissors are now added to a long list of banned items the Israeli authorities classify as ‘for dual use,’” said Philippe Lazzarini, commissioner-general of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). “The list includes basic and lifesaving items: from anesthetics, solar lights, oxygen cylinders, and ventilators, to water cleaning tablets, cancer medicines, and maternity kits.”
#Gaza: an entire population depends on humanitarian assistance for survival. Very little comes in & restrictions increase.
A truck loaded with aid has just been turned back because it had scissors used in children’s medical kits.
The truck carrying the medical kits and other items was turned back a day after 12 Israeli human rights groups condemned the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for openly violating an order from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by continuing to obstruct humanitarian aid.
The ICJ issued an interim ruling in January saying that Israel was “plausibly” committing a genocide in Gaza and ordering the government to ensure the delivery of aid.
Mai El-Sadany, executive director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy in Washington, D.C., said Israel’s latest move to block relief from reaching starving Gaza residents should eliminate any doubt that the government is flouting the ICJ’s order.
If you're somehow still wondering whether Israel is a reliable partner in aid delivery into Gaza + whether it's violating @CIJ_ICJ order on aid delivery, read this:
"A truck loaded with aid has just been turned back because it had scissors used in children’s medical kits." https://t.co/qSVYHrWk7r
The death toll from starvation in Gaza has now reached at least 25 people, mostly children. In what the International Rescue Committee called a “conservative” estimate late last month, at least 1 in 4 households—more than half a million people—are now facing “catastrophic or famine conditions.”
Juliette Touma, director of communications for UNRWA, told Al Jazeera Monday that a minimum of 500 aid trucks daily—the number that entered Gaza each day before the war—are needed to meet the needs of the civilian population. An average of 90 trucks entered the enclave per day in February, with the number as low as seven or nine on some days.
The World Health Organization said Monday that it had reached Al-Ahil Arab Hospital and Al-Sahaba Hospital in northern Gaza with trauma supplies to serve 150 patients over the weekend.
Medical teams there, however, still lack basic necessities to care for people, including “food, fuel, specialized staff, anesthetic drugs, antibiotics, and internal fixation devices,” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said.
George Washington University professor William Lafi Youmans condemned the blocking of the aid truck carrying medical kits as “deplorable” and “nonsensical.”
Human rights lawyer Zaha Hassan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Israel’s decision underscores the need for an immediate, permanent cease-fire in Gaza and an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory including Gaza and the West Bank.
“Returning an entire truckload of humanitarian assistance because children’s scissors were part of a medical kit,” said Hassan, “is why there can be no end to the genocide of Palestinians without an end of Israel’s control over Gaza.”
SOLIDARITY: Charlotte Church (right) takes part in a pro-Palestine march in central London during a national demonstration for ceasefire in Gaza
My name was traduced and my safety threatened after irresponsible reporting by the Establishment media when I sang for charity to help Palestinians with socialist choir, Cor Cochion, writes CHARLOTTE CHURCH
I WISH I didn’t have to write this — I am an artist, not a politician, and would rather speak through creative action than explanatory text — but I find that for several reasons, I must respond to accusations and smears made against me these last couple of weeks.
At the weekend I participated in the 10th national march for Palestine in London, in solidarity with our siblings in Palestine, as well as those at home, and for doing so I was called all manner of ungodly things online, often violent, misogynistic and racist. Some of those people had phrases like “whites will not be replaced” on their profiles, and images of iron eagles as banners. And I’m the extremist?!
Since footage was shared online of a Sing For Palestine event I took part in to raise money for a new ambulance for the al-Awda hospital through the Middle East Childrens’ Alliance, I’ve been continuously dragged in the press and on social media as an anti-semite (which I am not) and need to respond to those accusations fully.
My attempts to protest the atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank, and the West’s complicity in them, have been ridiculed by powerful men in the media in conversations that I have not been asked to contribute to, including a discussion as to whether or not I should be arrested for my activism, and so I must respond.
My safety and the safety of my family has been threatened by some pretty scary people, emboldened by the rhetoric of front-line politicians, as well as cravenly irresponsible coverage by liberal legacy media outlets, including BBC News, and so I must respond. But perhaps most urgently I have to take the opportunity to speak out because since the start of the genocide very little of the campaign that calls for an end to Israeli aggression in Palestine has been covered by the press, except when it is being denounced as “hateful” or “Islamist” by some of the most notorious racists in the Western world.
‘From The River To The Sea…’
I am not, and have never been, and will never be an anti-semite. I hold the Jewish people in my life very dearly, and have always kept great reverence for Judaism and Jewish culture, since travelling around Israel and Palestine as a teenager. It makes my stomach turn to know that due to the double-speak and whataboutery of bad faith actors in the media, some Jews today think that I am anti-semitic. I hope that my words here can reassure them that I am not, and make it clear that I have deep compassion for what Jewish people all over the world are experiencing right now, due to the rise of genuine anti-semitism.
I do not believe that the phrase “From the river to the sea…” is in any way a call for the ethnic cleansing or genocide of Israelis, and certainly when I have used it or heard it used by other people, it has always been as a call for the liberation of Palestine (ie the most face-value interpretation). Often it is accompanied by the phrase “…we are all Palestinians.”
A call for one group’s liberation does not imply another’s destruction, and those suggesting that it does when it is in fact that first group who are currently being murdered in their thousands, are leveraging a grotesque irony. I will not have my rhetoric around resistance and solidarity redefined by those who most violently oppose my democratic engagement.
Palestinians living all over historic Palestine are living under an apartheid system. Those who live in Israel (one fifth of the population) are treated as second-class citizens and the Palestinians living in Palestine are under military occupation. “From the river to the sea” is a call for Palestinians to live with equal rights and to end the illegal apartheid system they have been living under. It is widely accepted all over there world that no group of people should have supremacy over another, so why is it called “genocidal” when this is demanded by and on the behalf of Palestinians?
What I hope will be inferred from the phrase is a demand for a conversation about the future of Israel and Palestine — one that includes Palestinian voices, and acknowledges and attempts to rectify the many crimes that have been inflicted upon Palestinians over the last 75 years. This is the only path to peace and has to begin with an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
At this point it becomes necessary for me to state that I do not support Hamas and condemn them for the attack on October 7. While it is difficult to know the full truth of what happened that day, and hopefully with the fullness of time we will have a better perspective on this, there were undoubtedly war crimes committed, appalling acts, including the massacre of innocent civilians and hostage-taking. My heart goes out to the victims of that attack, the hostages, and their families.
None of that justifies the horrors that have been inflicted upon the Palestinian people since that day.
‘She’s just a naive idiot’
Nigel Farage has spoken at length over many years about “Cultural Marxism,” “Soros-funded organisations,” “unelected globalists” and innumerable other anti-semitic dog-whistles. Often this has been in conversation with people like Alex Jones of InfoWars or Rick Wiles of TruNews — known and self-avowed anti-semites. He is also notorious for sowing division, particularly along racial lines. But apparently none of that disqualifies him from being interviewed by the BBC’s Nick Robinson about what should and shouldn’t be done about “extremists” in Britain today. When Robinson asked Farage whether I should be arrested (!) for singing “From the river to the sea…” Farage called me a “naive idiot” and said that I should be “given a severe warning” and “made to see the error of [my] ways.”
David Baddiel is a man whose checkered history with racism needs no commentary from me, but who has notably repositioned himself as an expert on racism in recent years. On his new podcast with Tory peer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Baddiel laughed theatrically at my activism, before deigning to correct me for not understanding the meaning of my own words. (It’s worth noting that Warsi went on to say that for “a whole load of people” the phrase “from the river to the sea…” means “equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis in the lands from the river to the sea.”)
Perhaps the superiority of being a self-proclaimed “public intellectual” has gone to his head, but Baddiel, as with Farage, is an all-too-common example of a professional opinion-monger who resorts to tactics made to silence voices that dissent from his own. I am not the right sort of person to be discussing this in the eyes of Baddiel, Farage, Robinson, or any of the others, and the condescending manner in which my charitable work is being spoken of reeks of misogyny. I am incredibly familiar with the “shush, silly girl” strategy. It is used to discredit me and my message of solidarity without engaging me in debate. I truly am sick to the back teeth of men like these.
‘Charlotte Church denies anti-semitism’
This was the headline on the BBC News website. The Guardian ran the same one. There were many, many more news outlets that ran even more alarming headlines and stories, but I’ll focus on the BBC and Guardian stories. Making the story about my denial of anti-semitism is pure clickbait designed to accentuate the perceived scandal and obscure the reality of the situation — I sang a protest song in Bedwas Workmen’s Hall, and yet it sounds like I committed a hate crime.
An article from the BBC News last Sunday (March 3), entitled “Nuance is being lost” seemingly without irony, said: “Charlotte Church sang the controversial pro-Palestinian chant ‘From the river to the sea’ at a concert. (She denied she was anti-semitic).”
No more context was given — not the fact that this was a charity event, specifically to raise money for an ambulance in Gaza — not even the fact that it was an event in solidarity with Palestine, calling for a ceasefire. Not that it was an interfaith, intergenerational choir singing freedom songs from all over the world, No mention of the actual history of the usage of the phrase. Just incredibly irresponsible “journalism.”
At a time when democratic norms in the House of Commons are being overturned, supposedly due to fears for MPs safety, I have to ask the BBC and The Guardian, among others: what about my safety?
I have been called many things in my time, but not until this week have I received so much imaginative and violent hate. I’ve never before been called “traitor.” The threats to my safety have resulted in the police coming round to check in on us. And the BBC continues to publish articles, with extremely inflammatory language that does not accurately represent the reality of the situation. I’m pretty sure it has broken its own guidelines about being “accurate and fair.”
And then Nick Robinson’s question to Nigel Farage: “Do you think Charlotte Church should be arrested?” I mean, are you real? To think that this was not only broadcast across multiple BBC platforms in a pre-recorded interview, but also that someone made an editorial decision to clip that bit up and toss it into the maelstrom of social media to promote the show, at a time of such febrile debate… how is that contributing to social cohesion, let alone considering my safety?!
Almost as irresponsible is MP Andrew Percy who said that I should “hang my head in shame,” before doing the news round talking of MPs safety and how pro-Palestine activists are “dictating the terms of the debate.” Considering this was in the same news cycle that three prominent Conservatives (Lee Anderson, Suella Braverman and Liz Truss) were all banging the drum for Islamophobia, the PM following with his deranged speech about extremism on Friday evening, I have personally never felt less safe. I feel caught up in a political parlour game played by lunatics, with incredibly high stakes, that I do not consent to being a part of.
Singing for freedom
In the late 1980s, the Estonian people brought about a liberating revolution from the failing USSR, not with weapons, but with voices. The civil rights struggle in America has a glorious history of singing woven through it. Music was a major part of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in South Africa, not least with the Specials hit, Free Nelson Mandela. Jamaica, Estonia, Iceland, Zimbabwe, the feminist movement, the LGBTQ movement, I could go on and on. There has never been a liberation movement that hasn’t had music and song at its heart. Heart being the most powerful word here, because singing together brings us into a place of feeling, of emotions, and unity and love. Disconnection and separation cannot survive in this environment. In my opinion it is the most powerful tool of togetherness that we have.
This is why I was so delighted to work with Cor Cochion, the socialist choir first formed in Cardiff during the miners’ strikes in the 1980s, who have used singing to tirelessly protest against apartheid, the BNP, the invasion of Iraq, and many other injustices. Their director, Wendy Lewis (incidentally one of many Jewish people who is opposed to the Israeli occupation), is a wonderful genius of community action. Her rewrite of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah in Cymraeg about Palestinian liberation is just about the most beautiful thing I’ve heard in years.
My heart breaks every day witnessing the atrocities that are being enacted — the hell on Earth that is being wreaked by Israel and its allies — but more than anything, what breaks my heart as open as the sky is the love I’m witnessing between the Palestinian people. Those orphaned children who hold each other close after having to endure painful surgeries, have limbs amputated or maybe their faces or chests stitched back together after being purposefully targeted by an IDF sniper. Those desperate, bereaved grandparents who’ve just seen the last of their grandchildren killed; those beautiful teenage boys, that remind me so much of my own son, full body hugging the shrouds of their beloved mothers. And the pain and love and tenderness of the mothers and fathers … I will do everything in my power to help. I despair for anyone who would tell me I am wrong for doing so.
I am not alone. What is being allowed to happen in Palestine by Western governments is waking people up to the violent reality of what the West is built upon: inequality, exploitation, colonisation. A line has been crossed and the majority of the people of the world are rising up against this most grotesque show of power and domination. We will never forget what has been allowed to happen.
I think we need to bring to the forefront of this conversation weapons. As one human race, we must understand that if we had to murder thousands of children with our bare hands we would massively lose the taste for war. Our fetishisation of increasingly efficient impersonal killing machines makes slaughter very easy.
My dream is that we can with love, care, grief, deep mutual understanding, dismantle every weapon on Earth.
And if my voice can bring us any closer to that, then no matter what you call me, I will keep singing.
This Mother’s Day I call to all mothers, all grandmothers, in fact all those who have mothers, to hold in our hearts all those who had mothers in Gaza and now do not, all those mothers whose children have been murdered, and the families whose every member has been brutalised and wiped out. Let us listen to our bones, our great-great-grandmothers’ instincts that live within us, and reject the fallacy of Western patriarchal moral authority. Feel and trust your feelings. Let us consciously bring about the coming of the deep maternal healing that must come.
People take part in a pro-Palestine march in central London during a national demonstration for ceasefire in Gaza, March 9, 2024
Defiant protesters reject ‘extremism’ label by MPs to stop marches
CAMPAIGNERS have slammed the government’s “repressive” attempts to clamp down on the right to protest and redefine extremism, warning they are “poorly drafted and open to legal challenge.”
Communities Secretary Michael Gove is expected to announce a looser definition of extremism within days.
Organisations and individuals that breach the new definition will be banned from receiving public funds, engaging with government agencies and appearing at university campuses.
Several Muslim groups are reportedly set to be on the list, including the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Engagement and Development NGO.
Mr Gove claims he aims to ban groups which “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy.”
