Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • MPs question lack of action on hate speech at Tommy Robinson’s anti-Muslim rally

    MPs question lack of action on hate speech at Tommy Robinson’s anti-Muslim rally

    A mass far-right rally organized by notorious convicted extremist Tommy Robinson in central London has sparked widespread outrage across British Muslim communities and political circles, with critics slamming the UK government for its failure to publicly denounce virulent anti-Muslim rhetoric delivered from the event’s main stage.

    Held Saturday and drawing an estimated crowd of 60,000 attendees, the “Unite the Kingdom” rally was led by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, better known by his pseudonym Tommy Robinson — a far-right activist with a long rap sheet that includes convictions for violence, fraud, and contempt of court. Footage captured at the event captured Robinson making a series of inflammatory, anti-Muslim remarks: he told attendees he would “stop Islam” if he took national power, called for a mass “remigration” policy that would force ethnic and religious minorities out of the country, and demanded the military be deployed to remove migrants from government-funded accommodation hotels. Robinson went even further, declaring publicly that “it’s time for many Muslims to leave this country,” and urged the gathered crowd to prepare for what he framed as a coming “battle of Britain.”

    Robinson was not the only speaker to spread anti-Muslim animus at the rally. Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who goes by the name Posie Parker and leads a small fringe group called the Party of Women, told the crowd that “it is not too late to get Islam out of every single official office in this country… we have to remove Islam from every single place of authority.” In a widely condemned stunt, three members of French anti-Islam far-right group Collectif Nemesis took the stage wearing full burqas as a deliberate mockery of Muslim women who choose to wear the Islamic veil. Alice Cordier, the group’s founder, told the crowd the movement stands “alone against the system that wants to destroy our Christian civilisation,” doubling down on the group’s open anti-migrant and Islamophobic ideology.

    In the aftermath of the rally, Muslim civil society organizations and cross-party political figures have launched sharp criticism of the UK government, which has not issued any formal condemnation of the anti-Muslim remarks made from the stage. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer did criticize the rally in advance of the event, warning “I will not let the likes of Tommy Robinson use their hate to drag our country backwards,” no senior minister has publicly addressed the specific hate speech delivered during the gathering.

    Independent Member of Parliament Ayoub Khan, speaking to independent news outlet Middle East Eye, rejected attempts to frame the remarks as ordinary heated political debate, arguing that the comments amounted to open, public anti-Muslim agitation. “Any government that fails to respond decisively to such rhetoric is failing in its basic duty to protect equal citizenship and public safety,” Khan said. “Ministers cannot claim to oppose extremism while remaining silent as an entire minority community is demonised in plain sight.”

    Fellow MP Iqbal Mohamed echoed that criticism, noting that speakers faced no immediate pushback from the government after calling for the exclusion of Muslims from public life, demanding Muslims leave the country, and mocking Muslim women’s religious clothing. “That tells you all you need to know about this government’s stated commitment to combatting Islamophobia,” Mohamed said, adding that political leaders have a clear responsibility to speak out consistently and take meaningful action against all forms of bigotry, including anti-Muslim hate.

    Baroness Shaista Gohir, a member of the House of Lords and CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK, condemned the burqa mocking stunt as a deliberate act of public humiliation. “It was deliberate humiliation of Muslim women and a public display of anti-Muslim hostility aimed at dehumanising visibly Muslim women and reducing their religious dress to a source of ridicule and contempt,” Gohir said. “Such stunts have a direct and harmful impact on the safety and well-being of Muslim women.”

    Leading national Muslim organizations have amplified these calls for action, demanding the Metropolitan Police launch a full investigation into the rally speakers’ comments as potential incitement to religious hatred. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the UK’s largest umbrella group for Muslim communities, said Robinson’s remarks were not protected political speech — they were criminal incitement. The group questioned why this virulent hate targeting Muslims is tolerated, when comparable rhetoric directed at any other minority community would almost certainly result in prosecution and immediate political condemnation.

    The Muslim Engagement and Development Initative (Mend) also condemned the rally’s rhetoric as incitement to religious hatred and violence against British Muslims, and announced it would file a formal request with the Metropolitan Police to obtain the force’s internal legal assessment explaining why no rally speakers had been arrested on hate crime charges. Thus far, Metropolitan Police have confirmed 20 total arrests were made at the rally, nine of which were for alleged hate crimes — but none of those arrests targeted the event’s featured speakers.

    The criticism over government silence comes amid ongoing scrutiny of UK policing and political responses to protests, with critics pointing to a stark contrast in how the government and police handled a simultaneous pro-Palestine Nakba Day march also held in London the same day. Three arrests were made at the pro-Palestine gathering: one for carrying a sign reading “Globalise the intifada” (a slogan recently criminalized under UK public order law), a second for a sign reading “We will not surrender, victory or martyrdom,” and a third for displaying support for Palestine Action, a direct action group the government banned as a terrorist organization last year.

    Ahead of the far-right rally, the government had announced it had barred 11 foreign far-right agitators from entering the UK to attend the event, including high-profile Colombian-American anti-Muslim campaigner Valentina Gomez. Middle East Eye, which first reported on the post-rally criticism, has reached out to the Metropolitan Police for comment on the calls for an investigation into the rally speakers’ remarks, and had not received a response as of publication.

  • Trump says holding off on new Iran attack

    Trump says holding off on new Iran attack

    In a sudden announcement that shook global geopolitical dynamics on Monday, former US President Donald Trump revealed he had paused a pre-planned large-scale military attack on Iran, caving to requests from key Gulf Arab allies who are pushing for negotiated de-escalation after nearly six weeks of open conflict.

    Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump confirmed that the strike, originally scheduled for Tuesday, had been put on hold at the urging of the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The Gulf bloc argued that serious diplomatic talks are now underway, and expressed confidence that a final deal could be reached that satisfies both Washington and regional powers, with a core goal of ensuring Iran never acquires nuclear weapons. “I stopped the attack plan at the request of our Gulf allies,” Trump stated, noting that Iran has threatened widespread reciprocal retaliation against Gulf states if the US and Israel resume full-scale offensive operations after the recent six-week ceasefire. Trump, who has previously framed the ongoing conflict as a growing political liability and extended the truce indefinitely, added that he has ordered the US military to remain on high alert, ready to launch a full-scale offensive at a moment’s notice if negotiations collapse.

    Iran, which has repeatedly rejected Trump’s initial deal frameworks and maintained tight control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz – a chokepoint that carries a third of global seaborne oil – has driven international energy markets into volatility with its closure of the waterway. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei confirmed that indirect talks are progressing through Pakistan, which has served as a neutral mediator between the two nations. Baqaei made clear that Tehran has laid out non-negotiable demands for any final agreement: the full release of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen overseas, the permanent lifting of decades-old international sanctions, and war reparations for what Tehran calls the “illegal and baseless” US-led invasion that left Iran’s top leadership decapitated – Supreme Leader Khamenei was killed in the initial February 28 strikes, though the Iranian government has remained surprisingly resilient through months of conflict. Baqaei also emphasized that Iran is “fully prepared for any eventuality” if US forces renew attacks.

    Divisions have emerged within Iran’s ruling establishment over the path forward. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, widely labeled a moderate in a political system now dominated by hardline Revolutionary Guards commanders who have consolidated power since the war began, pushed back against hardline critics of diplomatic outreach. “Dialogue does not mean surrender,” Pezeshkian wrote on X. “The Islamic Republic of Iran enters into dialogue with dignity, authority, and the preservation of the nation’s rights, and will under no circumstances retreat from the legal rights of the people and the country.”

    Details of the competing negotiating proposals have begun to emerge in recent days. Over the weekend, Iran’s Fars news agency reported that Washington had tabled a five-point framework that includes a demand for Iran to shut down all but one of its nuclear facilities and transfer its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium to US control. The report added that US negotiators have so far refused to release even 25 percent of Iran’s frozen assets or commit to any war reparations, a major sticking point for Tehran. Still, there was a small sign of progress on Monday: Iran’s Tasnim news agency, quoting an anonymous source close to the Iranian negotiating team, reported that Washington had made a key concession, agreeing to waive oil sanctions on Iran for the duration of the negotiation period.

    On Iran’s end, Tehran proposed a broader peace framework last week that calls for an end to all hostilities across the Middle East, including Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Lebanon, and a full lifting of the US naval blockade that has been in place on Iranian ports since April 13. A core tenet of Iran’s proposal is its claim to full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, which it has largely closed to commercial traffic since the war began.

    Last week, Iran formalized its control over the waterway with the launch of a new governing body, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority. On Monday, the agency announced via X that it would begin publishing real-time updates on navigation and operations in the strait, and clarified that all commercial ships passing through the Strait’s Iranian territorial waters must coordinate their passage directly with the new authority – any unauthorized transit will be classified as an illegal incursion. Earlier this month, Iranian state broadcaster Press TV revealed that the authority would send navigation instructions to passing vessels via email, and the Revolutionary Guards added Monday that all undersea fiber optic cables passing through the strait will now be subject to Iranian permitting requirements.

    Beyond diplomatic maneuvering, military tensions continue to escalate across the region. On Monday, the Revolutionary Guards announced it had carried out a cross-border strike against militant groups linked to the US and Israel in Iran’s Kurdistan province, near the Iraqi border. In a statement carried by Iran’s ISNA news agency, the Guards claimed the groups were based in northern Iraq and acting on behalf of Washington and what Iran calls the “Zionist regime,” and were attempting to smuggle a large shipment of US-made weapons and ammunition into Iranian territory.

    Tensions rose further over the weekend after a drone strike sparked a large fire near a nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates’ Abu Dhabi emirate. The UAE defense ministry confirmed the drone entered the country from the west but declined to publicly name the party responsible. Still, senior UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash made clear in off-the-cuff remarks that the blame lies with Iran and its network of regional proxy militias, stoking fears that the conflict could spread beyond Iran’s borders and draw in other major regional powers.

    Separately, in a show of regional solidarity with Iran’s allies, thousands of supporters of the Iran-backed Houthi movement gathered for a rally in Yemen’s capital Sanaa on Monday to express unity with Lebanon amid Israel’s ongoing military campaign there.

  • Cuba warns of ‘bloodbath’ if US attacks; Washington adds sanctions

    Cuba warns of ‘bloodbath’ if US attacks; Washington adds sanctions

    Tensions between long-standing adversaries the United States and Cuba have surged to new heights in recent days, bringing with them fears of direct military confrontation and a deepening humanitarian crisis on the Caribbean island. On Monday, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel issued a stark warning that any U.S. military attack on the country would trigger a catastrophic bloodbath with unforeseeable, far-reaching consequences, even as the U.S. Department of the Treasury unveiled a new round of punitive sanctions targeting Havana’s top intelligence apparatus and senior leadership.

    Diaz-Canel’s public statement came one day after U.S. news outlet Axios published an exclusive report citing unnamed American intelligence officials, which claimed Cuba had acquired more than 300 military drones from Russia and Iran, and was weighing potential drone strikes against U.S. targets. The alleged targets named in the report included the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay located on Cuban territory, American military vessels operating in the region, and even targets within the U.S. state of Florida. This unconfirmed report quickly fueled widespread global speculation that the Trump administration was actively considering full-scale military action to overthrow Cuba’s long-standing communist government.

    In a post shared on the social platform X, the Cuban leader reiterated that his country poses no military threat to the United States or any other sovereign nation. While he did not directly refute or confirm the allegations surrounding the reported drone stockpile, Diaz-Canel made clear that Cuba retains the absolute, legitimate right to arm itself in self-defense against any outside military aggression.

    Cuba’s top diplomatic representative to the United Nations echoed this defiant tone in an interview with AFP in New York. “If someone tried to invade Cuba, Cuba will fight back, no doubt about it,” Ernesto Soberon Guzman told reporters. He referenced the 1960s Bay of Pigs invasion, when a U.S.-backed assault on Cuba was soundly defeated by Cuban forces. “In the 60s, they (the US) tried to invade Cuba, and they were defeated. Of course, everybody can say this is a different situation. Yes, it is. But the will of the people of Cuba has not changed,” he added.

    Alongside the rising rhetorical conflict, the U.S. moved to ramp up economic pressure on Havana on Monday. The new sanctions target Cuba’s primary intelligence agency, plus nine senior Cuban nationals, including the nation’s cabinet ministers for communications, energy, and justice. A statement from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control confirmed that several top leaders of the Cuban Communist Party and at least three senior military generals were also added to the U.S. sanctions list.

    This latest action is part of a broader campaign of intensified pressure the U.S. has waged against Cuba since January. The strategy mirrors the U.S. military intervention that ousted the Venezuelan government earlier that year, with former President Donald Trump openly musing about removing Cuba’s sitting leadership. Most impactful, Washington cut off one of Cuba’s last remaining economic lifelines by halting all oil shipments from Venezuela, Havana’s primary fuel supplier, and threatened to impose tariffs on any third country that moved to cover the resulting fuel gap.

    The U.S. oil blockade has dramatically worsened a already severe humanitarian and energy crisis across Cuba. The island now suffers from increasingly frequent and extended national blackouts, as its aging, dilapidated power plants struggle to operate without sufficient fuel to run backup generators. The Cuban government has repeatedly accused Washington of intentionally crippling the island’s economy through the fuel blockade to create a pretext for a full military intervention to overthrow its government, after decades of economic pressure failed to force regime change.

    The Axios drone report was not an isolated development: it came just days after Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Havana for closed-door negotiations with Cuban officials. It also aligned with ongoing U.S. media reports that the Trump administration was preparing to file criminal charges against 94-year-old Raul Castro, the brother of iconic Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, as another element of its pressure campaign.

    Amid the growing crisis, Cuba has received critical support from Mexico’s left-wing government. On Monday, the island took delivery of its fifth shipment of humanitarian aid from Mexico since February. Unlike previous aid shipments, which were transported by Mexican navy vessels, journalists from AFP observed that this consignment was carried by a commercial merchant ship sailing under a Panamanian flag. The vessel is carrying a total of 1,700 tons of relief supplies. According to Cuban Food Industry Minister Alberto Lopez, the shipment includes powdered milk and beans earmarked for distribution to children and elderly residents, the most vulnerable groups affected by the ongoing crisis.

  • American who contracted Ebola in DR Congo evacuated for treatment, CDC says

    American who contracted Ebola in DR Congo evacuated for treatment, CDC says

    In a development that has drawn global public health attention, U.S. health officials confirmed Monday that an American national working with a medical missionary organization in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has tested positive for the Ebola virus. The infected individual, identified by mission leadership as Dr. Peter Stafford, a physician with the Christian medical outreach group Serge, contracted the virus while caring for patients at Nyankunde Hospital in Bunia, located in eastern DRC’s Ituri Province – the current epicenter of the ongoing outbreak.

    After displaying the first characteristic Ebola symptoms over the weekend, the infected American will be transferred to Germany for specialized medical care, according to Dr. Satish Pillai, incident manager for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Ebola response team. Beyond the confirmed case, the CDC is coordinating the evacuation of at least six other American citizens who were also exposed to the virus during their time in the affected region. Two additional exposed Serge group members, including Stafford’s wife, remain asymptomatic and are adhering strictly to monitored quarantine protocols, the organization confirmed in an official statement.

    The scale of the ongoing outbreak has already reached alarming levels: John Nkengasong, head of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), revealed in comments to the BBC that the outbreak has claimed at least 100 lives so far, with more than 390 suspected cases recorded across the affected region.

    In response to the confirmed case and ongoing outbreak risks, the CDC issued a new public health order Monday barring entry to the United States for all non-citizen travelers who have visited any Ebola-affected country – including the DRC, neighboring Uganda, and South Sudan – within the previous 21 days. The order is enacted under Title 42, a decades-old public health statute that allows U.S. authorities to impose temporary entry bans on non-citizens to prevent the spread of dangerous communicable diseases.

    Despite the new entry restrictions, CDC officials stressed that the overall risk of widespread Ebola transmission to the general U.S. public remains extremely low. To support frontline response efforts in the DRC, the agency is deploying additional specialized response staff from its Atlanta headquarters to the outbreak’s core zone to assist with containment, contact tracing, and treatment operations.

    The World Health Organization (WHO) already designated the DRC outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), the organization’s highest level of public health alert, though it has not met the formal criteria to be classified as a pandemic. The current outbreak is driven by the Bundibugyo Ebola strain, a variant for which no specifically approved antiviral treatments or licensed vaccines currently exist, complicating global response efforts. WHO officials have repeatedly warned that the actual size of the outbreak is likely far larger than officially reported cases indicate, with substantial risk of further spread to local communities and across regional borders.

    To contextualize the current risk, the 2014–2016 West African Ebola outbreak remains the largest on record since the virus was first identified in 1976. That outbreak infected more than 28,600 people across multiple West African nations and spread to Europe and the United States, killing a total of 11,325 people globally.

    Ebola is a zoonotic virus, meaning it circulates naturally in wild animal populations – most commonly fruit bats – with human outbreaks typically initiated when humans handle or consume infected bushmeat. After exposure, symptoms develop between 2 and 21 days, beginning abruptly with flu-like symptoms including fever, headache, and fatigue before progressing to more severe, life-threatening complications.

  • The Ebola outbreak started weeks ago, officials believe. Here’s a timeline of what we know

    The Ebola outbreak started weeks ago, officials believe. Here’s a timeline of what we know

    In an ongoing public health crisis centered in the northeastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, a rare strain of Ebola has sparked an outbreak that the World Health Organization has now designated a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), with fatalities topping 100 and cases already spreading into neighboring Uganda. What follows is a comprehensive chronological breakdown of how the under-recognized crisis unfolded, marked by early challenges in identifying the unusual pathogen behind the spread of disease.

    Between April 24 and 27, the first suspected case of the mysterious illness – a local health worker – fell ill and died in Bunia, the capital of Congo’s Ituri Province. According to Congo’s health minister, the worker’s body was subsequently transported to the nearby mining hub of Mongbwalu. While Congolese officials cite April 24 as the date of death, the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) records the death occurring on April 27, following the onset of severe hemorrhagic symptoms characteristic of filovirus infections like Ebola.

    On April 28, the Africa CDC confirmed that a close contact of the initial suspected victim had also died after developing matching disease symptoms. Just two days later, on April 30, on-site testing of patient samples in Bunia returned negative results for Zaire ebolavirus – the strain responsible for nearly all previous large Ebola outbreaks in Congo. The WHO notes that three Ebola species are known to trigger major outbreaks: Zaire, Sudan, and the far less common Bundibugyo virus. It would take a full two additional weeks for public health authorities to confirm that the rarer Bundibugyo strain was the actual cause of the outbreak.

    By May 5, the WHO was formally notified of a “high-mortality” outbreak of unknown origin in Mongbwalu, with multiple health workers already counted among the deceased. Local preliminary reports placed the death toll at roughly 50 by this point. Congolese health officials later noted that the movement of the first victim’s contagious remains to Mongbwalu likely sparked the local transmission chain there, as bodies of Ebola victims carry extremely high infection risk.

    On May 11, a 59-year-old Congolese man with Ebola-typical symptoms of fever and body aches checked into a hospital in Kampala, Uganda’s capital, located roughly 434 miles from Ituri Province. Ugandan health authorities confirmed he had crossed the border from Congo to seek care. A WHO rapid response team deployed to investigate the expanding outbreak in Mongbwalu and the nearby Rwampara health zone on May 13, as transmission continued to accelerate. The following day, 13 blood samples from suspected Ebola cases in Rwampara were sent for official analysis at a national laboratory in Kinshasa, Congo’s capital. That same day, the cross-border patient from Congo died in the Kampala hospital, and his remains were returned to Congo for burial.

    May 15 marked a turning point in the crisis: laboratory analysis from Kinshasa confirmed the presence of Bundibugyo virus in eight of the 13 Rwampara samples. Posthumous testing of the Ugandan patient’s sample also returned positive for the rare strain, for which no licensed vaccine or specific antiviral treatment currently exists. The Congolese Ministry of Health officially declared an Ebola outbreak, with the Africa CDC reporting 246 suspected cases and 65 fatalities. Within days, those numbers jumped to more than 300 suspected cases and over 100 confirmed deaths. Ugandan officials confirmed their country’s cases were limited to two people, both of whom had entered Uganda from Congo. This outbreak marks the 17th major Ebola event in Congo since the virus was first discovered in the country in 1976.

    On May 17, the WHO formally designated the cross-border outbreak in Congo and Uganda a PHEIC, the United Nations health agency’s highest level of public health alert. The WHO emphasized that the outbreak does not meet the criteria for a pandemic classification like that applied to COVID-19, and explicitly advised against countries closing their borders to Congo or Uganda. Even so, the agency urged all nations sharing a land border with the two affected countries to immediately strengthen routine disease surveillance and ensure frontline health workers receive specialized training to identify, triage and manage Ebola cases.

    The following day, Congolese health officials confirmed that an American doctor working in Bunia had tested positive for the virus. Dr. Jean-Jacques Muyembe, medical director of Congo’s National Institute of Bio-Medical Research, confirmed the case was counted among the infections in Bunia, where the doctor had been treating patients at a local hospital, according to his employing organization.

    This reporting was a collaborative effort by Associated Press writers based across the African continent: Monika Pronczuk in Dakar, Senegal, Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya, and Rodney Muhumuza in Kampala, Uganda.

  • Trump says he called off new Iran attack at request of Gulf states

    Trump says he called off new Iran attack at request of Gulf states

    Less than 24 hours before a planned American military assault on Iran was set to launch, U.S. President Donald Trump announced Friday he had paused the operation following appeals from three key Gulf Arab nations, saying that constructive negotiations are now underway to reach a widely acceptable deal.

    In a public statement posted to his Truth Social platform, Trump clarified that the heads of state of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates personally requested the delay in military action. He added that U.S. officials have been told a final agreement that meets Washington’s core demands is within reach, emphasizing a non-negotiable red line: “NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR IRAN!”

    Even as he paused the strike, Trump maintained a firm posture of deterrence. He warned that all branches of the U.S. military remain on high alert, ready to execute a large-scale, full-scale attack against Iran on extremely short notice if negotiations fail to deliver a satisfactory outcome.

    As of Friday evening, Iranian officials had not issued any public response to Trump’s latest comments.

    The current tension traces back to late February, when joint Israeli and United States forces launched extensive air strikes across Iranian territory. In retaliation, Tehran deployed drones and missiles to target Israeli positions and American military assets located across Gulf nations.

    An April ceasefire, negotiated to create space for diplomatic talks aimed at ending the open conflict, has broadly held. While occasional cross-border exchanges of fire have been reported, neither side has resumed large-scale offensive operations since the truce went into effect.

    One major sticking point remains the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical energy chokepoint. Iran has maintained effective control of the waterway, effectively closing it to commercial transit since the outbreak of hostilities. Approximately 20% of global oil supplies and a large share of the world’s liquefied natural gas pass through the strait, and Iran’s closure in retaliation for U.S.-Israeli strikes has caused a sharp spike in global energy prices.

    In response to the Hormuz closure and to pressure Tehran into concessions, the United States has implemented a strict naval blockade of major Iranian ports, cutting off much of the country’s normal maritime trade.

  • ‘We have to remove Islam’: Social media reacts to racist speeches at Unite the Kingdom rally

    ‘We have to remove Islam’: Social media reacts to racist speeches at Unite the Kingdom rally

    On a Saturday in mid-May 2026, central London played host to two contrasting mass demonstrations, alongside the season’s FA Cup Final, stretching city policing resources as a far-right rally organized by British anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson drew widespread condemnation for overtly hate-filled rhetoric targeting the UK’s Muslim community.

    Organized under the banner “Unite the Kingdom”, the rally led by Robinson – whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – drew an estimated crowd of 60,000 attendees, according to Metropolitan Police figures. This marked a sharp drop from the 150,000 attendees that turned out for Robinson’s September 2024 demonstration, signaling declining public traction for his movement despite the inflammatory messaging on display.

    At the same time the far-right gathering got underway, pro-Palestine organizers held their annual Nakba Day commemoration across the city, marking 78 years since the forced displacement of roughly 750,000 Palestinians during the establishment of the state of Israel. In total, more than 4,000 Metropolitan Police officers were deployed across London to manage all three major public events. By the end of the day, officials confirmed a total of 43 arrests across the two protests, with 20 of those taken into custody at Robinson’s rally facing charges that include public order violations, drunk and disorderly conduct, criminal property damage, and possession of an offensive weapon.

    Robinson opened his remarks by framing the event as a call for political organizing, urging attendees to register to vote ahead of upcoming elections. But his rhetoric quickly turned to division, asking the crowd if they were “ready for the battle of Britain” and warning that without greater grassroots activism from his supporters, “we are going to lose our country forever.” In a post-rally interview with pro-Israel influencer Weronika Rogowska, he doubled down on his anti-Muslim stance, stating that if he gained political power he would “stop Islam” and publicly called for “many Muslims to leave this country” – comments that were quickly labeled incitement to violence by social media users.

    Other speakers at the event amplified the Islamophobic messaging. A delegation from Collectif Nemesis, a French far-right feminist group that opposes immigration and the presence of Islam in Europe, staged a widely criticized performance: three members of the group, including founder Alice Cordier, walked onto the stage wearing full Islamic coverings. They then urged the crowd to chant “take it off” before removing the garments to reveal casual clothing underneath. The stunt drew immediate backlash across social media, with commentators labeling it a deliberate dehumanization of Muslim women. “6% of the UK is Muslim. This is bullying a minority group, pure and simple. It’s gross, despicable racism,” British commentator Harry Eccles wrote in a viral post on X.

    Anti-transgender activist Kellie Jay Keen also drew fierce criticism for her remarks, telling the crowd that the UK can only be “saved” if Islam is removed from every position of public authority. Many observers noted that such open targeting of a religious community would almost certainly lead to prosecution and widespread condemnation if directed at any other group, highlighting what they call growing normalization of anti-Muslim racism in British public life.

    The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) released an official statement condemning the rally, questioning why such inflammatory rhetoric is tolerated when directed at Muslim communities. “We ask a simple question of the authorities, political leaders, and broadcasters: why is this rhetoric tolerated and even defended when it comes to Muslims, when the equivalent, directed at any other group, would rightly be met with prosecution, condemnation, and unequivocal political consequence?” the MCB asked, calling on the Home Office to launch a formal investigation into the speeches as incitements to religious hatred.

    Human rights experts echoed these criticisms. Alonso Gurmendi, a human rights fellow at the London School of Economics, noted that the stage stunt perpetuates dangerous false narratives that frame the oppression of Muslim women as “liberation,” putting all Muslim women at greater risk of targeted harassment and violence. Multiple Muslim members of the public also shared their distress online, with one Muslim woman writing that the “sickening behaviour” had no place in her home country of England.

    Critics also targeted the UK government and Prime Minister Keir Starmer for what they see as a deliberate silence on the rally’s hate speech. While Starmer’s administration did block 11 far-right figures from entering the UK to attend the event – including high-profile anti-Islam campaigner Valentina Gomez – no senior government official has publicly condemned the content of the speeches. Social media users have specifically called out Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who previously labeled pro-Palestine protests “hate marches”, for her silence on the far-right rally. As of publication, the Home Office and Mahmood have not responded to requests for comment from Middle East Eye.

    Police officials noted that while the events were largely contained, officers again faced targeted abuse from attendees of the Unite the Kingdom rally, in particular Muslim officers. “yesterday we saw more of the same” abuse targeting Muslim officers, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson said, referencing a similar pattern of abuse recorded at prior far-right gatherings.

  • A new Swatch model is introduced, and a case study in overexcited ‘drop culture’ plays out

    A new Swatch model is introduced, and a case study in overexcited ‘drop culture’ plays out

    Across major global cities, chaotic scenes unfolded this weekend over the launch of Swatch’s highly anticipated collaboration with luxury watchmaker Audemars Piguet, the Royal Pop bioceramic pocket watch. From violent crowd control measures in France to fistfights in Italy and all-night snaking lines outside retail locations in London, Singapore, and New York, the launch has become the latest flashpoint for modern “drop culture” where coveted limited-edition status symbols collide with lucrative resale market opportunities.

    At the center of the global mania is a timepiece that retails for approximately $400, but was being flipped within hours for thousands of dollars on secondary platforms. By the first business day after the launch, dozens of Royal Pop listings had already appeared on eBay, with one seller advertising an “IN HAND” unit for 3,055.58 British pounds, equal to more than $4,000, and inviting best offers from interested buyers.

    This frenzy marks a noticeable shift from the hyped product drops that defined Swatch and other major brands over the past generation, according to industry analysts. Pierre-Yves Donze, a business history professor at Osaka University Graduate School of Economics, explained that unlike earlier drops where buyers pursued collectibles out of genuine fandom, today’s rush is almost entirely driven by the prospect of quick profit.

    “It looks like people got crazy to get a Royal Pop to make money through resale, not because they are fans of the Swatch,” Donze noted. “People want money, especially. Royal Pop is not like a cool product, but a way to make easy money.”

    Swatch, which has decades of experience leveraging hype around new product launches, moved quickly to calm the frenzy. The Swiss watchmaker confirmed Monday that there is no supply shortage of the Royal Pop, pushing back against the narrative that the timepiece is extremely limited. The company noted that launch-day disruptions were only reported in roughly 20 of its 220 global stores that rolled out the new watch, attributing the issues to unexpectedly large turnout that overwhelmed shopping mall infrastructure, not limited stock.

    Social media has amplified the hype dramatically: the company reported that content tagged for the Royal Pop has accumulated more than 11 billion views across major platforms since the launch was announced. This mirrors the 2022 MoonSwatch launch, a collaboration between Swatch and its sister luxury brand Omega that sparked similar global in-store rushes amid pandemic restrictions. Swatch’s history of hype dates all the way back to the 1980s, when it revolutionized the watch industry with affordable, mass-produced, fashion-forward timepieces that broke from the tradition of expensive heirloom watches.

    This year’s launch brought far more disruption than many industry observers expected. In London, the iconic Carnaby Street and Oxford Street Swatch stores saw crowds of dozens of people block sidewalks ahead of opening Sunday, prompting local police to close all Swatch locations across London and multiple other U.K. cities. Similar disruptions were reported across Europe and North America: stores were shuttered across the Netherlands, and New York’s Times Square location developed what attendees described as a “mosh pit” vibe.

    In France, the situation escalated to require riot control measures. The French national police service confirmed that officers deployed tear gas grenades and spray to disperse unruly crowds outside multiple Swatch boutiques. At the large Westfield Parly 2 shopping mall west of Paris, television footage showed officers in riot gear and helmets stationed outside the shuttered Swatch outlet. In Lyon, officers used a tear gas grenade after the crowd ignored repeated orders to disperse from the city’s central Bellecour Square, while municipal police in Montpellier deployed tear gas spray. Swatch’s French division announced via Instagram that six stores would close for the day “because of public security considerations.”

    Unlike many modern brands that have moved hyped product drops entirely online to avoid safety and liability risks, Swatch chose to release the Royal Pop exclusively through in-store retail locations, a decision that industry critics say amplified the frenzy. The exclusive in-person model created perfect conditions for resellers to monopolize initial stock, driving up the potential profits for those who managed to secure a watch early. Reports from launch weekend noted sporadic injuries, multiple arrests, and minor property damage connected to the overcrowded crowds.

    London-based fashion and cultural critic Odunayo Ojo noted that most streetwear and sneaker brands abandoned in-person exclusive drops years ago over safety concerns. “Either Swatch ‘didn’t get the memo,’ he said, underestimated the draw to the new product or strategically hyped the drop to pump sales. Swatch already has a track record of understanding how these things go,” Ojo explained on his YouTube channel Fashion Roadman.

    By Monday, the long lines outside most Swatch locations had dissipated, with onlookers in Paris noting that most initial stock had already sold out. In a public reassurance to consumers, Swatch confirmed that the Royal Pop will remain available for purchase through retail locations for months to come, with new shipments already en route to restock stores around the world.

  • Trump admin creates $1.7 bln fund to compensate allies prosecuted under Biden

    Trump admin creates $1.7 bln fund to compensate allies prosecuted under Biden

    In a controversial move that has ignited fierce partisan backlash, the U.S. Department of Justice, now led by former personal lawyer of President Donald Trump Todd Blanche, announced Monday the creation of a $1.7 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” designed to compensate political allies who were prosecuted during the prior Biden administration. The new fund is the centerpiece of a settlement agreement that ends a high-profile $10 billion damages lawsuit Trump and his two eldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, brought against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) earlier this year over the unauthorized leak of the president’s personal tax returns.

    The legal dispute stemmed from a 2023 case in which a former IRS contractor pleaded guilty to leaking confidential tax records of Trump and dozens of other high-net-worth individuals to major media outlets, ultimately receiving a five-year federal prison sentence for the offense. Under the terms of the settlement, the DOJ confirmed that Trump will not receive any financial compensation or damages from the fund, though he will be issued a formal apology for the privacy breach. Blanche, who currently serves as acting attorney general, framed the initiative as a long-overdue correction of past government overreach. “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a formal statement. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.” Blanche will personally appoint a five-person panel to oversee the fund’s allocation and claims process, according to department officials.

    Critics across the political aisle, however, have blasted the initiative as an unprecedented abuse of power and a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars to reward Trump’s loyalists. Democratic lawmakers and government watchdog groups were quick to label the initiative a brazenly corrupt “slush fund,” with top Democratic leaders leading the charge against the plan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the scheme one of the most depraved acts of corruption in modern American political history. “Donald Trump sued his own government. Trump’s DOJ settled with Trump. And now Trump gets a nearly $2 billion slush fund to reward his own allies, loyalists, and insurrectionists,” Schumer said in a scathing statement. “Of all the corrupt things he has done, this is one of the most depraved.”

    Nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen echoed the criticism, describing the fund as a “monstrous theft of taxpayer resources” and calling on Congress to immediately block any disbursements from the account. Even former 2016 presidential opponent Hillary Clinton weighed in, condemning the move as an outrageous misuse of public funds. “Trump didn’t just pardon his followers who stormed the US Capitol. He’s now set them up for payments through a slush fund he created to reward his allies — out of your tax dollars. You could not make this up,” Clinton posted on social media.

    Among those eligible to file claims for compensation are hundreds of Trump supporters who faced prosecution for their role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an insurrection aimed at blocking the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory. Shortly after winning re-election in 2024, Trump issued a sweeping mass pardon for all January 6 defendants on his first day back in office, and the new fund would allow those individuals to seek financial compensation for their prosecutions.

    The creation of the fund marks the latest in a series of retaliatory actions Trump has taken against perceived political opponents since returning to the White House for a second term. His administration has already moved forward with plans to pursue new criminal cases against political rivals, purged thousands of career government officials deemed insufficiently loyal to the president, targeted private law firms that previously worked on legal cases against him, and pulled federal research and education funding from universities across the country that Trump has criticized for being too liberal. Both of the high-profile criminal cases that special counsel Jack Smith brought against Trump prior to the 2024 election — one centered on efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and another related to improper handling of classified national security documents — were dropped immediately after Trump’s inauguration.

  • Bolivia protesters allied with ex-leader Morales march on capital as unrest widens

    Bolivia protesters allied with ex-leader Morales march on capital as unrest widens

    LA PAZ, Bolivia – Six months into the tenure of Bolivia’s first conservative head of state in nearly 20 years, widespread protests led by supporters of influential former socialist president Evo Morales have plunged the Andean nation into political and social upheaval, sparked by the worst economic crisis the country has faced in a generation. What began as scattered demonstrations and road blockades more than two weeks ago has grown into the most formidable threat to the administration of President Rodrigo Paz, who took office last year amid a regional conservative wave linked to the former Trump administration in the United States.

    After trekking for six days across the rugged Andes mountain range, thousands of Morales’ loyal supporters converged on the capital La Paz on Monday, where they faced off against lines of riot police. Many demonstrators carried visible dynamite sticks and slingshots, with repeated dynamite blasts echoing through downtown La Paz. In response, security forces deployed tear gas canisters that drifted over crowds united in chants of “Homeland or death, we will win!” and unified demands for Paz’s immediate resignation.

    Paz inherited a 40-year economic low when he took office, and has faced mounting pressure to address persistent gaps: scarce fuel supplies, a crippling national budget deficit, and a critical shortage of U.S. dollars. The president has also had to navigate tensions with powerful Morales-aligned groups that have a long history of leveraging mass action to disrupt sitting governments. In recent days, Paz’s administration has secured tentative deals to end protests with striking miners and teacher unions, but core demonstrations led by Morales supporters have continued.

    Road blockades, a longstanding protest tactic for Morales’ social movement bloc which claims to represent Bolivia’s majority rural Indigenous population, have paralyzed key transportation routes across the country over 16 days. Thousands of freight trucks have been stranded on major highways, triggering cascading shortages of food, fuel, and critical medical supplies in La Paz and other major urban centers.

    Over the weekend, the Bolivian government deployed national police and military personnel to clear blockades. As of Monday, Bolivia’s public prosecutor’s office confirmed an unspecified number of injuries and at least 90 arrests stemming from the crackdown. Deputy Interior Minister Hernán Paredes defended the government’s actions Monday, stating that peaceful demonstrations are permitted, but authorities will respond forcefully to any criminal activity connected to the unrest.

    Paz has directly accused Morales of orchestrating the current wave of unrest in a deliberate bid to destabilize and overthrow his democratically elected administration. Morales, for his part, has organized the massive march from a remote tropical hideout in Bolivia, where he has evaded an outstanding arrest warrant for 18 months. The arrest warrant stems from allegations stemming from his sexual relationship with a 15-year-old minor, charges Morales have repeatedly dismissed as politically motivated fabrication.

    The unfolding crisis has drawn international attention and intervention. Last week, eight Latin American governments spanning from Argentina to Panama released a joint statement rejecting any action intended to destabilize Bolivia’s democratic order. The U.S. State Department added its condemnation of the unrest Sunday, confirming U.S. support for Paz’s government and its efforts to reestablish peace, security, and stability for the Bolivian people.

    At Paz’s formal request, neighboring Argentina has launched a weeklong humanitarian airlift operation to ease the acute shortages of critical goods that are currently impacting Bolivian cities.