‘Shameful' that bonfire with migrant effigies was allowed to go ahead
The boat on top of the pyre contained more than a dozen life-sized mannequins wearing life jackets, while below it were placards saying 'stop the boats' and 'veterans before refugees'.
International's Northern Ireland director Patrick Corrigan said: 'It is shameful that the authorities allowed this despicable display of hate to go ahead.
'What a shocking message to send to local migrant families.
'It is just weeks since migrant families were forced to flee for their lives when their homes were attacked and set on fire – a chilling pattern of escalating hostility.
'The authorities must treat this as a hate crime, conduct a full investigation and ensure those responsible are held to account.'
Mr Corrigan added: 'Racism, xenophobia, and hate have no place here – and that must be made unmistakably clear.'
Police said on Thursday they had received a number of reports regarding the bonfire in Moygashel and the material on it.
A spokesperson said: 'Police are investigating this hate incident.
'Police are here to help those who are or who feel vulnerable, to keep people safe.
'We do this by working with local communities, partners, elected representatives and other stakeholders to deliver local solutions to local problems, building confidence in policing and supporting a safe environment for people to live, work, visit and invest in Northern Ireland, but we can only do so within the legislative framework that exists.'
Sinn Fein MLA Colm Gildernew said the bonfire 'was clearly intended to dehumanise people who come to our island seeking a better life'.
He added: 'The effigies and displays were abhorrent, driven by vile, far-right and racist attitudes.
'I welcome that police are treating this as a hate incident. It's vital those responsible are held accountable for their disgusting actions.
'Diversity, inclusion and equality must always triumph over xenophobia and hate.'
The Moygashel bonfire has become well known in recent years for contentious displays.
Last year, a mock police car was burnt on the top of the bonfire and in 2023 a boat designed to represent the post-Brexit Irish Sea economic border was torched.
Earlier this week, prominent loyalist activist Jamie Bryson said the bonfire was a form of 'artistic protest'.
'Every year Moygashel bonfire combines artistic protest with their cultural celebration,' he posted on X.
'Their yearly art has itself become a tradition.
'This year the focus is on the scandal of mass illegal immigration.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
Metro
3 hours ago
- Metro
Readers discuss Corbyn's 'own goal', Doctor Who and gorilla costumes
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. The most significant thing that Jeremy Corbyn's new political party (Metro, Fri) is likely to achieve is dividing Labour's extreme left vote between two camps, which will reduce Labour's overall support, and therefore help more right-wing political parties such as the Conservatives and Reform gain traction before the next General Election. This should please rather than threaten 'the rich and powerful' he has vowed to 'take on'. As a football fan, Corbyn ought to know what is meant by scoring an own goal, but perhaps he doesn't. Robert Hughes, London I don't understand the furore about 16-year-olds being allowed to vote (MetroTalk, Tue). Regardless of whichever particular party is in power, MetroTalk will be full of letters asking why people voted for them. There will always be people unhappy with the government. Instead of the Opposition childishly trying to score points against whoever is in power, the only sensible solution would be for the government to be a Coalition, made up of members from every political party, working together for the good of the people instead of for themselves. Owen, London Wake up to find news on your TV shows in your inbox every morning with Metro's TV Newsletter. Sign up to our newsletter and then select your show in the link we'll send you so we can get TV news tailored to you. If 16-year-olds get the vote they will probably be drawn to the Lib Dems, purely because Ed Davey's stunts are social media-friendly. Why bother with politics when you could be rolling downhill, strapped to a giant Wensleydale? Tess Kamara, via email Perhaps if 16- and 17-year-olds had been allowed to vote in the referendum, we wouldn't have been subjected to the debacle that is Brexit. Roger Smith, Witham Policemen are noticeable by their absence in most towns and cities and rarely bother turning up when a crime is reported – yet a reported 5,000 officers are suddenly available to protect a convicted felon from America on his visit to Turnberry in Scotland? Martin J Phillips, Leeds I agree with Kim from Hornchurch (MetroTalk, Wed) about the grossly misjudged decision by the school that didn't allow a student to wear a Union Jack dress. However, that's not at all the same as an adult approaching a school wearing a gorilla costume. For those who think it's OK for a father to go to his child's school in a gorilla costume, I suppose it would also be OK if a parent approached a school wearing a motorcycle helmet or maybe with a clown's face painted on? It's interesting how when someone is admonished for doing something stupid and inconsiderate, they jump on to the bandwagon of calling those who disagree with their actions 'woke'. Kehinde, London The recent incident involving Chris Napthine collecting his daughter from school in a gorilla costume reminds me of the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch where Professor Timothy Fielding is describing his early experience with Gerald the Gorilla. Fielding says, 'When I first encountered Gerald, he was completely wild.' Gerald then replies, 'Wild? I was absolutely livid! Stephen Dugdale, Sheffield In Wednesday's Metro, on page seven, there were two tragic stories of women being stabbed to death by their ex partners. One perpetrator was jailed for a minimum of 28 years and the other 15 years. Where is the consistency? Malcolm Hair, Surrey John Coyne (MetroTalk, Wed), voiced concern about Doctor Who stories not being as good as they once were. I agree. Some of the recent series have been quite weak and I have sat watching, almost willing a decent storyline to appear. More Trending Sadly, the least effective Doctor in recent times was Jodie Whittaker. I had no issue with the character being female, but Jodie was completely unsuited to the role. There are many fine female actors who could have done a far superior job. I understand that ratings have been falling and I am not surprised. If the writers don't write decent episodes and soon, then it will not be long before the series is taken off air and it may not return for some 20 years, as was the case, a few years back. Ed Lewis, Mansfield MORE: British & Irish Lions won't settle for a Test series win over Australia with an historic clean sweep on the cards MORE: Huge plumes of smoke seen for miles as 20 tonnes of tyres go up in factory inferno MORE: Thief hides 76 bottles of stolen wine in wheelie bin and flees in tuk-tuk
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Global moral consensus is just wishful thinking
In his opinion piece (From Gaza to Ukraine, peace always seems just out of reach – and the reason isn't only political, 20 July), Simon Tisdall says 'ending major conflicts, and easing the suffering of millions, is a moral imperative that demands a determined collective response from all concerned. That way lies peace. That way lies salvation'. If that is really the case then all hope is lost. There already is a 'determined collective response' from all concerned, which is a pledge to fight to the bitter end, whatever the cost to their victims in lives or suffering. For Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, freedom from moral constraints, incorporating manifestly immoral behaviour and open contempt for international law, is an existential necessity. To expect either of them to abandon the territorial ambitions on which they have staked their political futures lies somewhere between naivety and sheer wishful thinking. Given that, all talk of 'moral imperatives', without enforceable international law when their noble aspirations are breached, is no more than impotent bleating from the sidelines. The treaty to establish the international criminal court in 1998 failed to sign up China, India or the Gulf states. Indeed the map of those countries that have ratified the ICC looks suspiciously like the former Commonwealth, with the addition of South America. More significant are those countries who signed up to the treaty, but which have refused to ratify it, for various stated reasons, but ineluctably because their current politicians need immunity from its rulings – the former superpowers US and Russia, and Israel. None of their leaders could survive in office if they were made internationally accountable to enforceable laws with a clear moral basis. Sadly but paradoxically, the only people with the political and military clout to bring the war criminals to justice in the name of morality turn out to be the ones perpetuating the war crimes. Alex WatsonStroud, Gloucestershire Simon Tisdall rightly argues that peace remains elusive not just due to geopolitics, but a collapse in global moral consensus. Yet we must ask: has that consensus ever truly been global – or has it been curated through western lenses? Britain recently announced an inquiry into violent policing at Orgreave in 1984 and the subsequent collapsed prosecution of 95 miners, but still refuses to apologise for Jallianwala Bagh, where hundreds of unarmed Indians were massacred under imperial command in 1919. Where is the moral clarity? Tisdall speaks of the 'rules-based international order'. But when Donald Trump bombed Iranian nuclear sites – installations once fostered by Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace programme – where were the rules? Would the same be done to Pakistan or China? The west routinely turns a blind eye when its allies commit horrors. Yes, Russians ignore Ukraine. But did the UK not join the US in Iraq, a war based on phantom weapons of mass destruction? Have we ever truly atoned for the destruction of Falluja, or the millions displaced in Afghanistan? I agree that peace demands moral revitalisation. But that renewal must begin at home: in Washington, London, Paris. A world that arms first and negotiates never cannot preach morality. Diplomacy has been replaced by drone strikes, and summits by air raids. The UN has become a mute witness, bypassed by the very powers that once built it. Until we stop dividing the world into 'worthy victims' and 'collateral damage', there will be no peace. There is no lesser life. And there is no moral order unless it applies to all. Let truth precede justice. And only then will peace KalyanasundaramChennai, India Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
