News

News delivers the latest updates and breaking developments on free expression, digital rights, and censorship issues worldwide. Stay informed on key events, policy changes, and stories shaping the global conversation about free speech and open dialogue.

There have been calls for pro-Palestine protests to be banned following attacks on Jewish communities. Photo: orlando britain/Alamy Since the shocking attacks on members of the Jewish community in Golders Green, north London on Wednesday, there have been calls to ban future marches in support of Palestinians, including from Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer on terrorism legislation. It sounds like a reasonable demand. There have been expressions of antisemitism on these marches and political slogans are often chanted that many believe to be antisemitic, such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as well as the phrase “Globalise the intifada”, which has led to arrests for stirring up racial hatred and which the prime minister described as “extreme racism”  following the attacks. However, this proposal is unwise for a number of reasons. The Jewish community needs protection, but so does the right to protest. It was significantly eroded by the last Conservative administration and Keir Starmer’s Labour government has already displayed an authoritarian zeal to limit free speech, including new powers that will allow police to put conditions on repeat protests, which became law in April. While this demand for a ban may appear to be targeting hate speech, and in this case specifically antisemitism, it would prevent legitimate and necessary protest. More than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023 and settler attacks in the West Bank have resulted in multiple deaths and thousands of Palestinians being displaced from their homes. Protest is an essential means of demonstrating public outrage at these events and solidarity with Palestinians. Nor will banning marches diminish the alarming growth in antisemitism, which has become normalised since 7 October. I have myself witnessed a new licence in disparaging Jews and Judaism in public life to a degree that I have never previously observed. It is as if a taboo has been broken. No distinction is made between the actions of Israel and a diaspora minority – not only by the individuals who commit these acts of violence, but even by apparently peace-loving people who would consider themselves to be opposed to racism. This attitude towards Jews has a long history. The belief that the Jewish people are intrinsically evil and out to undermine society dates back to medieval times in England, when they were the most visible minority in the country. That connection between Jews and wrongdoing is so deeply ingrained in our culture (from Chaucer through to Shakespeare, Dickens and Roald Dahl) that anti-Jewish feeling is easily triggered. So, when the Jewish state commits war crimes, it’s the ancient, irrational charges that surface once again: Jews as bloodthirsty child killers seeking to control the world. That’s why the distinction between Jews and Israel is so readily blurred. You don’t stamp out that deep cultural antipathy by banning a march. Instead, you marginalise Palestinians, who are in essential need of international support. You undermine a fundamental democratic right and you fail to address the root causes of antisemitism. You also deny the possibility for a nuanced discussion. I have sympathy with fellow Jews who feel that the chants on marches are hostile and racist. But “Globalise the intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are political slogans open to interpretation. The Arabic word intifada, or shaking off, is an expression of rebellion against Israeli occupation that dates back nearly 40 years. After nearly 60 years of oppression, supporters of Palestinians have every right to call for it in solidarity. Likewise, “From the river to the sea” could be interpreted as a legitimate call for self-determination or for a one-state solution, which an increasing number of Jews are now calling for too since there is no possibility of a two-state solution in sight. We need to have the courage and vision to support the Jewish community without destroying a fundamental and necessary right. It is Jews who will ultimately be harmed too, as members of the UK population, if the right to protest is further eroded. READ MORE

0

Since the shocking attacks on members of the Jewish community in Golders Green, north London on Wednesday, there have been…

Zambian President Hakainde Hichilemamet Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in 2024. Photo: Yin Bogu/Xinhua/Alamy Live News Also read our CEO Jemimah Steinfeld’s view on the reasons for RightsCon’s cancellation The cancellation of RightsCon, due to be held this weekend in Lusaka, Zambia has come as a shock. The global conference would have brought together thousands of advocates, technologists, academics, policymakers and others concerned with issues at the intersection of human rights and technology. However, for those Zambians who are abreast of the political direction their country is taking, it is not very surprising. Daniel Sikazwe, the secretary general of Zambian PEN, had feared that it could happen given the fact that the conference was to happen just three months before the general elections on 13 August 2026. “The conference was going to show the world the state of human rights violations in Zambia at a time when the regime in power does not want this information known by the electorate,” he said, adding that since President Hakainde Hichilema assumed office in 2021, the human rights situation in the country has deteriorated. Hichilema’s government has enacted laws like the Cyber Security Act (2025) and the Cyber Crimes Act (2025) which human rights experts consider hostile to perceived dissent, criticism and political opposition. In fact, the Law Association of Zambia has petitioned the high court to declare provisions of the Cyber Crimes Act unconstitutional since it infringes on freedom of expression, speech, conscience, and association. The Ministry of Information’s press release stating that the conference’s postponement was “necessitated by the need for a comprehensive disclosure of the critical information relating to key thematic issues proposed for discussion” suggests that the government was apprehensive about the direction that some of the conference sessions would take. Charles Mafa, managing partner and editor at the Center of Investigative Journalism in Lusaka, Zambia attributed the postponement to China’s influence in the mining sector in Zambia. “On 18 February 2025, there was a major environmental disaster in Zambia: a tailings dam owned by a Chinese state-owned enterprise collapsed, releasing close to 50 million litres of highly toxic waste into the Kafue River ecosystem. This disaster and how investigations into it have been frustrated by the government was bound to be one of the big talking points at the conference to the discomfort of the ruling party,” he said. David Ngwenyama, a well-known Zambian ecologist, reiterates Mafa’s point. “This is the same government that has done public relations work for the Chinese mining company, claiming that pollution has been neutralised and the conditions are back to normal,” he said, adding, “I would not be surprised if the postponement of the conference is yet another performance of Chinese power in Zambia.” The fact that the venue where the conference was to be held – the Mulungushi International Conference Center – was partly built with Chinese funds has also made people wonder if China could have had a hand in the postponement of the event. There were also representatives from Taiwan due to speak at the conference. If all this is true, it raises serious questions about Zambia’s sovereignty. For an African journalist like me, having RightsCon in southern Africa would have been a megaphone for human rights defenders and journalists to showcase the deterioration of human rights observance on the African continent and to put this on record. It was also an opportunity for human rights defenders and journalists to come together as a family that shares the same values and dilemmas. There is immense power in this kind of gathering because it sends the powerful message: you are not alone in this work you are doing – everywhere in the world, there are people who are fighting for human rights observance  as you are, and paying the price as you are, sometimes the ultimate price. Finally, in the past, before the world changed in the Donald Trump direction where business and financial deals matter more than human life and human rights, resolutions made at these conferences had serious consequences for the nations labelled human rights violators, particularly in terms of isolating them as pariah nations (think of Iran, North Korea, Russia, after the invasion of Ukraine and the killing of Alexei Navalny –  and the killing of more than 50,000 people in the Gaza war. These days, unfortunately, none of this seems to matter: Mighty nations can attack weaker nations at will, assassinate the entire cabinet, and turn this into a joke on social media. Bombing “for fun”. Sad. READ MORE

0

Also read our CEO Jemimah Steinfeld’s view on the reasons for RightsCon’s cancellation The cancellation of RightsCon, due to be…

Load More