UK

Nigel Farage and the proscription of Palestine Action

DECEMBER 3, 2025

By Tom London

The significance of the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper proscribing Palestine Action as a “terrorist organisation” on 5th July 2025, goes beyond even the issue of the utmost gravity of the genocide in Gaza.

On 2nd December 2025, a three day case ended at the High Court in which Huda Ammori, one of the founders of Palestine Action, challenged the proscription by way of a Judicial Review. The court’s judgement will be given at a later unspecified date.

Nigel Farage, who may well be Prime Minister after the next election, will hope the Government successfully defends the case. This proscription sets an extremely useful precedent for a future repressive regime: Don’t like an annoying protest group? Use the Palestine Action example and proscribe them as ‘terrorists’. 

A leaked Home Office document shows that Cooper was warned that the proscription may be seen as “a creep of terrorism powers into the realm of free expression and protest”. 

There is a great difference between being regarded by the state as a ‘terrorist’ as opposed to as a ‘criminal’. A ‘terrorist’ has far fewer rights at every stage throughout the police, prison and court process. Furthermore, anyone else who shows support for the ‘terrorist’ is themselves liable to arrest and imprisonment.

Six of the members of Palestine Action in prison awaiting trial, are on hunger strike now over their conditions. Human rights organisations, UN special rapporteurs and author Sally Rooney have all appealed to the UK government to address the “shocking mistreatment” of these six and of all the Palestine Action members in prison.

Cooper’s proscription was extraordinary. Until then, being proscribed as a terrorist group had been reserved for organisations which use terror or the threat of terror against civilians to seek to obtain their aims: like the IRA, Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Palestine Action were a totally different kind of organisation. They were a non-violent direct action group. Their aim was to stop the genocide in Gaza. They did not target people; they targeted arms factories and a RAF base. In particular, Palestine Action targeted factories in the UK owned by an Israeli company, Elbit Systems. They damaged weapons and planes that would be used in Gaza. 

They committed criminal damage and associated crimes, and just like the Suffragettes, Martin Luther King and the civil rights activists, and many others, they would have expected to be sent to prison for those crimes.

In the middle of the night of 20th June 2025, Palestine Action did something both audacious and humiliating for the British government. They cut through the fence at RAF Brize Norton, the largest RAF base in the UK. They then jumped on electric scooters and sprayed red paint on two Voyager aircrafts, which had been used in relation to the genocide in Gaza.

Three days later Cooper announced that she was going to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. 

Cooper has since sought to justify the proscription by saying she has information which is not in the public domain that Palestine Action “is not a non-violent organisation”. In effect, she is saying ‘trust me’. In a democracy, the authorities need to be transparent, particularly when people’s liberties are at stake. 

The UK’s two largest human rights organisations, Liberty and Amnesty, were granted permission by the High Court to take part in the Judicial Review and argued that it was not reasonable to proscribe Palestine Action.

Private Eye has reported that a baseless story that Iran was funding Palestine Action was placed in the Times and the Mail by a PR firm working with Elbit Systems.

Since Palestine Action was proscribed, a remarkable campaign of civil disobedience has taken place. Over the last few months at locations across the UK, people have sat quietly and held up placards with the following words, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”. They know that under the terrorism legislation, they are liable to arrest and a maximum of 14 years in prison.

It is humbling and inspiring to observe these protests. They have been extremely dignified. A large proportion of those arrested have been in their 60s, 70s and 80s and most have not been arrested before. The total number of arrests is more than 2,700.

If the court finds that the proscription was unlawful, all these arrests and later detentions will also be found to have been unlawful.

The paucity or complete lack of media coverage of the hunger strikes and the protests is all of a piece with the media’s general failure to properly report the genocide in Gaza. Despite the so-called ceasefire, the genocide continues.

Peter Hain, now a Labour peer, made a powerful speech in the Lords against the proscription. He said:

“In 1969-70 I was proud to lead a militant campaign of direct action to disrupt all-white racist South African rugby and cricket tours. 

“No doubt I would [today be] stigmatised as a ‘terrorist’… Mandela was labelled a ‘terrorist’ by the apartheid government, by Thatcher, by US and other Western governments …

“Suffragettes attacked shop windows, Government buildings, and political party offices, sometimes using hammers, stones, or iron bars. They also set fire to unoccupied buildings such as churches, railway stations. They even attempted to bomb Westminster Abbey.

“Frankly, Palestine Action members spraying paint on military aircraft at Brize Norton seems positively moderate by comparison.

“Now look at real terrorists: Al Qaeda and Islamic State. Our Labour government is treating Palestine Action as equivalent to Islamic State or Al Qaeda, which is intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled and morally wrong. 

“Frankly, I am deeply ashamed.”

Over and above the central issue, two unusual aspects of the Judicial Review have caused particular concern. One is that the judge who had granted permission for the case to proceed and who was expected to hear the trial, was replaced at the last moment by three judges whose records suggest they would not be sympathetic to Palestine Action. It is comparatively rare for such a late switch of judges and there was no explanation.

Second is the use of the Closed Material Procedure. This is routinely used in terrorist cases on national security grounds. But the issue in this case is precisely that Palestine Action should not have been designated as a terrorist organisation. Under the Closed Material Procedure, Huda Ammori and her lawyers had to leave court at a certain point and can never know what was said in their absence. If allegations were made against her or Palestine Action in this secret evidence, she is unable to rebut them. How can that be a fair trial? A procedure which may be justified in cases involving undoubted terrorists like Al Qaeda, is not self-evidently justified in this case.

Justice in every case needs not only to be done but also to be seen to be done. Given the Government’s support for genocide in Gaza, despite this being in conflict with British public opinion, it is understandable that many feel unable to rely on the good faith of the British state.

A Farage government may one day proscribe as ‘terrorist’ a non-violent protest group and use secret evidence against them, citing Palestine Action as a precedent.

Tom London is an activist based in north London.

Image: c/o Labour Hub

People’s Response to APEC: Breakdown or Breakthrough?

by Tricontinental Asia / December 4th, 2025

The Doomsday Clock advances 10 seconds closer to midnight. Global temperatures rise beyond 1.5°C. Forests burn. Hurricanes intensify. Meanwhile, countries produce bombs and bullets, the New Cold War inches us closer to nuclear annihilation, and US President Donald Trump extorts the world.

The response of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is to draw from the same tired capitalist playbook that created today’s polycrisis. Thus, APEC perpetuates a global order that makes democracy a farce and concentrates production in the hands of corporations. For most of us, to live our lives, we become insensate to these realities. The International People’s Response to APEC 2025 and Trump (People’s Response) was created because we refuse to watch the world being destroyed from the sidelines. While we denounce Trump’s tariff extortion, we also refuse to settle for APEC’s nostalgic yearning for a pre-Trump globalised world that never was.

Lee Ungno (South Korea), People, 1985.

APEC’s structure and origins expose its corporate-centric economic cooperation. All 20 official meetings throughout the year, from food sovereignty to AI regulation, are carried out with corporations behind closed doors. Moreover, the only non-governmental body with an official meeting with APEC leaders is the APEC Business Advisory Council. Its ubiquitous interventions are evident in its letters to APEC’s thematic and working groups. This structure reflects APEC’s original intent and function of serving as a forum for business to access governments. Its corporate-centric economic cooperation traces back to 1966, with a Japanese economist’s proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). While rejected, this FTAAP remains APEC’s guiding vision. In fact, the progenitor to today’s global value chains emerged within this context: the Toyota Manufacturing System’s regional value chain across Southeast Asia stood in contrast to the Ford-inspired vertically integrated mass production that was then prevalent in the United States.

To represent the voices of people from the region and the world, the International Strategy Center, together with the International Peoples’ Assembly (IPA) and other progressive groups, hosted a series of People’s Response from 29 October to 1 November. International delegates were invited to join the struggle and exchange experiences.

Yoan Choe (South Korea), Stand Up With Your Fist Clenched, n.d.

On 29 October, we harnessed Korean public discontent and outrage to protest Trump’s visit to Gyeongju. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs were particularly egregious to South Korea as the latter’s zero tariffs were achieved after conceding to the US’ toxic provisions (i.e., investor state dispute settlement systems) in the US-ROK Free Trade Agreement. Today, in exchange for 15% tariffs, the Lee Jae-myung administration has to hand over $350 billion of Korea’s money (over 80% of its dollar reserves) to the Trump administration. As Vijay Prashad stated in the Gyeongju People’s Summit, ‘Trump just put his hand in your pocket and took your money’. Infuriatingly, excepting the few that stood up to Trump, this is an all-too-common scene around the world: presidents smiling and thanking Trump as they get robbed. And while these investments might yield profits for Korean companies, they do nothing for jobs and welfare for Korea while abetting in the US’s reckless scramble to maintain its dominance. After all, $150 billion will ‘Make American Shipbuilding Great Again’, thus expanding US naval capacity. The rest of the $200 billion will be used for investments (with Trump having final say) on extracting fossil fuels and further embedding South Korea in the US’s semiconductor industry. Trump’s tariff extortion portends US decline and retrenchment. Yet, rather than a rebalancing in foreign relations, South Korea is becoming more structurally dependent on the United States.

On 30 October, the People’s Response hosted a conference on the theme ‘An Economy For All’, exploring capitalist globalisation, the shifting global order, and alternatives to APEC. In the first panel (‘Globalization, Trump’s Tariff War, and APEC’), Walden Bello, co-chair of the board of Focus on the Global South, spoke about how capitalist globalisation has enriched multinational corporations from the Global North while destabilising countries in the Global South and increasing global inequality. Bello called for a deglobalisation based on people’s needs, development, plurality, and social control. Dr. Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj, chairman of the Socialist Party of Malaysia, proposed an ASEAN-centred regional economy for Malaysia, based on higher wages, corporate taxes, and import substitution. Solong Senohe, general secretary of Lesotho’s United Textile Employees Union, spoke on how Trump’s tariffs wrecked the textile industry, leaving countless unemployed (80% of them being young women). Kim Deok-su, general secretary of the Korean Peasants League of Gangwon Province, spoke about how Korean peasants were being sacrificed for export-oriented production and called for food sovereignty. Kim Seong-hyeok, director of the Korean Confederation of Trade Union’s Korea Labor and Society Institute, criticised Trump’s ‘America First’ policy while rejecting APEC’s capital-centred globalisation – he echoed calls for democratic and people-centred alternatives. Kim Jong-min, co-president of Together Seoul, called out Trump’s predatory neoliberalism while seeing the current moment as an opportunity to build international solidarity against Trump and for peace, sustainability, and development.

Jiha Moon (South Korea), The Letter Shin 2, 2011.

In the second panel (‘Multipolarity, the New Cold War, and Neo-Fascism’), Vijay Prashad, executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, presented on the growing confidence and assertiveness of the Global South (through processes such as BRICS+) which was provoked by the Global North’s inability to solve the world’s problems following the 2008 Financial crisis. Tings Chak, an organiser of the Shanghai-based Global South Academic Forum and co-editor of the international edition of the journal Wenhua Zongheng, explored China’s socialist path and its vision of peaceful co-existence based on national sovereignty. Corazon Fabros, co-president of the International Peace Bureau, proposed the idea of ‘common security’ as the ‘path to a peaceful multipolar world’, including in the South China Sea. Cathi Choi, executive director of Women Cross DMZ, called for developing a ‘people-centred economy’ and a ‘regional demilitarisation dialogue’ based on diplomacy. Dyung YaPing, of the Urgent Action by South Korean Civil Society in Solidarity with Palestine, called on Korean labour unions to actively participate in the solidarity struggle to end the genocide in Palestine. Myeong-Suk of Human Rights Network BARAM called for greater international solidarity (regardless of one’s positions on China) amidst the openings created by the seismic shifts to a multipolar world. Finally, Ahn Kim, Jeong-ae, president of Women Making Peace, presented on the specific impact of war on women and called for a feminist approach towards peace based on ‘care, life, peace, and co-existence’.

In the third panel (‘Alternatives, Social Movements, and Progressive Parties’), Stephanie Weatherbee, coordinator of the IPA, explored the potential and limitations of multipolarity given its heterogeneity and called for building organisations that can lead ‘sustained struggle’ towards ‘liberation and constructing a new world’. Peter Mertens, Secretary General of the Workers’ Party of Belgium shared the importance of a principled, flexible party rooted in the working class and explicitly committed to overcoming capitalism. Raphael Kaplinsky, professor at the University of Sussex, spoke on the end of deep globalisation and the need to add directionality towards sustainability and equality to the new emerging information technology and techno-economic paradigm. Layan Fuleihan, education director at the People’s Forum, emphasised the need to build social alternatives to Trump and the importance of political education and culture. Moon Jeong-eun, vice-chair of the Justice Party, Lee Sang-hyun, co-president of the Green Party, and Jang Hye-Kyoung, policy committee chair of the Labor Party, all spoke on the need for rebuilding left political parties through unity within Korean and internationally by constructing a vision of expanding public goods, rights, and sustainability. Miryu, chair of the organising committee for System Change Movement and Hwang Jeong-eun, general secretary of the International Strategy Center called for movements to move beyond isolation and towards solidarity.

Lee Kun-Yong, Logic of Hand, 1975/2018.

On 1 November, we gathered for the People’s Summit in Gyeongju which ran parallel to the last day of the APEC Leaders Summit. Hundreds of people gathered at the People’s Summit to read and sign on to the Gyeongju People’s Declaration. Soon after, the 2025 APEC Leaders’ Gyeongju Declaration was adopted, which sure enough repeated the same mantra around corporate led global value chains followed by a litany of corporate centred recommendations. While the weekend of solidarity and struggle against APEC ended with a rally and march through the streets of Gyeongju, our struggle continues. We call on the world to lift up banners and pickets on 20 January 2026, the first anniversary of Trump’s inauguration, to fight for a world of peace and dignity that we need and deserve.

Written by Dae-Han Song, a part of the International Strategy Center and the No Cold War collective. He is an associate at the Korea Policy Institute.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research seeks to build a bridge between academic production and political and social movements to promote critical critical thinking and stimulate debates. Read other articles by Tricontinental Asia.

The Great Revolutionary Divide

by J.S. O’Keefe / December 4th, 2025

Europe, mid-1800s: Two men stood at the center of a storm that would shape socialism’s future.

Karl Marx, a German-born philosopher, believed in seizing the state (central government) and wielding its machinery to crush the ruling class. To him, power was a tool, not a curse.

Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian anarchist strategist, saw it differently. According to him, every possible state was a prison. Even one run by the workers’ representatives would quickly become a cage. Bakunin dreamed of freedom built from the ground up: local councils, voluntary federations, no hierarchy.

They met in the First International, and tension simmered immediately. Marx suspected secret plotting; Bakunin saw creeping authoritarianism. Arguments heated up, and words became accusations.

At the Hague Congress of 1872, the storm broke. Marx expelled Bakunin. Bakunin left, defiant, warning of new tyranny.

What follows is history: Marxists built parties and seized state power. Anarchists organized strikes, formed collectives, refused all authority. Both still claim the working class. Both dream of freedom, but not the same kind. Different paths entirely.

The clash has become more than ideology. It’s about the allure and danger of power, whether freedom can be handed down or must be built, fiercely and locally, from below. Even today, their shadow lingers: revolution is never just ideas. It’s people, personalities, and choices made when the future hangs in the balance.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

J.S. O’Keefe’s short stories, essays and poems have been published in Everyday Fiction, WENSUM, Roi Faineant, 101 Words, Spillwords, AntipodeanSF, 50WS, Friday Flash Fiction, etc. Read other articles by J.S., or visit J.S.'s website.

The Dark Triad Can’t Kill Karl

by Nayvin Gordon / December 4th, 2025

“The most violent, mean, and malignant passions of the human breast…” are the emotions that protectors and defenders of capitalism focus on those who seek to end the profit system and replace it with a more egalitarian system. This is what Karl Marx wrote in his introduction to the first edition of Capital in 1867.

Most of written history is the history of the few dominating and exploiting the many. Marx, while searching for a more just society, clearly pointed out that humans are emotional animals, some of whom will do anything to maintain their power, wealth, and dominance.  Unfortunately, he did not develop this thought, but concentrated on the economic laws of modern society.

The most violent, mean, and malignant are the punishers and enforcers of the system of private ownership of the means of production. These are emotions attached to selfish individualistic interests, not the interests of the common good, and social needs.

Marx approximates the description of the Dark Triad, a cluster of personality disorders: narcissism, psychopathology, and Machiavellian behavior.  This includes the following personality traits: Self-centered, manipulative, lack of empathy, dominating, self-superiority, disregard for the rights of others and lack of remorse.

These traits describe tyrants, dictators, kings, and dominators throughout recorded history.  Social hierarchy, “open the door for a plethora of injustices and cruelties that come with warfare, slavery, and other types of exploitation by unchecked power wielders” (The Human Potential for Peace, Douglas P. Fry, 2006)

Marx did not discuss the need to prevent the rise of the Dark Triad in the struggle to free society from exploitation.  This is a neglected, important reason for the failure to achieve and maintain an egalitarian society.  Egalitarian social/political movements that do not combat the danger of top-down decision-making social hierarchy both within political organizations and society at large are always open to subversion by those of the Dark Triad.

Even though Marx documented that hunter-gather societies lived in more communal societies, motivated by altruism and collectivity, he made no mention of how these principles were maintained.   Recent anthropologists have answered this question.

Anthropologist Christopher Boehm studied this issue and concluded the following: the ideology of “reverse hierarchy” is the core principle that maintains equality of all members.  Boehm documented that in egalitarian societies members exert “intentional behavior that decisively suppressed hierarchical relations among adults as political actors.”

“Differences between individuals are only permitted…, insofar as they work for the common good.”  Such equality can only persist “as long as followers remain vigilantly egalitarian because they understand the nature of domination,”; the “innate tendencies of individuals to dominate their peers.”

“If an egalitarian ethos is present, abusive leadership is by definition, deviant,”  “It is a war of the great majority who are willing to settle for equality against the occasional dominator who is not… Upstarts who think they can get away with it.”(Boehm,  Christopher,  “Egalitarian  Behavior  and  Reverse Dominance  Hierarchy”,  Current  Anthropology  ,  Vol.   34, No.3, June 1993)

Maintaining equality requires eternal vigilance to ensure that all political decisions remain in the hands of the great majority, the rank and file. Recorded history repeatedly demonstrates that when the Dark Triad and their supporters are allowed to rise, the development of social hierarchy and top-down decision-making is inevitable, resulting in domination, oppression, and exploitation.  For those seeking a more egalitarian world, incorporating this understanding into their core principles is essential.

A multitude of lights extinguish the darkness.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Dr. Nayvin Gordon is a Family Physician in California who has written many articles on Health and Politics. He can be reached at gordonnayvin@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Nayvin.

If People Are Going Hungry, Why Can’t We Feed Them?

By Sonali Kolhatkar

December 4, 2025

Source: Other Words

FILE - In this Jan. 25, 2017, file photo, students fill their lunch trays at J.F.K Elementary School in Kingston, N.Y., where all meals are now free under the federal Community Eligibility Provision. A donor inspired by a tweet raised money to pay off lunch debt in districts around the country, as well as thousands of dollars in overdue lunch fees at other schools in the Kingston district. (AP Photo/Mary Esch, File)

The recent government shutdown was a stark reminder that 42 million people across the United States rely on federal food benefits. That’s 12 percent of the nation’s population that lawmakers and President Donald Trump threw under the bus, cutting off SNAP benefits in an attempt to force a deal.

The shutdown has ended, but SNAP remains in jeopardy.

SNAP benefits were already less than a fourth of the average food expenditure per person nationwide. And in 2023, Congress and the Biden administration imposed work requirements on the program as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

Then, in summer 2025, Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” deeply cut safety net programs to fund tax breaks for corporations and the rich — including the largest SNAP cut in history.

Trump expanded Biden’s work requirements, ending exemptions for veterans, immigrants with legal documents, and the unhoused. Moreover, states will have to pick up a bigger portion of SNAP’s cost. “States are gonna have to pony up beginning next October, and then that’ll only ramp up from there,” said Anya Rose, Director of Public Policy at Hunger Free Colorado.

Rose, who used to staff a food resource line, explained that SNAP is “an incredibly important anti-hunger program, and it is also so full of barriers.” And “if you talk to food banks, food pantries, they would tell you we’ve been in a crisis well before [the shutdown], with higher demand than they saw during the pandemic.”

Colorado is not alone. Nationwide, food insecurity is rising — especially among older Americans — fueled by inflation, tariffs, unemployment, and wage stagnation. But the Trump administration decided to stop measuring food insecurity altogether, dismissing the information gathering as “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous.”

To make matters worse, Trump’s agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins is demanding all 42 million SNAP recipients reapply for their benefits to root out alleged “fraud.” Yet the government’s own data shows how small such anomalies are. When there is overpayment, it amounts to about $10 or $11 in food vouchers per person. “The policy is largely designed around how do you keep the wrong people out rather than how do you make sure to actually solve the problem,” said Rose.

So how does one solve the problem? It sounds obvious, but if people are hungry, one can simply feed them.

To counter the sordid state of affairs at the federal level, Rose’s organization, together with numerous other community organizations in Colorado, helped pass a pair of propositions in November 2025 aimed at fully funding school lunches.

What’s powerful about Colorado’s school lunch program is that it’s universal. All children are provided with meals at school regardless of their household income. This means there’s no question of eligibility or fraud.

Moreover, the ballot measures allocate money to purchase locally grown food, which benefits farmers, and to increase wages for cafeteria workers to make healthier meals. It’s a win-win-win. To pay for universal school lunches, Colorado imposed a modest tax increase on residents making more than $300,000 a year — people whose own children will also benefit from the school lunches.

It’s a simple calculus, one that we’re seeing more of in the absence of federal action — and not just on food.

New Yorkers just elected a mayor promising universal childcare paid for by taxing the rich, similar to a program that New Mexico already enacted. Seattle residents also elected a mayor who designed a tax program aimed at large corporations, and Boston’s hugely popular mayor sailed to reelection unopposed, in part by pioneering a universal free transit program.

A majority of Americans favor raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to pay for our basic necessities such as food, childcare, transit, etc. While people are turning to cities and states to achieve the same goal, the Trump administration is intent on doing the opposite, at its peril.Email

Sonali Kolhatkar

Sonali Kolhatkar is an award-winning multimedia journalist. She is the founder, host, and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a weekly television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. Her most recent book is Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice (City Lights Books, 2023). She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and the racial justice and civil liberties editor at Yes! Magazine. She serves as the co-director of the nonprofit solidarity organization the Afghan Women’s Mission and is a co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan. She also sits on the board of directors of Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights organization.

Why CBC Needs a Co-op Revolution

By Ludovic Viger

December 3, 2025

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

“CBC Centre” by fw_gadget, CC BY-SA 2.0

Let’s be honest: CBC’s current model is a relic. Seventy percent government-funded, it’s a political football—kicked between Liberal lifelines and Conservative defunding threats. The 2025 budget debates, projected from the national anxiety over global trade and tariff threats, show the perennial problem: funding discussions are about Ottawa’s political priorities, not the needs of the network or the public. Cuts persist, and trust erodes.

Why? Because forcing a one-size-fits-all narrative—whether it’s the government’s spin or the opposition’s axe—alienates the very people it serves. Activism might scream “defund now!” or “fund forever!” but it’s a shouting match that stalls progress. As I’ve long argued, shoving ideology down throats breeds resistance, not solutions.

Contrast that with advocacy’s power. It’s passionate but open, building bridges through dialogue and adaptation. Cooperatives embody this—think worker-owned cafes weathering trade wars or housing co-ops rebuilding after wildfires. CBC could be the same: a multi-stakeholder co-op where journalists, regional producers, and users co-own the mission. No guilt trips, no ultimatums—just a shared stake in Canada’s story.

The stubborn Canada Post strike, which has been dragging into its third week as of October, hints at the hunger for this: workers want ownership and security, not just wage handouts. Why not CBC too?

The co-op model fits like a glove. The International Cooperative Alliance’s principles—democratic member control, member education, concern for community—mirror what CBC could be: a network owned by those who create and consume it.

• Tariffs threatening ad revenue? A co-op diversifies with user subs.
• Job cuts looming? Worker-owners vote to reinvest profits.
• Regional voices fading? Producers from Halifax to Whitehorse get equity stakes.

It’s not about dismantling CBC—it’s about retooling it for resilience, relevance, and trust. Let’s see how this might look by 2030.

A Day in the Life of CBC Coop: The 2030 Vision

Fast-forward to that snowy 2030 morning. The Commons buzzes with purpose. Here’s how CBC Coop works, blending three stakeholder pillars into a cohesive whole:

Workers as Storytellers (40% Voting Power)

Journalists, producers, and tech crews—anyone on payroll—earn equity shares vesting over three years. No more top-down edicts from faceless execs. Editorial boards rotate annually, elected by guild votes. In Regina, the ag team scraps a fluffy urban sprawl piece because it ignores Prairie water wars—a decision rooted in local expertise, not Ottawa’s agenda.

Pay? Transparent tiers averaging $85K, up 20% from 2025 lows, with profit pools split by output and mentorship. It’s Defector Media’s scrappy success—worker-driven, ad-light, thriving on subs—scaled nationally. When the 2028 recession hit, there were no mass layoffs; co-ops weather downturns 30% better (per ILO stats), thanks to shared risk. They simply voted to reduce pay-outs and maintain jobs.

Producers/Regional Hubs as Equals (30% Power)

Coast-to-coast “nodes” own their beats. Vancouver beams Pacific salmon scoops, Iqaluit covers Inuit land claims, Toronto dives into urban pulse—all syndicated via a central HQ in Ottawa that handles shared costs (tech, archives) like a federated co-op.

It’s producer co-op vibes: Each hub elects a rep to the assembly, pooling resources à la Desjardins credit unions. Halifax leads on Atlantic fisheries, splitting 70/30 revenue with Central. No more “fly-in, file-out” hacks; locals own the narrative, cutting carbon footprints and boosting trust—viewer retention leaps 35%. When tariffs tanked Maritimes exports in ’26, Halifax’s crew pivoted to trade impact documentaries, winning Geminis and policy nods.

Users/Communities as Guardians (30% Power)

You, the listener, hold the reins. Subscribe for $10/month—ad-free access, early podcasts, voting rights on big calls like ad policies or emergency coverage (e.g., wildfire alerts during BC’s ’28 blazes). Community reps from co-ops—farmers, First Nations, SMBs—join via lotteries, ensuring no echo chamber.

Funding blends 60% subscriptions (2 million members by 2029), 25% ethical sponsors (green energy co-ops, not Big Oil), and 15% from a statutory heritage grant, secured post-2027 as a public good, not a political pawn. It’s taz-style reader ownership: When users voted emergency funds for trade docs in ’26, it sparked a national conversation—and revenue.

The Payoff

By 2030, CBC Coop’s $125 million deficit? History. Revenues climb 25% via niche pods (“Tariff Talks” with Carney alums) and co-branded events (live debates at food co-ops). Job security? Solid—600+ rehired since ’27. Independence? Ironclad—critics can’t slap “state media” labels when users and workers own the mic. Culturally, it’s a revelation: Aisha’s salmon series morphs into a food sovereignty push, linking Haida kelp to Nunavut caribou.

The guiding principle is no longer “Ottawa knows best”; it’s “We all know best.”

From Fantasy to Reality: The Advocacy Path

This isn’t sci-fi—it’s achievable by December 2025 if we lean into advocacy, not activism.

Activism might demand “defund CBC!” or “bail it out!”—polarizing moves that fracture trust, a pattern we see in stalled labour talks like the recent Canada Post strike. Advocacy, though? It builds consensus.

Imagine a cross-party task force—sparked by your op-eds—drafting the Co-op Conversion Act by spring 2026. Picture CMC (Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada) piloting with Radio-Canada’s French nodes, testing worker-user governance. Envision a crowdfunded seed loan bridging the capital gap, with Vancity credit union chipping in as the anchor investor.

The hurdles? Early governance snags and securing startup cash. But that’s co-op maturity: Listen, adapt, thrive. Data backs this—Desjardins grew assets 10% in 2024 amid downturns, proving co-ops’ edge. CBC Coop could mirror that, dodging tariff-hit ad losses and AI-driven freelance cuts. It’s not about burning bridges; it’s about building them—inviting journalists, producers, and you, the viewer, to co-own the future.

Why This Matters for Canada

CBC isn’t just a broadcaster—it’s a cultural heartbeat. Yet, as tariffs loom (with the threat of a Trump-era 25% hit still hanging over the USMCA review) and regional divides widen, it’s at risk of becoming a relic.

A co-op model counters that:

• It empowers workers with equity, not layoffs.
• It gives regional hubs a voice, not neglect.
• It provides communities with choice, not mandates.

It’s a laboratory for social change, proving passion doesn’t need polarization—advocacy does the heavy lifting.

Look at the Canada Post strike: Workers crave ownership, not ultimatums. CBC’s journalists echo that—why not give them stakes? Look at Nova Scotia’s wildfires: Co-op housing rebuilt faster with member funds; a co-op CBC could prioritize such stories. This is bigger than media. It’s about redefining how Canada tells its story—democratically, collaboratively, sustainably.

Conclusion: Own the Mic, Shape the Future

As 2025 winds down, the air’s thick with uncertainty—tariffs, strikes, budget battles. CBC stands at a crossroads: fade as a government pawn or rise as a co-op champion. Activism’s ideological push might grab headlines, but it fractures the community it claims to serve. Advocacy, with its dialogue and adaptability, builds the trust needed for progress.

Imagine CBC Coop by next December: A network where you vote on coverage, journalists own their desks, and regions lead the charge—all without a taxpayer bailout. It’s not a fantasy—it’s a choice.

So, I ask you: Will you push an agenda, or build a story together?Join a media co-op pilot—start with NB Media’s indie model, vote in their assemblies. Rally your MP for the Co-op Conversion Act. Drop your thoughts below: Worker-only, or full multi-stake? Let’s script this future, because Canada’s story deserves to be ours.

Ludovic Viger

Ludovic Viger is an Ottawa-based author and entrepreneur. His book, The Great Canadian Reset: How Co-Ops Can Save Canada’s Economy, explores cooperative models as pathways to economic democracy, drawing from global examples and Canadian contexts to propose resilient alternatives to corporate media dominance.