A Malaysian court ruled Monday the government must return dozens of watches seized in a crackdown on LGBTQ-themed Swatch timepieces last year, a federal counsel told AFP.

The 172 watches, collectively worth around $14,000, were seized in raids of Swatch stores across Malaysia in May 2023.&nbsp;

At the time, an official said the watches were taken because they bore the "LGBTQ" acronym and depicted the six colours globally synonymous with the rainbow Pride flag.

The government in Malaysia – where homosexuality is outlawed and LGBTQ people face widespread discrimination – subsequently banned the rainbow-themed Swatch timepieces, warning that owners or sellers could face up to three years in prison.

Authorities had claimed the watches "may harm... the interests of the nation by promoting, supporting and normalising the LGBTQ+ movement that is not accepted by the general public".

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-top-court-affirms-housing-inheritance-rights-for-same-sex-couples-779268">Hong Kong top court affirms housing, inheritance rights for same-sex couples</a>

In its suit challenging the seizure, Swatch said its products "did not promote any sexual activity, but merely a fun and joyous expression of peace and love".

The Kuala Lumpur High Court on Monday ruled the interior ministry must return the watches to Swatch within 14 days, the government's lawyer Sallehuddin Ali told AFP.

"The judge also said the prohibition order on the watches was only issued and gazetted in August 2023, after the seizures (of watches) in May, so at the time of the seizure, the applicant (Swatch) did not commit any offence." &nbsp;

Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said his ministry will honour the court order.

"The home ministry must respect the decision, or else it would be viewed as contempt of court," he said at a press conference.

Asked if the ministry will file an appeal, Saifuddin said the government's legal team will "need to examine the basis of the judgement thoroughly" before deciding.

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

A Malaysian court ruled Monday the government must return dozens of watches seized in a crackdown on LGBTQ-themed Swatch timepieces last year, a federal counsel told AFP.

A Malaysian court ruled Monday the government must return dozens of watches seized in a crackdown on LGBTQ-themed Swatch timepieces last year, a federal counsel told AFP. The 172 watches, collectively worth around $14,000, were seized in raids of Swatch stores across Malaysia in May 2023. At the time, an official said the watches were taken because they bore the "LGBTQ" acronym and depicted the six colours globally synonymous with the rainbow Pride flag. The government in Malaysia – where homosexuality is outlawed and LGBTQ people face widespread discrimination – subsequently banned the rainbow-themed Swatch timepieces, warning that owners or sellers could face up to three years in prison. Authorities had claimed the watches "may harm... the interests of the nation by promoting, supporting and normalising the LGBTQ+ movement that is not accepted by the general public". Also read | Hong Kong top court affirms housing, inheritance rights for same-sex couples In its suit challenging the seizure, Swatch said its products "did not promote any sexual activity, but merely a fun and joyous expression of peace and love". The Kuala Lumpur High Court on Monday ruled the interior ministry must return the watches to Swatch within 14 days, the government's lawyer Sallehuddin Ali told AFP. "The judge also said the prohibition order on the watches was only issued and gazetted in August 2023, after the seizures (of watches) in May, so at the time of the seizure, the applicant (Swatch) did not commit any offence." Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said his ministry will honour the court order. "The home ministry must respect the decision, or else it would be viewed as contempt of court," he said at a press conference. Asked if the ministry will file an appeal, Saifuddin said the government's legal team will "need to examine the basis of the judgement thoroughly" before deciding. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Malaysia court orders to return seized LGBTQ-themed watches

Bombay High Court’s bench in the Indian state of Maharashtra’s Aurangabad has overturned a 20-year-old court order that convicted a man and his family for cruelty towards his late wife. The court said that allegations of not allowing their daughter-in-law to watch TV, forcing her to sleep on the carpet, not letting her visit the temple alone, and verbally abusing her were not “severe” actions under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-up-panel-suggests-no-male-tailor-should-take-womens-measurements-for-safety-774616">India: UP panel suggests 'no male tailor should take women’s measurements' for safety</a>

Section 498A of the IPC states, “Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend for three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

The high court observed that the nature of these allegations involving domestic problems do not amount to physical and mental torture. The man, along with his brother and parents were acquitted by the High Court for these offences and IPC Section 306 (abetment of suicide).&nbsp;

The couple in question got married in December 2002, and the woman committed suicide in May 2003, due to alleged ill-treatment by her in-laws.

In an October 17 order, the single judge bench of Justice Abhay S Waghwase dismissed the allegations of cruelty towards her. The woman’s family also complained that her in-laws demanded dowry and would send her to fetch water at midnight.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/three-coaches-of-the-secunderabad-shalimar-express-derail-in-indias-howrah-774751">Three coaches of the Secunderabad-Shalimar Express derail in India's Howrah</a>

However, the court noted that the village of Varangaon, where they lived, usually received the water supply around midnight and families would go to fetch water around that time.

“There is a gap of almost two months since deceased, complainant and witnesses met each other. They (mother, uncle and aunt of deceased) have admitted that, there was no communication from deceased either written or oral, she has not conveyed that there was any instances of cruelty in proximity to suicide. There is no evidence to show that at that relevant point or any proximity to the suicide, there was any demand, cruelty or mal-treatment so as to connect them with the suicidal death. What triggered the suicide has remained a mystery,” the high court wrote&nbsp;in its order, as per LiveLaw.

(With inputs from agencies)

Bombay High Court’s bench in the Indian state of Maharashtra’s Aurangabad has overturned a 20-year-old court order that convicted a man and his family for cruelty towards his late wife.

Bombay High Court’s bench in the Indian state of Maharashtra’s Aurangabad has overturned a 20-year-old court order that convicted a man and his family for cruelty towards his late wife. The court said that allegations of not allowing their daughter-in-law to watch TV, forcing her to sleep on the carpet, not letting her visit the temple alone, and verbally abusing her were not “severe” actions under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Also read | India: UP panel suggests 'no male tailor should take women’s measurements' for safety Section 498A of the IPC states, “Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend for three years and shall also be liable to fine.” The high court observed that the nature of these allegations involving domestic problems do not amount to physical and mental torture. The man, along with his brother and parents were acquitted by the High Court for these offences and IPC Section 306 (abetment of suicide). The couple in question got married in December 2002, and the woman committed suicide in May 2003, due to alleged ill-treatment by her in-laws. In an October 17 order, the single judge bench of Justice Abhay S Waghwase dismissed the allegations of cruelty towards her. The woman’s family also complained that her in-laws demanded dowry and would send her to fetch water at midnight. Also read | Three coaches of the Secunderabad-Shalimar Express derail in India's Howrah However, the court noted that the village of Varangaon, where they lived, usually received the water supply around midnight and families would go to fetch water around that time. “There is a gap of almost two months since deceased, complainant and witnesses met each other. They (mother, uncle and aunt of deceased) have admitted that, there was no communication from deceased either written or oral, she has not conveyed that there was any instances of cruelty in proximity to suicide. There is no evidence to show that at that relevant point or any proximity to the suicide, there was any demand, cruelty or mal-treatment so as to connect them with the suicidal death. What triggered the suicide has remained a mystery,” the high court wrote in its order, as per LiveLaw. (With inputs from agencies)

Forcing daughter-in-law to sleep on carpet, verbal abuse not cruelty: Bombay High Court

Facebook-parent Meta on Friday won an appeal overturning a previous court ruling that barred it from using its name in Brazil due to confusion with another company.

Mark Zuckerberg's tech company was in late February ordered to stop using its name in Brazil within 30 days after a Brazilian computer services provider won a favourable ruling arguing it already owned rights to the name and had as a result of the U.S. branding been wrongly cited in over 100 lawsuits.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/musks-spacex-is-building-spy-satellite-network-for-us-intelligence-agency-reports-700906">Musk's SpaceX is building spy satellite network for US intelligence agency: Reports</a>

In a statement, the Brazilian Meta said it owned the name's rights in Brazil, adding it believed the law should be followed "regardless of business decisions made by groups that want to operate in our country".

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/robots-that-work-alongside-humans-700822">Robots that work alongside humans</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/robots-that-work-alongside-humans-700822/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The company can still appeal the decision.

U.S. Meta, formerly called Facebook, changed its name in 2021 in a rebrand that focused on building the "metaverse," a shared virtual environment. 
&nbsp;

Facebook-parent Meta on Friday won an appeal overturning a previous court ruling that barred it from using its name in Brazil due to confusion with another company.

Facebook-parent Meta on Friday won an appeal overturning a previous court ruling that barred it from using its name in Brazil due to confusion with another company. Mark Zuckerberg's tech company was in late February ordered to stop using its name in Brazil within 30 days after a Brazilian computer services provider won a favourable ruling arguing it already owned rights to the name and had as a result of the U.S. branding been wrongly cited in over 100 lawsuits. Also Read | Musk's SpaceX is building spy satellite network for US intelligence agency: Reports In a statement, the Brazilian Meta said it owned the name's rights in Brazil, adding it believed the law should be followed "regardless of business decisions made by groups that want to operate in our country". Watch | Robots that work alongside humans × The company can still appeal the decision. U.S. Meta, formerly called Facebook, changed its name in 2021 in a rebrand that focused on building the "metaverse," a shared virtual environment.

Meta wins appeal on court order to stop using its name in Brazil

World over June has witnessed Pride Parades amidst the rainbow festivities a struggle for recognizing all love continues but now Nepal's LGBTQ Community has reason to celebrate. The country's epic Court issued a historic order to register same-sex marriages in Nepal. A small country of 30 million will with an even smaller representation of the LGBT community make that historic decision as of Wednesday Nepal has become South Asia's first country to legally register same-sex marriages in the country.

Nepal: LGBTQ couples get their happily ever after

A cruise ship went off course recently. Well, not due to any natural calamity but a US court order where a judge granted the seizure of the vessel. &nbsp;

The court order has come as part of a lawsuit over millions of dollars in unpaid fuel. &nbsp;

On Thursday, a federal judge in Miami had issued an arrest warrant for the ship. It is a maritime practice where a US Marshal goes aboard a vessel and takes its charge once it enters US waters. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/threat-of-war-forces-us-to-order-departure-of-ukrainian-embassy-staffs-kin-447011" hreflang="en">Threat of war forces US to order departure of Ukrainian embassy staff’s kin</a>

The ship, which was supposed to dock in Miami, has instead sailed to the Bahamas. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Crystal Symphony is currently docked in the Bahamian island of Bimini showed Cruise trackers. &nbsp;

On social media, the passengers and entertainers said that they were surprised to find out about the legal case. &nbsp;&nbsp;

A passenger, Stephen Heard Fales, posted on Facebook, "We all feel we were abducted by luxurious pirates!" &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/first-part-of-us-defence-aid-arrives-in-ukraine-germany-will-not-supply-weapons-to-kyiv-for-now-446699" hreflang="en">US defence aid arrives in Ukraine; Germany will not supply weapons for now</a>

On Sunday, some passengers were taken by ferry to Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. &nbsp;

As per a statement from a Crystal Cruises spokesperson, the ferry ride was apparently "uncomfortable due to inclement weather." &nbsp;

The guests were taken to local airports. It would not like to comment on any "pending legal matters", the company said.

The exact number of passengers on board the ship is unclear. The company’s website says that it can carry up to 848 passengers. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

A cruise ship went off course recently. Well, not due to any natural calamity but a US court order where a judge granted the seizure of the vessel. The court order has come as part of a lawsuit over millions of dollars in unpaid fuel.

A cruise ship went off course recently. Well, not due to any natural calamity but a US court order where a judge granted the seizure of the vessel. The court order has come as part of a lawsuit over millions of dollars in unpaid fuel. On Thursday, a federal judge in Miami had issued an arrest warrant for the ship. It is a maritime practice where a US Marshal goes aboard a vessel and takes its charge once it enters US waters. Also Read: Threat of war forces US to order departure of Ukrainian embassy staff’s kin The ship, which was supposed to dock in Miami, has instead sailed to the Bahamas. Crystal Symphony is currently docked in the Bahamian island of Bimini showed Cruise trackers. On social media, the passengers and entertainers said that they were surprised to find out about the legal case. A passenger, Stephen Heard Fales, posted on Facebook, "We all feel we were abducted by luxurious pirates!" Also Read: US defence aid arrives in Ukraine; Germany will not supply weapons for now On Sunday, some passengers were taken by ferry to Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. As per a statement from a Crystal Cruises spokesperson, the ferry ride was apparently "uncomfortable due to inclement weather." The guests were taken to local airports. It would not like to comment on any "pending legal matters", the company said. The exact number of passengers on board the ship is unclear. The company’s website says that it can carry up to 848 passengers. (With inputs from agencies)

Cruise ship goes off course, docks in Bahamas. Find out what happened

The Obama administration released a redacted version of President Barack Obama&#39;s once-secret policy on drone strikes abroad following a freedom of information lawsuit filed last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said on yesterday. 
 
The release of the 18-page Presidential Policy Guidance document, as well as other department of defense papers, follows an order by a US district court judge in February requiring the justice department to disclose the document, also known as &quot;the Playbook.&quot; 
 
It sets out the law and rules the government must follow when carrying out targeted killings and the capture of terrorist suspects abroad. 
 
Obama pledged in 2013 to provide greater transparency about counter-terrorism operations, including drone strikes overseas, amid calls by some US lawmakers and rights groups for more openness. 
 
ACLU&#39;s deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, welcomed the release of the documents, saying they provide new details about policy standards and insights into the process for targeting individuals with lethal force or for capture. 
 
&quot;Its release now will inform an ongoing debate about the lawfulness and wisdom of the government&#39;s counter-terrorism policies,&quot; Jaffer said in a statement. 
 
The ACLU&#39;s lawsuit sought information, among other things, on the law and policies used to justify lethal force and how the government picks targets. 
 
According to the documents, published by the ACLU, strikes against high-value terrorist targets can be taken &quot;when there is near certainty&quot; that the person is present, and that no civilians will be injured or killed, and is necessary to &quot;achieve US policy objectives.&quot; 
 
The administration has defended its use of drones as essential in fighting al-Qaeda and other militants in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Some drone strikes have killed civilians who were not targets, igniting local anger. 
 
&quot;The President has emphasised that the US government should be as transparent as possible with the American people about our counter-terrorism operations, the manner in which they are conducted, and their results,&quot; national security council spokesman Ned Price said of yesterday&#39;s release of documents. 
 
&quot;Our counter-terrorism actions are effective and legal, and their legitimacy is best demonstrated by making public more information about these actions as well as setting clear standards for other nations to follow,&quot; he added. 
 
Naureen Shah, Amnesty International&#39;s US director for security and human rights, also welcomed the documents but said more was needed to ensure the policy was followed. 
 
&quot;The Obama administration&#39;s disclosures are welcome but they only tell part of the story and obscure disturbing practices. We still know extremely little about the standards that would govern signature strikes and so-called rescuer strikes, which have involved potentially unlawful killings,&quot; Shah added. 
 
(Reuters)

Amnesty's US director for human rights welcomed the disclosure, but said 'they only tell part of the story and obscure disturbing practices'

The Obama administration released a redacted version of President Barack Obama's once-secret policy on drone strikes abroad following a freedom of information lawsuit filed last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said on yesterday. The release of the 18-page Presidential Policy Guidance document, as well as other department of defense papers, follows an order by a US district court judge in February requiring the justice department to disclose the document, also known as "the Playbook." It sets out the law and rules the government must follow when carrying out targeted killings and the capture of terrorist suspects abroad. Obama pledged in 2013 to provide greater transparency about counter-terrorism operations, including drone strikes overseas, amid calls by some US lawmakers and rights groups for more openness. ACLU's deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, welcomed the release of the documents, saying they provide new details about policy standards and insights into the process for targeting individuals with lethal force or for capture. "Its release now will inform an ongoing debate about the lawfulness and wisdom of the government's counter-terrorism policies," Jaffer said in a statement. The ACLU's lawsuit sought information, among other things, on the law and policies used to justify lethal force and how the government picks targets. According to the documents, published by the ACLU, strikes against high-value terrorist targets can be taken "when there is near certainty" that the person is present, and that no civilians will be injured or killed, and is necessary to "achieve US policy objectives." The administration has defended its use of drones as essential in fighting al-Qaeda and other militants in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Some drone strikes have killed civilians who were not targets, igniting local anger. "The President has emphasised that the US government should be as transparent as possible with the American people about our counter-terrorism operations, the manner in which they are conducted, and their results," national security council spokesman Ned Price said of yesterday's release of documents. "Our counter-terrorism actions are effective and legal, and their legitimacy is best demonstrated by making public more information about these actions as well as setting clear standards for other nations to follow," he added. Naureen Shah, Amnesty International's US director for security and human rights, also welcomed the documents but said more was needed to ensure the policy was followed. "The Obama administration's disclosures are welcome but they only tell part of the story and obscure disturbing practices. We still know extremely little about the standards that would govern signature strikes and so-called rescuer strikes, which have involved potentially unlawful killings," Shah added. (Reuters)

Obama administration releases redacted version of drone policy

court-order

Court Order, News on Court Order, stories on Court Order, articles on Court Order, Court Order stories at Wion, Court Order news, Court Order latest news