Today’s Sunday Express has denounced “extremists from left and right” who protested in London yesterday, contrasting them with the “dignity” of people observing two minutes’ silence at the Cenotaph. But the photo they chose for their front page shows how mistaken they are in their assumptions about what protesters look like.

The paper illustrated the “dignity” of Remembrance with a picture of a medal-wearing vicar bowing his head at the Cenotaph. What they almost certainly did not realise was that the medal-wearing vicar in question attended the anti-war march calling for a ceasefire in Gaza after he left the Remembrance ceremony.

The man was Tim Daplyn, a Church of England priest in Bristol. Had they realised that he was an anti-war protester – with a history of climate activism – the Express would surely have attacked him, or at least ignored him, rather than used him to illustrate the “dignity” in which they claim to believe.

Along with the Daily Mail, the Daily Express spent last week warning that there could be “violence” at the Cenotaph, with anti-war protesters “dishonouring” Remembrance Day. When it came to it, it was the far-right counter-protesters who violently attacked police near the Cenotaph, thus dishonouring Remembrance Day.

It must have been difficult for certain editors to know how to respond to the violence that their newspapers had fuelled.

The Sunday Express went with the headline “Dignity and Dishonour”, adding, “As the nation remembers our war dead, extremists from the left and right march for hate”.

They thus equated a peaceful march of hundreds of thousands of people calling for a ceasefire with a group of far-right thugs attacking police officers. The anti-war protest was not a march of left-wing extremists. The small minority who voiced support for Hamas or anti-semitism were indeed disgusting; it is misleading to suggest they were representative. Nor as it happens are they “extremists from the left”: Hamas is a right-wing group.

One one side of the Sunday Express front page is a masked protester, on the other is a man in a clerical collar with medals pinned to his chest, bowing his head. He looks exactly like the sort of person of whom the right-wing press would normally approve.

But as soon as I looked at the front pages this morning, I noticed that the man in question was wearing a white poppy as well as a red one. The Express may have overlooked this: they are usually very negative about white poppies (and the Mail attacked people wearing white poppies at Saturday’s march).

When I posted about this on Twitter, I received a response from Ed Bridges, who I know through the Peace Pledge Union. He directed me to a BBC News clip interviewing the man in question – who explained why he was going from the Cenotaph to the anti-war march.

With a bit more digging – and some much-appreciated help from a few people on social media – I discovered that the gentleman’s name is Tim Daplyn and he is a Church of England priest in Bristol. He is a British army veteran who was stationed in Northern Ireland.

He is also a member of Christian Climate Action and has protested alongside Greta Thunberg.

He told the BBC, “It’s been termed a pro-Palestinian demonstration, I think it’s a pro-peace demonstration.”

He added, “That is what it’s all about – old soldiers on Armstice Day calling for armstice. And there can’t be anything wrong with that… So much was got wrong in the past, in past conflicts and past warfare. So much is going wrong today. It’s up to us, and we owe it to those who went before, that we do better.”

You can watch Tim Daplyn’s BBC interview here.

Given how much effort the Express puts into smearing anti-war protesters, climate protesters and left-wingers generally, it might well be that their own prejudices led them to assume that protesters are scruffy people in hoods or masks. Their prejudices seem to have backfired on them. Sometimes protesters are medal-wearing vicars.

I wrote this article for Premier Christianity, who published it on their website on Monday 6 November 2023.

Where is God?”. It is a question asked by many people watching the horrifying events in Israel and Palestine.

Munther Isaac, Pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bethlehem, offers an insightful answer: “God is under the rubble in Gaza”.

God is with those who are suffering, siding with the victims, the dying, the traumatised – whatever their nationality.

Jesus told his most famous parable in response to the question, “Who is my neighbour?”. The Samaritan was a neighbour to the Israelite attacked on the road (Luke 10:25-37). I have been asked whose “side” I am on. I think we should all be on the side of innocent children who have been killed, and their traumatised families. This means opposing their killers – whether Hamas or the Israeli military. It means siding with the many Palestinians and Israelis who are working for peace.

“Both Hamas and Israel are treating civilians as insignificant,” writes Richard Sewell, Dean of St George’s Anglican College in Jerusalem. The Orthodox Church in Jerusalem pointed out last week that “the Israeli military has targeted 19 places of worship, including mosques and churches, in Gaza during the past three weeks.”

Nearly all Christian leaders in Palestine and Israel are demanding a ceasefire. “The call for a ceasefire comes from the simple fact that we are pro-life,” writes Palestinian Christian journalist Daoud Kuttab.

Some argue that a ceasefire would allow Hamas to prepare further violence. This overlooks the reality that the Israeli military are committing atrocities. The more they do this, the more Hamas can gain support by presenting themselves as defenders against aggression. 

As Christians who value all life, let us call for a ceasefire as a vital step in a longer journey of peace, justice and reconciliation. This should go along with a demand for the release of hostages by Hamas and political prisoners in Israel (including conscientious objectors). And we must be very active in resisting anti-Semitism and Islamophobia on our own streets.

Evangelical organisations from various parts of Asia and Africa have published a joint statement calling for a ceasefire. Twenty Christian leaders in the UK recently signed a Christian Aid statement backing an immediate ceasefire. They include the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the President of the Methodist Church, the General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Wales and the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, along with Quaker, Pentecostal and United Reformed Church leaders.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are absent from the list of signatories, as are British Roman Catholic leaders.

Justin Welby has issued heartfelt pleas for humanitarian aid but has not condemned Israeli attacks. The Church of England has now produced a staggeringly one-sided statement on the war. They rightly condemn Hamas and their indiscriminate killings. They then add, “We must also reflect on the actions that Israel has taken in response”. Condemnation for the atrocities of one group, “reflection” for the atrocities of another. This is an outrageous case of double standards.

Like many Palestinian Christians, Munther Isaac expressed his dismay with the Church of England statement for “only shyly mentioning” Israeli war crimes. Last week, a group of Palestinian Christian theologians urged Western church leaders to “repent” of their failure to challenge Israeli military aggression in Palestine. Church leaders who have rightly condemned Russian atrocities in Ukraine are failing to oppose similar atrocities in Gaza.

Condemnation of indiscriminate killing is meaningless if it does not apply to all indiscriminate killing. Love of neighbour is undermined if we love only neighbours on one side. Calls for aid are feeble if they rely on a “humanitarian pause” followed by a continuation of the killing.

Hundreds of thousands of people are marching in British cities calling for a ceasefire. Despite Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s ludicrous description of such demonstrations as “hate marches”, the vast majority of participants strongly oppose Hamas and anti-Semitism. There have been several Jewish-led protests calling for a ceasefire. To assume that all Jews support the Israeli government is to view Jews as an homogenous unthinking mass. It is assumptions such as this that are truly anti-Semitic.

These protests have thankfully included Christian peace groups such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Cymdeithas y Cymod. But imagine if they included speeches by Christian leaders proclaiming that all human lives are valued in the Kingdom of God and that God is “in the rubble” with people who are suffering. It would be an act of practical service, as well as a powerful witness to Christ.

If there is a peace vigil or ceasefire demonstration in your area, why not contact the organisers and ask how your church can play a part? Perhaps you could join a march with a church banner, or offer practical assistance by making tea and coffee for the participants. If national church leaders fail to take the lead, Christians at the grassroots can show the way.

In 2012, I realised whose side I was on in the Israel-Palestine conflicts.

I was standing next to a pile of rubble in a village in the West Bank. Nearby a man who was staring blankly into space. He was not just shocked. He was in a state of severe shock. That is why he simply stared ahead, not rushing to help his wife, who was crying as she comforted their two children, also crying.

The pile of rubble had been their house. It had just been destroyed by the Israeli authorities.

They had built the house without a permit. This is because the authorities often withhold building permits – and then send in bulldozers to destroy the houses.

Other villagers gathered around, trying to comfort this desperate family.

I watched those children crying, clutching their mother and their neighbours, their world destroyed in a matter of moments. And I realised whose side I needed to be on. I needed to be on the side of those children.

Not by any possible interpretation of history, not by any stretch of the imagination, not by any political theory or religious belief could those children be blamed for the fact that they had lost their home.

I resolved then that I would not be on “Palestine’s side” or “Israel’s side”. I would be on the side of children who had nowhere to sleep.

This involves caring about victims at the point when they are under attack. It also means enquiring into the causes of their suffering. It involves challenging injustice as well as supporting those who suffer from it. It requires a concern with both causes and consequences.

Like the vast majority of people, I was sickened by Hamas’ attack on Israeli civilians, including children. I grieved for the people killed and prayed for the people left alive. This is not because the victims were Israelis, or because the killers were Palestinians. It is because in any situation of murder, I want to be on the side of the victims, not the murderers.

For exactly the same reason, I grieve and pray for innocent people in Gaza now suffering from the aggression of the Israeli government and the Israeli “Defence” Forces (IDF). Not only are children and other innocent people being repeatedly bombed by Israeli forces, but those same forces are cutting off electricity and food supplies. Many, many civilians will die in Gaza – are dying in Gaza – by bombing, by starvation, by the lack of medical care available in hospitals without electricity.

Let’s take the side of innocent people killed by Hamas and take the side of innocent people killed by the IDF.

Killing children is wrong – whether you kill them with knives, bombs or starvation. If you condemn the killing of children by Hamas but condone the killing of children by Israel’s bombs and blockade, you are not really against killing children at all. You are simply valuing people of one nationality over people of another.

Whether in Palestine, Israel or anywhere else, let’s seek to take the side of people whose humanity and human rights are attacked or denied, and to take sides against those who are attacking or denying them.

In some situations, people whose rights are denied are members of a particular group – a nationality, ethnicity or religion, for example. Backing the people who are under attack may involve backing this group – but I back them because they are under attack, not because of their identity per se.

Therefore I support the Black Lives Matter movement because Black people continue to be denied equality and their human rights are frequently denied. Contrary to what their critics suggest, Black Lives Matter campaigners insist that everybody’s life matters. They emphasise that Black lives not because they don’t care about other lives but because Black lives are under attack.

Similarly, I support Palestinians in objecting to Israeli occupation, a viciously oppressive reality that is itself a denial of human rights to millions of people. I applaud the many acts of nonviolent resistance to occupation that many Palestinians engage in every day, and the Israelis who speak out against occupatoin or refuse to fight in Israel’s army. This does not mean that Israelis cannot be victims too – victims of their own government’s policies, but also, as we saw so disturbingly last week, victims of Hamas.

Decades of Israeli aggression cannot justify Hamas’ attacks on Israeli civilians. Israeli children cannot possibly be responsible for the actions of the Israeli government and armed forces – just as children in Gaza cannot be responsible for the actions of Hamas.

Siding with children, siding with innocent people, siding with people attacked, killed, threatened and denied human rights – this means opposing the IDF and Hamas. It means opposing the armed forces sent by any country to support either the IDF or Hamas – including the Royal Navy and RAF units that Rishi Sunak has just promised to send in.

If our distress at the killing of children is genuine, we will oppose the killing of children whatever their nationality, ethnicity or religion. The choice is between supporting innocent victims and supporting killers – not between backing one group of killers over another.

Even the most bizarre and controversial public figures are not as bizarre and controversial as their followers on social media.

I was reminded of this following the suspension of Calvin Robinson from GB News yesterday for his attitude to misogyny. In addition to his job as a GB News presenter, Robinson is a deacon in the so-called Free Church of England.

Some of Robinson’s supporters on social media are claiming that he has been suspended for standing up for the Gospel. I am not sure which gospel they are reading. Perhaps one in which Jesus defends powerful men who make misogynistic and sexually explicit abusive comments about women in public.

If so, this is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Megan Basham, a right-wing Christian author, responded to Robinson’s suspension by writing, “Daring to believe clear orthodox Christian doctrine out loud means you will no longer be welcome to share your views in secular media”.

Aaron Edwards, a right-wing evangelical whose main preoccupation seems to be attacking feminism, tweeted his support to Robinson, saying, “Well done, brother. Speaking the truth truly means doing so when it is inconvenient to do so.”

Perhaps the award for most bizarre comment on the whole issue should go to the person with the Twitter handle @alexrubner. He responded to Robinson’s suspension by tweeting the pope.

He wrote, “Dear @Pontifex this is intolerable. An offence against the memory of the Martyrs against the Church against all that is holy. Please Father intervene”.

However, the first person to respond to Robinson’s tweet saying he had been suspended was Father John Naugle, a priest in the US. He wrote “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” This is a quote from Jesus in reference to his followers being persecuted. Robinson tweeted back, “Amen”.

Ginna Cross, an anti-abortion activist in the US – whose Twitter profile is full of denunciations of divorce, trans people and left-wing Christians – tweeted to Robinson, “Praying for you. God will bless your boldness.”

A generous view might be to suggest that most of these sort of comments on Twitter are made by Catholics in the US who may not be following British news and may be unaware of the realities of the case. However, a significant number appear to be from people in the UK. And not it is not difficult for anyone to find out the true details, even from the other side of the world.

As is well known now, the controversy began with comments by far-right posh boy Laurence Fox on Thursday evening. He said, “I can say this, because we’re passed the watershed”. Perhaps he thinks it’s a watershed for misogyny rather than a watershed for adult content. He then launched into a vicious, personal, sexually explicit attack on the journalist Ava Evans, saying that nobody would want to have sex with her – or, to use his revolting words, “to shag that”.

Presenter Dan Wootton looked slightly awkward but smiled and chuckled. Ava Evans was erroneously described as a “hard left commentator” and inaccurately accused of dismissing concerns about men’s suicides.

When GB News’ flailing bosses suspended Fox and Wootton, Calvin Robinson responded by defending Wootton in particular, saying “Standing up for Dan is standing up for the very idea of GB News. If he falls, we all fall.”

Robinson is a deacon in the Free Church of England, a bizarre denomination that is neither part of the Church of England nor a “free church” in the usual sense. It was formed by people who think the Church of England – a bastion of institutional homophobia – is not homophobic enough.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Robinson’s faith. God can see into his heart; I cannot. God will judge both him and me. This doesn’t stop me opposing Robinson’s anti-LGBT, anti-refugee, pro-monarchy views. He has now crossed another line in defending misogynistic and sexually explicit verbal abuse.

Robinson, Wootton and Fox like to talk about free speech. As far as I am aware none of them have responded to the arrests of peaceful protesters by speaking up for free speech. I certainly did not hear from them when I was arrested last year for peacefully voicing opposition to the monarchy. The free speech that they love to champion is the free speech of influential men such as themselves to insult and abuse people.

If free speech means anything, it means the right of all people to be heard, not the right of powerful people to have their own TV programmes regardless of how they use their influence and who gets hurt.

The right-wing Christians leaping to Robinson’s defence have exposed the hollowness of their usual claims. These are the same sort of people who like to talk about sexual morality, who say that same-gender relationships are sexually unethical and who try to claim that supporting trans rights is harmful to women.

Now these guardians of sexual morality are defending the “right” of a man to publicly talk discuss a woman with whom he disagrees by saying that he wouldn’t “shag that”. And the right of another influential man to respond by laughing at the “joke” on air.

Open the New Testament and you will find in Jesus a man who challenged the conventions of his day, spoke with women with a respect that society found shocking, criticised the sort of divorce that allowed men to throw women into poverty, and told men to take responsibility for how they look at women.

Calvin Robinson has not been suspended by GB News because he stood up for these values. He stood up for people who oppose them.

The Tories never run out of scapegoats. They will blame Britain’s problems on refugees, trans people, climate activists or any other group except for those who actually have much power.

This looks set to continue when Jeremy Hunt gives his Autumn Statement in November, if a front page story in the Financial Times this weekend is anything to go by.

According to the FT, “Chancellor Jeremy Hunt plans to use the Autumn Statement to tackle the sharp rise in people unable to work because of mental health issues”. The article of full of figures about the amount of money spent on sickness and disability benefits, and money supposedly lost to the economy by people being unable to work.

The Daily Express reports that such costs have led Hunt to decide to prioritise plans to “help” people with mental health problems.

What is completely missing from these reports is any information about how he will help them. The Financial Times states that Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is considering “using tax breaks and subsidies for workplace occupational health services”.

There is no suggestion that ministers are considering increasing funding for mental health services, nor any detail about what “workplace occupational health services” will provide.

All of which suggests that we’re back to the tired old tactic of demonising people on benefits rather than actually supporting people with mental health problems or helping them to recover.

There are clear hints of this in the story that appeared in the FT. It reports that Hunt wants to keep people “in jobs and off benefits”. An anonymous government source is quoted, claiming that, “People are currently being channelled into the benefit system when the reality is lots of them could work”.

This is nonsense. It sets up “benefits” and “work” as opposites and alternatives, an inaccuracy encouraged by almost everyone who attacks people who receive benefits. The truth is that many people in receipt of benefits are also in employment. This includes benefits related to disability and health, such as Personal Independence Payments (PIP). This is a benefit that is supposed to be based on recognition of the extra costs of being disabled: it is not about whether or not you are working. While Jeremy Hunt and his press officers may have an interest in fudging this reality, reporters on the Financial Times should be well-informed enough to have pointed it out. .

Applying for PIP is a tortuous, demeaning and extremely stressful process that some people abandon despite being entitled to it. Anyone who manages to complete the application process in the midst of mental distress should be given a medal, let alone an entitlement to benefits.

Mental health services are woefully and dangerously underfunded throughout the UK, particularly in England, where they are the direct responsibility of the UK government. As someone with mental health problems, I have been delighted to see the growth in awareness of mental health issues in the last 20 years – and dismayed to see mental health services being cut at the same time. In recent years, I have seen friends with severe mental health problems unable to access the support that they desperately need.

Hunt is right about one thing: mental health is massively important issue and mental health problems affect an alarming number of people. But tackling Britain’s mental health crisis would mean acknowledging and addressing its causes. This is something that Hunt and his colleagues won’t do – because many of their own policies have contributed heavily to the problem. High levels of mental distress are hardly surprising in a context of spiralling poverty, the legacy of austerity policies, the effects of the pandemic and the reality of NHS underfunding and excessive waiting lists.

We need to address mental health problems if we are to be a compassionate society, and because life is better for all of us when we support each other. This, rather than the economic costs of time off work, is the most important reason for tacking mental health seriously.

However, even by the Tories’ own logic, the underfunding of mental health services is bad economics, given that it means more people taking time off working, or not being employed, because of poor mental health. But for all Hunt’s economic talk, there is no sign that Hunt is going to provide any more funding for mental health services, and certainly not to the degree that is needed or anywhere near it.

This policy bears all the signs of an attempt to apportion blame rather than to solve a problem.

Disabled benefit recipients, including people with mental health problems, were among the favourite scapegoats of the Cameron government from 2010 onwards, as they talked about cutting the deficit and in effect demanded that the poorest people in society, rather than the richest, should pay the price for doing so.

But with the Tory government’s popularity plummeting and with greater understanding of mental health issues in society at large, I am not sure it will work again. Of course there are still people who will lap up right-wing newspaper claims about benefit recipients stealing their money, but I suspect Hunt will be disappointed if he thinks that demonising people with mental health problems will be as easy as it was a decade ago. Nonetheless, we must be ready to speak out to stand in solidarity with each other and to say that the best way to tackle mental health problems is to change the policies and structures that fuel them.

For weeks, the Mail on Sunday and similar papers have warned that “republican fanatics” were planning violent disruption at the coronation.

There was undoubtedly violence at the coronation yesterday. But it was not carried out by republicans. The only people behaving violently were the police and a minority of ultra-royalists who attacked peaceful republican protesters.

At one point fairly early in the morning, as we stood peacefully in the rain in Trafalgar Square, holding placards and chanting, several police officers suddenly pushed their way through us to grab hold of a particular activist who they wanted to search. They dragged the person in question away, pushing other peaceful protesters to the side, grabbing a banner from someone who they later claimed was in the way, and violently shoving people so forcefully that they fell into each other. I happened to be standing near a family with young children. I had to push back against some of the people falling onto me to stop them falling onto the children, as the parents scooped up the frightened toddlers. The police later claimed that all this was necessary to search Patrick – on whom they found nothing suspicious.

A bit later, a policeman told me I was upsetting people. I had been having a fairly calm conversation with a royalist who had come to Trafalgar Square to celebrate the coronation, and had found himself near the republican protest that I had joined. But the police officer clearly thought that it was dangerous for two people who disagreed to talk with each other, and he had come over to tell us to stop.

He then told me that I had upset people because I had sworn in front of children. I replied that I had not sworn all day and certainly not in front of children. He seemed inclined to believe the royalists who had made this accusation rather than to acknowledge that there were competing factual statements. He asked me to move away from the area. I insisted on my right to continue demonstrating where I was standing, next to lots of other republicans. To be fair, he didn’t try to come up with some excuse to arrest me – as his colleagues had done with many other coronation protesters.

As has now been widely reported, police arrested almost the entire staff of Republic at around 7.00am when they turned up to set up for the demonstration. As Graham Smith of Republic had pointed out many times, he and his colleagues had negotiated with police for months and had been repeatedly told that their peaceful, lawful protest would be allowed to go ahead.

But police swooped on the Republic organisers on their arrival in what looks very much like a pre-planned move to arrest the organisers of the protest. It seems they had decided to arrest them and were prepared to use whatever threadbare grounds they could for doing so. They also confiscated their van, full of placards and other entirely lawful materials, and threatened to arrest anyone with a loudhailer. Graham and his colleagues were released late last night, but the police kept their phones.

Often, the police seem to have a very hierarchical understanding of the world. I have several times seen police confused as they ask who is the leader of a campaign or protest that has been organised by people working together as equals. Given this outlook, they may even have thought that by arresting the organisers, they could stop the protest going ahead. They failed. We continued to demonstrate peacefully and vocally, against the coronation and what it represented.

Despite the arrests and outrageous policing, there was a good atmosphere on the demonstration. I’m told this was true of other protests at other sites along the route of the procession. There was a strong feeling of solidarity among republicans of varied views, backgrounds and ages, and we were further encouraged by all the supportive messages sent on social media by people who could not be there in person. I came across other Christian anti-royalists, many of them expressing delight at not being the only Christian at the protest. I was pleased to meet many people who I had previously been in touch with only remotely, including Paul Powlesland and Patrick Thelwell (pictured below), who were both arrested or threatened with arrest for their resistance to monarchy, not long after my own arrest in Oxford last year.

The police crackdown was made easier by the new Public Order Act that had been rushed through and come into force only three days earlier. Amongst other things, it has given the police the power to stop and search people at protests without giving a reason – a power several of them were clearly enjoying exercising for the first time yesterday. As well as 52 people arrested, there were many more people searched.

A police sergeant, trying to insist that they were applying the law fairly to everyone, told me that a royalist had been arrested for assaulting republicans. I am pretty sure he was the only one, despite other assaults by royalists. Later in the day, a royalist tried to pour water over me and another republican, mostly missing – and also missing the point that it was raining and we were already soaked. Some royalists chanted “hang the traitors”, in our direction. It was far more violent and abusive than our peaceful chants of “Not my king”, “Down with the crown” and “He’s just a normal man”.

Only days before, Graham Smith had encouraged me not to worry too much about being arrested. He considered that the police would stick to their agreement with Republic. After being released last night, however, Graham tweeted, “Make no mistake. There is no longer a right to peaceful protest in the UK.”

When they crowned him yesterday, Charles Windsor promised to protect our “liberties”. If he does not even question the arrests of peaceful protesters, he will already have broken his promise. Royalists like to talk of their pride in British history – about which they tend to be carefully selective. But the British traditions of free speech, for which our ancestors struggled so hard, seem to be of little concern to some of them.

Police have of course been abusing the right to peaceful protest for years. They have exceeded their legal power and broken their own laws. Their abuse of power is now aided, however, by a piece of legislation that imposes the greatest restrictions on freedom to protest in the UK since the Second World War. And yesterday has made clear how they will use it.

Future historians will study yesterday’s events. It may be that 100 years into the future, 6th May 2023 will be mentioned frequently in history books. If it is, it will be remembered not because of the antiquated coronation of a mediocre monarch, but because it was the day that the right to peaceful protest died in Britain