‘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'.
Crowds gathered as the bonfire was set alight on Thursday night (Niall Carson/PA)
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.'
Amnesty International Northern Ireland director Patrick Corrigan (Brian Lawless/PA)
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.'
The display on top of the fire was widely criticised (Niall Carson/PA)
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 last year was topped with a mock police car (PA)
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sanction Israel and recognise Palestine: here are the steps Australia should take next on Gaza
The Albanese government has given its clearest statement yet on the legality of Israel's conduct in Gaza. Anthony Albanese told the ABC at the weekend that it was a breach of international law and a breach of humanity. Evidence of Israel's violations of international law has been compelling for some time. Examples include the indiscriminate targeting of the Palestinian population, a failure to apply the principle of distinction between Hamas and Gazan residents, and a breach of its Geneva convention obligations to provide food, medical supplies and aid to civilians. It is rare for an Australian prime minister to make such unambiguous statements on international law matters, especially with respect to the conduct of a friend such as Israel. These comments are the latest in a series of observations over the past year, whether they have taken the form of joint prime ministerial statements with Canada and New Zealand, or the statement issued on Friday which said: 'Gaza is in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe. Israel's denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored.' The time has come for the Albanese government to do more than just issue statements decrying breaches of international law. Ample scope exists under Australian law to impose autonomous sanctions on Israel to make clear its objections to the ongoing Gaza conflict. On 10 June Australia joined Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom in sanctioning Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. If those two Israeli ministers can be sanctioned for inciting serious abuses of Palestinian human rights, what further steps can be taken against Israeli ministers responsible for directing actions in direct violation of international law? Australia has imposed autonomous sanctions in relation to Russia in response to the 'Russian threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine'. There is no legal reason why similar sanctions cannot be approved with respect to Israel's threat to Palestine and Palestinians. Israel's conduct in Gaza has also placed the spotlight on Australia's position on the recognition of a Palestinian state. The prime minister also made clear at the weekend that Australia will not recognise Palestine while Hamas is in power in Gaza, and that Australia will not recognise Palestine as a 'gesture'. Nevertheless, President Emmanuel Macron's announcement that France will recognise Palestine at the September meeting of the United Nations general assembly will continue to place a spotlight on the Albanese government's response given the momentum towards Palestinian recognition over the past year. About 147 states now recognise Palestine. Those that do not are predominantly from Europe in addition to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Four traditional criteria are applied to recognition of a new state. First, a defined territory. Palestine comprises the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem. While those borders are well known they are contested by Israel. However, contested borders cannot be used as an effective block and many countries have disputed borders, as is evidenced by the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand. Second, there must be a permanent population which is satisfied by the Palestinian peoples who predominantly occupy Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Third, there must be a government which is met by the Palestinian Authority. While the PA may have limited capacity to control affairs in Gaza as that territory is under Israeli occupation an allowance can be made for that exceptional situation. Finally, there must be evidence of the ability to enter into international relations. That is occurring through the PA's engagement with UN institutions including the general assembly and the international criminal court, and through the many other states that recognise and engage with Palestine. That Palestine has yet to attain the formal status of a UN member is not determinative of its status. Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002 after a long period of remaining distant due to its desire to maintain neutrality. Any decision by the Albanese government to recognise Palestine would only come after cabinet endorsement. Unlike other decisions to recognise new states such as Timor-Leste or South Sudan, Australia's recognition of Palestine will generate fierce domestic political debate. Albanese has made clear that recognition of Palestine is conditional on Hamas having no ongoing role. Yet in the short term it remains improbable that Hamas will be completely removed from Gaza or as a force in Palestinian politics. Any recognition of Palestine by Australia could include a special condition which made clear it would not politically recognise an Hamas-led Palestinian government. This would be a break from Australian recognition policy towards new states but would acknowledge the exceptional nature of the Palestinian question and that Australia would not tolerate any form of Hamas Palestinian government. Anthony Albanese insists that Australian foreign policy is made in Canberra and not overseas. However, with respect to both sanctioning Israel over Gaza and eventually recognising Palestine there is every prospect that Australia will seek to avoid any Trump administration fallout in the form of increased unilateral tariffs on Australian exports. Donald Rothwell is a professor of international law at the Australian National University
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Why we need a right not to be manipulated
Many nations already enshrine a right not to be defrauded, and even a right not to be deceived. If a company sells you a new medicine, falsely claiming that it prevents cancer, it can be punished. If a firm convinces you to buy a new smartphone, saying that it has state-of-the-art features when it doesn't, it will have violated the law. But in the current era, many companies are taking our time and money not by defrauding or deceiving us, but by practising the dark art of manipulation. They hide crucial terms in fine print. They automatically enrol you in a programme that costs money but does not benefit you at all. They make it easy for you to subscribe to a service, but extremely hard for you to cancel. They use 'drip pricing', by which they quote you an initial number, getting you to commit to the purchase, only to add a series of additional costs, knowing that once you've embarked on the process, you are likely just to say 'yeah, whatever'. In its worst forms, manipulation is theft. It takes people's resources and attention, and it does so without their consent. Manipulators are tricksters, and sometimes even magicians. They divert the eye and take advantage of people's weaknesses. Often they exploit simple ignorance. They fail to respect, and try to undermine, people's capacity to make reflective and deliberative choices. A manipulator might convince you to buy a useless health product, not by lying, but by appealing to your emotions, and by painting seductive pictures of how great you will feel once you use the product. Or they might tell you an anecdote about someone just like you, who used a supposed pain-relief product and felt better within 12 hours. Anecdotes have real power – but they can be profoundly misleading. More insidiously still, manipulators might know about, and enlist, some of the central findings in contemporary behavioural economics, the field that explores how people depart from perfect rationality. All of us are vulnerable in this regard, subject to the 'cognitive biases' elaborated by Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, Richard Thaler and others, that affect our behaviour. These can be hard to recognize, and harder still to overcome. For example, human beings tend to suffer from 'present bias'. We care a lot about today and tomorrow, but the future is a foreign country, Laterland, and we are not sure we are ever going to visit. Tactics like 'buy now, pay later' take advantage of this. Another bias is 'loss aversion'; we tend to dislike losses a lot more than we like equivalent gains. That's why advertisers might claim 'you can't afford not to' buy their product. Inertia is a powerful force, and companies exploit 'status quo bias' by automatically subscribing you to something in the knowledge that even if it's possible to opt out, many won't bother. Our attention is limited, which means we are able to focus on only a subset of the things that come across our radars. Knowing this, manipulators present only the most attractive aspect of a transaction and downplay other, less inviting parts. So, manipulation is all around us, and rarely punished. But if we aim to create a right not to be manipulated, we will have to specify what we are talking about. A moral right can define manipulation broadly. A legal right should focus on the worst cases – the most egregious forms of trickery, those that are hardest to justify and that are most likely to impose real harm. Those worst cases occur when people are not given clarity that they are committing themselves to certain terms – and when the terms are ones they wouldn't consent to if they had full knowledge. For example, there should be a prohibition on billing people in accordance with terms to which they did not actively agree, unless it is clear that they would have agreed if they'd been asked. The underlying principle should be one of personal autonomy, which means that hidden fees and costs should be banned too. We know that rules designed to bring those fees and costs into the open can do a great deal of good. A couple of recent examples from the US: in 2024, the Department of Transportation created a rule that requires airlines and ticket agents to disclose charges for checked baggage, carry-on baggage, changing or cancelling a reservation and so on up front. Also in 2024, the Federal Communications Commission required internet service providers to display standardized 'broadband nutrition labels'. These include details of pricing, data allowances and broadband speeds, and enable customers to compare providers' offerings like-for-like, without tricks and obfuscation. But consumer protection is only the start. In 1890, two lawyers, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, proposed a new right: the right to privacy. They were not entirely clear about its contents, but the bedrock was the 'right to be let alone'. Warren and Brandeis's thinking helped to launch a thousand ships, including rules against the disclosure of private facts, against surveillance, and around personal choices (including the right to same-sex marriage). The right not to be manipulated now is a lot like the right to privacy back in 1890. At this stage, we cannot identify the full scope, and the appropriate limits, of that new right. The protection of consumers and investors is urgent. How it might apply to politics is a more delicate matter, and lawmakers will need to tread cautiously there. One thing is clear, though: manipulation is a threat to our autonomy, our freedom and our wellbeing. We ought to be taking steps to fight back. Professor Cass R Sunstein is the co-author of Nudge and founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard. His new book, Manipulation: What It Is, Why It's Bad, What to Do About It, will be published by Cambridge in August (£22). To support the Guardian order your copy at Delivery charges may apply. Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (Penguin, £14.99) Misbehaving by Richard H Thaler (Penguin, £10.99) The Psychology of Money Morgan Housel (Harriman House, £16.99)
The Guardian
7 hours 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
