Latest from Spectator
Spectator
an hour ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Palestine Action's RAF vandalism was no protest
Members of an activist group called Palestine Action have broken into the Royal Air Force's largest base, RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, and vandalised two Airbus Voyager refuelling aircraft. With breathless self-congratulation, the organisation said its members 'used electric scooters to swiftly manoeuvre towards the planes', sprayed red paint into the turbine engines and used crowbars to damage the fuselages of the aircraft. The red paint, of course, is symbolic of Palestinian bloodshed. BREAKING: Palestine Action break into RAF Brize Norton and damage two military aircrafts. Flights depart daily from the base to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. From Cyprus, British planes collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza. — Palestine Action (@Pal_action) June 20, 2025 If you are wondering why RAF aircraft in Oxfordshire were targeted by a group concerned with events in the Middle East, allow Palestine Action to remove the scales from your eyes: 'Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US/Israeli fighter jets. Britain isn't just complicit, it's an active participant in the Gaza genocide and war crimes across the Middle East. By decommissioning two military planes, Palestine Action have directly intervened to break the chains of oppression.' Flights leave Brize Norton daily, our heroes explain, to fly to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, and 'from Cyprus, British planes collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza.' What is not legitimate, nor can ever be legitimate, is breaking into a UK military facility and damaging equipment The Royal Air Force begs to differ on at least some of these assertions. An RAF source told the media that, 'the UK is not supporting Israeli operations and these aircraft have not been used in support of Israeli forces in any shape or form.' There is certainly a defence and security aspect to the relationship between the UK and Israel, as set out two years ago in a '2030 roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations.' The armed forces minister, Luke Pollard, stated in a debate in the House of Commons in March that the RAF conducted unarmed surveillance flights over the eastern Mediterranean, including Israel and Gaza, 'solely in support of hostage rescue'. Only intelligence relevant to the rescue of Israeli hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza – nearly 21 months after the savage pogrom of 7 October 2023 – is shared with Israel. The UK suspended a range of arms exports to Israel in September last year. However, we continue to contribute components for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning strike aircraft to a global spares pool and the common production line for new aircraft; as Israel is also a partner in the F-35 programme, it is entirely possible that some UK-manufactured parts may be supplied for the Israeli Air Force's aircraft, but it is not possible for the UK to monitor or prevent that because of the way components are shared. The claim that the RAF is supporting Israeli operations in Gaza is at best overegged. But it would be a mistake to think that Palestine Action is especially interested in the intricacies of Britain's operations in the eastern Mediterranean or the precise role of aircraft based at RAF Akrotiri. Doubtless every member of Palestine Action is deeply grieved by the loss of Palestinian lives in Gaza. But the group makes no pretence of its agenda. Its website refers to its activities being 'geared towards harnessing the strength of the grassroots and directing it towards bringing down Israel.' It has focused its attention on the Israeli technology and defence contractor Elbit Systems Ltd, the business model of which, the group claims, 'relies on the destruction of Palestine and the genocide of it's [sic] population'. It moves into a full lower-sixth activism fury register when it continues that Elbit 'use Palestinians as test subjects, before selling these technologies on to fuel imperialism and colonialism elsewhere.' For Palestine Action, Elbit is a proxy for Israel, and the group makes little effort to hide that conflation. That is their right: we live in a free and open society and it is legitimate for a campaign group to oppose a foreign state (though the logic of that can carry people to some dark places). It is also legitimate for members of that group to pursue peaceful protest. What is not legitimate, nor can ever be legitimate, is breaking into a UK military facility and damaging equipment. It is, of course, against the law and it is to be hoped that Thames Valley Police catch, charge and prosecute those responsible for the vandalism at Brize Norton. It goes further than that, though. However much members of Palestine Action think they know about RAF operations in the Mediterranean, they have attempted –seemingly without a great deal of success – to reduce the operational capability of the armed forces. The RAF has 14 Voyager refuelling aircraft: Palestine Action vandalised two of them. Those aircraft could be required to support UK operations anywhere in the world, at any time. Anti-Israel activists cannot damage them in relation to activities in the Mediterranean without potential consequences for the whole force. Protest is a desperately precious right, more now than ever. Palestine Action crossed a very clear line in order deliberately to weaken the capacity of British armed forces. There is a word for that, and it is not 'protest'. Catch them, find the heaviest book, and throw it at them.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Has the Islamophobia ‘Working Group' of MPs already made up its mind?
Sir John Jenkins was invited by the Government-appointed 'Working Group' to offer his views on a proposed definition of 'Islamophobia'. Here is his response to Dominic Grieve, the Group's chair: Dear Dominic Grieve, It is kind of you to seek my views on 'whether a definition [of Islamophobia] would be helpful'. I have some fundamental reservations about both the process you are overseeing and its likely trajectory. I owe you the courtesy of explaining what these are. I remain unconvinced that anything I might say would make a difference to the Working Group on Anti Muslim Hatred/ Islamophobia Definition's deliberations. But I am always open to being persuaded otherwise. The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it First, with regard to process: the creation of the Working Group was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner on 28 February and given a six-month timeframe in which to deliver a report. We are now over half-way through that period and very little information about the work of the Group has entered the public domain. I note that the Terms of Reference (TORs) specify that all discussions will be strictly confidential. On a matter of such public policy significance, this is highly unusual. As matters stand, the absence of transparency is bound to raise serious questions about accountability. This must surely damage the credibility of its conclusions. Second, the precise nature of the Working Group is unclear to me. The TORs talk about 'technical experts'. But the question of 'Islamophobia' is both heavily contested and subjective. In every definition I have seen – including that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, to whose 2019 report you contributed an introduction – it is treated as a matter of 'lived experience'. You described it as such yourself in February. I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters. What is needed instead is surely expertise in European law and jurisprudence (which must be the operational framework for such issues), Islamic jurisprudence (which is highly complex and varied but provides a context for some of the more extravagant claims in this area), the philosophy of liberty and the history of both western and Islamic political thought – plus a healthily sceptical attitude to critical theory and an intellectually rigorous approach to both social constructivism and what Marxists used to call 'reification'. I should also have thought that the membership of such a group would need to be diverse, representing different viewpoints, normative commitments and experiences. After all, if the government were to adopt a definition of Islamophobia, it would affect everyone in the country, of whatever ethnicity, faith or political persuasion. The Group's TORs go some way to recognising this – as indeed did the APPG Report. Yet every single member – apart from you – appears to be Muslim. Muslims, of course, have an entirely understandable interest in the matter: but so does everyone else. Against that background, I am concerned that the Working Group may have begun its work with its conclusions pre-determined. The TORs make clear that its objective is 'to develop a working definition' not to decide whether to have one or not. As you will know from my own publicly stated position on this issue, I believe that the case for accepting this – as a first principle – is far from proven. This is, of course, a commonly held view not just in this country but across Europe and across political divides. Yet it seems that the Working Group has, without argument, decided otherwise. That it has done so would seem to be in keeping with what I understand to be your own public position. The 2019 APPG Report claimed a definition of Islamophobia was needed to prevent 'negative attitudes that would not be classed as crimes by police' and to set 'appropriate limits to free speech' when talking about Muslims. Throughout the report there are frequent suggestions that this would need to be 'legally-binding'. Akeela Ahmed, a member of the current Working Group, is actually quoted as saying that 'a definition with legal power is required, one that could be implemented by the government and the police.' Even if the definition were not legally binding, it would still probably operate in much the same way. In the supportive foreword which you wrote, you 'greatly welcome[d]' the report and added, 'that action is needed I have no doubt.' Then there is the question of how you believe my own views would help shape the current debate. As you will remember, when I and my colleagues at Policy Exchange contested the conclusions of the APPG at the time, you publicly described our report as in large part 'total, unadulterated rubbish.' I have not changed my views on this matter. I daresay the same is true of you. Against that backdrop, it is hard not to wonder whether the real purpose of the Group's approach to me is not so much because they welcome challenge but instead to help legitimise a pre-ordained conclusion, by claiming that they consulted those on all sides of the debate – before proposing a definition which they then seek to present as a compromise. As I have said, my position is a matter of public record, but I am happy to restate it here. Hatred of and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal. It therefore remains unclear to me exactly what the definitional, policy or legal problem might be that a new, government sponsored definition of Islamophobia is trying to address. What then is its purpose? The government has periodically insisted that it will be 'non-statutory' and will maintain freedom of speech. The current TORs for your Working Group make the same claim. But they also explicitly talk about determining the 'appropriate and sensitive language' for discussing issues in this space. And the aim of many of the activists who seek such a definition is clearly to achieve legal enforceability. Whether a definition is legally binding or not, of course, the impact is clear. You will recall that Sir Trevor Phillips (whom I note you have also invited to speak to the Working Group) was suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 for 'Islamophobia'. The suspension was both absurd and later lifted. But it illustrates the problem. I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters Whatever form of words is chosen, and whatever legal status it has to start with, any definition will have serious consequences. It will almost certainly turbocharge 'cancel culture'. Indeed, I have heard it described as potentially the most retrograde step in this country since Sir Robert Walpole's government in 1737 granted the Lord Chamberlain's office powers to licence theatrical scripts. And it will inevitably reduce social trust and heighten social tensions. In this regard, the debate over whether a definition would be legally binding is something of a red herring. Its effect would inevitably be to shrink even further the space for open debate. Moreover, this initiative comes at a time when the government is at pains to rebut the charge – not just in this country but from the Trump administration – that it operates a 'two-tier' policy in various areas. But unless it literally restates the existing legal protections covering all faiths, any official Islamophobia definition will be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone. The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it. It will certainly strengthen divisive extremism on all sides – not just from the populist right, but also the growing Islamist challenge to mainstream parties. That, too, is likely to harm both community cohesion and Muslims more generally. It is unlikely to alleviate Islamist discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace. Even without the force of an official definition, claims of Islamophobia are already used to close down legitimate debate and deter investigation of alleged wrongdoing, as in Rotherham or Batley, with disastrous results all round, including for the wider Muslim community itself. I have little confidence that the Working Group will approach these questions with an open mind. As I said at the beginning of this letter, I should be happy to be proved wrong on both points. Yours sincerely, Sir John Jenkins Senior Fellow, Policy Exchange How Not to Tackle Grooming Gangs: The National Grooming Gang Inquiry and a Definition of Islamophobia is published today
Spectator
an hour ago
- Health
- Spectator
The assisted dying debate is not ‘Parliament at its best'
MPs are coming to the end of the assisted dying debate. The speeches can be roughly divided into the following camps: those who, like the Bill's sponsor Kim Leadbeater, are very much in favour of the Bill and confident in its drafting; those who are in favour of the principle of assisted dying but who are so concerned about the drafting of the Bill that they are opposed to it; and the implacable opponents to the principle. The speeches from the latter two camps largely focused on the argument that today's vote is not about the principle of assisted dying but about the Bill as it stands. The proponents of the legislation, though, have largely focused on the need to back assisted dying as a principle. Leadbeater argued in her speech that if the Commons did not vote for the Bill today, then MPs would be leaving more people to die without dignity. She said: I say to colleagues who are supportive of a change in the law but are hesitant about whether now is the time, that if we do not vote for a change in the law today, we will have many more years of heartbreaking stories from terminally ill people and their families, of pain and trauma… There will be stories of suicide attempts, post traumatic stress disorder, lonely trips to Switzerland, police investigations and everything else we have all heard of in recent months. Leadbeater was followed by James Cleverly, who argued 'about the practicalities of the Bill', but did also point to the way the legislation would change 'the relationship between medial professionals and those they serve.' He also highlighted that while most professional bodies in the medical world are 'neutral on the topic of assisted dying', they were 'opposed to the provisions within this Bill in particular'. Cleverly, like many other opponents, argued that MPs needed to do their job properly in scrutinising this particular Bill rather than campaigning for a principle. That argument was made with even greater force by a furious Sarah Olney, one of the Lib Dems opposed to the Bill. She told the Chamber that MPs should not act like activists pushing for a cause but as legislators, which is what they had been elected to do. One of the best speeches against came from Diane Abbott, who started by saying she was in favour of assisted dying, but then spoke powerfully against the Bill, saying: I have heard talk today of the injustices of the current situation. What could be more unjust than someone losing their life because of poorly drafted legislation? She spoke of coercion and of the vulnerability of someone who 'all their life has lacked agency' and has not, like MPs, 'been confident in dealing with authority and institutions'. Vicky Foxcroft gave her first speech on the backbenches since resigning last night. She said she based her opposition to the Bill on her experience as shadow minister for disabled people, where she found that most disabled people and almost all the organisations representing them were opposed to and in fear of assisted dying. She had voted for the previous attempt to introduce assisted dying in 2015, but would be voting against today. Peter Prinsley spoke from his experience as a doctor, saying he had started his medical career opposed to assisted dying, but what he had seen in his professional practice had changed his mind about the need to give people dignity and choice over the end of their lives. Other supporters of the Bill spoke of constituents and family members who had desperately wanted that dignity. The margin of the result will be narrow, which will create problems if the Bill does pass. The speeches today have largely been considered and well-argued, though far too many MPs have congratulated themselves with the dreadful phrase: 'Parliament at its best'. Perhaps they have reached that conclusion because MPs have mostly been polite to one another – which stands in contrast to some of the very ill-tempered debates over the past decade, particularly around Brexit. But this is not an example of Parliament at its best on legislating, which is after all its primary role, rather than a forum for people to parade their politeness.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Will Emily Maitlis now apologise to Rupert Lowe?
The News Agents podcasters appear increasingly less focused on facts and more on taking a pop at people who hold different views to them. Ex-Reform man Rupert Lowe was a recent casualty. He was invited onto the podcast to speak to Maitlis – who wasted no time in tearing into him, going so far as to suggest the independent parliamentarian was 'racist' after he spoke about Pakistani grooming gangs. But after the publication of Baroness Casey's review this week, it would appear Maitlis is due a rather large slice of humble pie… On the episode, Maitlis asked Lowe quizzically: 'Why do you only talk about Pakistani grooming gangs? There are ten times as many white grooming gang suspects.' She then added: 'You are focusing on Pakistani grooming gangs because, probably, you're racist.' Er, right. Mr S wonders what exactly Maitlis made of Casey's review this week, then. It suggests that, where ethnicity data was logged (in around a third of the cases of group-based child sexual exploitation) there was an overrepresentation of Asian and Pakistani men. And, as Mr S has written before, Pakistani men are up to five times as likely to be responsible for child sex grooming offences than the general population, according to figures from the Hydrant Programme, which investigates child sex abuse. Around one in 73 Muslim men over 16 have been prosecuted for 'group-localised child sexual exploitation' in Rotherham, research by academics from the universities of Reading and Chichester has revealed. How very interesting… So will Maitlis now apologise to Lowe over her attack? Don't hold your breath…
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Ewing snubs SNP ahead of Holyrood election
With less than 11 months to go until the Holyrood election, things aren't looking quite as rosy for the SNP as in previous elections. The party is 15 points down on where it was 2021, it lost the recent Hamilton by-election with Reform hot on its heels and now it has been dealt another blow. SNP veteran Fergus Ewing has confirmed that he will run as an independent at the 2026 Scottish parliament election, turning his back on a political institution he has represented in Holyrood for over a quarter of a century. It's quite the move from a politician who grew up as SNP royalty, being the son of the party's first female MP Winnie Ewing. His mother's victory in the 1967 Hamilton by-election signalled a breakthrough for Scottish nationalists; Ewing's departure from the party may indicate a rather different kind of pivot. Ewing has represented the constituents of Inverness and Nairn since 1999 but in March this year said he would not stand for the SNP in 2026. Today he confirmed that he will still pursue a career in frontline politics, but this time he will stand against the party he grew up in. The SNP is 'no longer the party for all of Scotland', the 67-year-old lamented. He accused Scotland's party of government for having 'deserted many of the people whose causes we used to champion' and added: 'I believe the SNP has lost its way and that devolution itself – presently – is letting Scotland's people down. Holyrood is more fractious and tribal than ever before.' The MSP has been an ardent critic of the nationalists in recent years, with Nicola Sturgeon's Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens a catalyst for his public disowning of the SNP. Vocal on issues including growth, infrastructure, women's rights and rural issues, much of what what the Greens stood for – with their relaxed attitude to growth, being avidly in favour of highly-protected marine areas at the expense of highland and island communities and backing gender reform – was anathema to Ewing. Indeed the writing has long been on the wall. Last April, in an interview with the The Spectator , he insisted his 'absolute red line' for his membership of the SNP was the dualling of the A9 and A96 in the north of Scotland. This project – which the SNP began planning for almost 20 years ago – has still not been completed. Ewing was a frequent disrupter during Humza Yousaf's premiership – and eventually got himself suspended after he voted against the government during a no-confidence vote in then-junior minister and Scottish Green co-leader Lorna Slater. Not that Ewing is in any way embarrassed by the scraps he has found himself in with his own party over the years. 'I think democracy needs an awkward squad,' he told The Spectator. 'I won on the DRS [Deposit Return Scheme], I won on HPMAs [Highly Protected Marine Areas], I won on heat pumps, I won on gender reforms – although people like Joanna Cherry were leading the running. And I've won on getting the Greens out of government.' And the Nairn MSP has never been shy about his disapproval of the progressive direction the SNP has moved in recent years. He sums up his approach to politics: 'Am I an Inverness man in Holyrood? Or am I an SNP apologist in Inverness?' He backed now-deputy FM Kate Forbes for the leadership as an admirer of her own religious background and socially conservative views. In the days when pro-independence party Alba was a little more vocal, Ewing suggested that it was only Forbes who would be able to heal the wounds of the Yes movement, and bring pro-indy supporters back into the fold. Perhaps – if he's successful next year – Forbes will ensure he's not entirely excluded from the fold. Of course this depends firstly on whether Ewing's bid is successful. It's hard to run and win as an independent candidate – although famously Margo McDonald proved it could be done after the SNP. And after winning his constituents' trust in every single Holyrood election since the creation of the Scottish parliament, Ewing might just manage it.
