Pandemonium broke out in the Jordanian parliament during a heated debate on controversial constitutional reforms.

On Wednesday, several MPs were discussing a draft amendment, adding the Arabic female noun for a Jordanian citizen into the constitution section on equal rights.&nbsp;

But some MPs branded the draft as “useless” following which a heated debate ensued in the House of Representatives in Jordan's capital Amman, which was broadcast live on Al-Mamlaka television channel.

The brawl had erupted between Deputy Suleiman Abu Yahya and parliament House Speaker Abdul Karim Dughmi, according to reports.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
اقول الصلح خير <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%B3_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#مجلس_النواب</a> <a href="https://t.co/qDSQQQsbhv">pic.twitter.com/qDSQQQsbhv</a>
— Mohammed al Ersan (@JournalistErsan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JournalistErsan/status/1475781819513675779?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Things further escalated when Yahya accused Dughmi of being “unable to run the show” and claimed he knew “nothing”.

The live footage on state media showed the MPs trading punches while one deputy fell to the ground as others shouted in chaotic scenes that lasted a few minutes, forcing the session to be adjourned until Thursday.

"There was a verbal shouting match that turned into a fist-fighting by several deputies. The behaviour is unacceptable to our people and harms our country's reputation," Reuters quoted Khalil Atiyeh, a member of parliament who witnessed the session, a saying.

Among other constitutional reforms to be discussed are the creation of a "National Security Council", and the halving of the house speaker's mandate to one year from the current two-year terms.

The kingdom's constitution, introduced in 1952, has been amended 29 times, with the monarch's powers increasing at the expense of the legislature, according to experts.

(With inputs from agencies)

Pandemonium broke out in the Jordanian parliament during a heated debate on controversial constitutional reforms. On Wednesday, several MPs were discussing a draft amendment, adding the Arabic female noun for a Jordanian citizen into the constitution section on equal rights.

Pandemonium broke out in the Jordanian parliament during a heated debate on controversial constitutional reforms. On Wednesday, several MPs were discussing a draft amendment, adding the Arabic female noun for a Jordanian citizen into the constitution section on equal rights. But some MPs branded the draft as “useless” following which a heated debate ensued in the House of Representatives in Jordan's capital Amman, which was broadcast live on Al-Mamlaka television channel. The brawl had erupted between Deputy Suleiman Abu Yahya and parliament House Speaker Abdul Karim Dughmi, according to reports. اقول الصلح خير #مجلس_النواب pic.twitter.com/qDSQQQsbhv — Mohammed al Ersan (@JournalistErsan) December 28, 2021 × Things further escalated when Yahya accused Dughmi of being “unable to run the show” and claimed he knew “nothing”. The live footage on state media showed the MPs trading punches while one deputy fell to the ground as others shouted in chaotic scenes that lasted a few minutes, forcing the session to be adjourned until Thursday. "There was a verbal shouting match that turned into a fist-fighting by several deputies. The behaviour is unacceptable to our people and harms our country's reputation," Reuters quoted Khalil Atiyeh, a member of parliament who witnessed the session, a saying. Among other constitutional reforms to be discussed are the creation of a "National Security Council", and the halving of the house speaker's mandate to one year from the current two-year terms. The kingdom's constitution, introduced in 1952, has been amended 29 times, with the monarch's powers increasing at the expense of the legislature, according to experts. (With inputs from agencies)

Watch | Fist fight erupts in Jordanian parliament during heated discussion on constitutional reforms

Taking the progressive mindset a step forward, Hong Kong’s High Court has ruled in favour of the LGBTQ community with regard to owning subsidised housing.

The Hong Kong High Court ruled that the existing housing policies are discriminatory as it denies same-sex couples to own a house together.

Also read |&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/photos/thousands-take-part-in-polands-pride-march-392718" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/photos/thousands-take-part-in-polands-pride-march-392718&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiJzcbL0LLxAhXA8HMBHVCKD24QFjADegQIAhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw0-NcpgZpyU_KLcscgltknW" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/thousands-take-part-in-polands-pride-march-392718" target="_blank">Thousands take part in Poland's Pride march</a>

Although Hong Kong does not recognise same-sex marriage, the court said not acknowledging same-sex partners as a tenant’s family member "constitute unlawful discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation".

Henry Li and his deceased partner Edgar Ng filed a case against the city government’s discriminatory policies in 2019, but Ng took his own life in December after battling depression. The hearings for this case began only in April 2021.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/britain-slams-hungarys-anti-lgbt-law-as-an-affront-to-human-rights-392475">Britain slams Hungary's anti-LGBT+ law as an 'affront to human rights'</a>

Ng believed that if he dies died his property would not be passed on to his partner, which was discriminatory and unfair, and therefore the couple had filed against this rule.

In the recent hearing, the Justice Anderson Chow said that the city housing policies should not deny same-sex partners joint occupancy and ownership rights as it is a violation of the Basic Law.

Taking the progressive mindset a step forward, Hong Kong’s High Court has ruled in favour of the LGBTQ community with regard to owning subsidised housing. The Hong Kong High Court ruled that the existing housing policies are discriminatory as it denies same-sex couples to own a house together.

Taking the progressive mindset a step forward, Hong Kong’s High Court has ruled in favour of the LGBTQ community with regard to owning subsidised housing. The Hong Kong High Court ruled that the existing housing policies are discriminatory as it denies same-sex couples to own a house together. Also read | Thousands take part in Poland's Pride march Although Hong Kong does not recognise same-sex marriage, the court said not acknowledging same-sex partners as a tenant’s family member "constitute unlawful discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation". Henry Li and his deceased partner Edgar Ng filed a case against the city government’s discriminatory policies in 2019, but Ng took his own life in December after battling depression. The hearings for this case began only in April 2021. Also read | Britain slams Hungary's anti-LGBT+ law as an 'affront to human rights' Ng believed that if he dies died his property would not be passed on to his partner, which was discriminatory and unfair, and therefore the couple had filed against this rule. In the recent hearing, the Justice Anderson Chow said that the city housing policies should not deny same-sex partners joint occupancy and ownership rights as it is a violation of the Basic Law.

'Discriminatory policy': Hong Kong court rules in favour of LGBTQ community

THE JOHN LEWIS ACT WOULD REAFFIRM CONGRESS’S CENTRAL ROLE IN PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE AGAINST RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES.

With the For the People Act on indefinite hold after a filibuster by Republicans in the Senate on Tuesday, the Voting Rights Act is about to return to center stage in Washington. The Supreme Court will soon decide a case on how a crucial part of the landmark law applies to voting laws challenged as racially discriminatory.

The country is already roiling with controversies over whether a variety of post-2020 state voting changes reflect legitimate policy concerns or racially discriminatory ones.

In Congress, Senators Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski have turned a spotlight on the Voting Rights Act with their endorsement of a version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. It would reaffirm Congress’s central role in protecting the right to vote against racially discriminatory changes and give the Justice Department (or, in Mr. Manchin’s version, the federal courts) the critical power to approve changes that are legitimate and block those that are invidious.

The John Lewis Act might well offer the best chance of new national legislation protecting the right to vote in America, and its significance is best seen in historical context, especially that of two Supreme Court cases.

The John Lewis Act would restore provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Sections 4 and 5) that were effectively invalidated by the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder. When enacted in 1965, these provisions identified certain parts of the country and put their voting systems under a regime of federal control. These areas had to submit voting changes to the federal government, which had the power to block a proposal if it would diminish minority voter power. The federal government does not normally have veto power over state laws, but Section 5 created one.

Congress identified those areas based on voting practices in 1964. This coverage formula mainly singled out the states where extensive disenfranchisement had been in effect since the turn of the 20th century — especially since a Supreme Court case from 1903, Giles v. Harris.

Plessy v. Ferguson, which had upheld segregation in 1896, is more widely known, but Giles might well be more important. Written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the majority opinion in Giles contains an extraordinary, chilling passage. The complaint “imports that the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote. “Unless we are prepared to supervise the voting in that state by officers of the court, it seems to us that all that the plaintiff could get from equity would be an empty form.” What is shocking is both the court’s brutal realpolitik about the former Confederate states’ disenfranchisement of Black voters and its confession of impotence in the face of it.

Giles was the last gasp in the effort to stop the destruction of voting rights for Black citizens (and many poor white ones) that took place throughout the South from 1890 to 1908. As late as the 1890s, half of adult Black men voted in Southern gubernatorial elections. But with disenfranchisement, the effects were stark. In Louisiana, for example, half of registered voters, more than 130,000 people, were Black in 1896; by 1910, that had fallen to 730 men.

The court’s power to enforce its rulings comes down to the willingness of the other branches to step up and do so. In 1890, Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party withdrew support for a Federal Elections Bill, which signaled Congress’s abandonment of its commitment to protect Black voting rights in the South. When Congress finally enacted the Voting Rights Act, it required sending federal officials into parts of the South, as Justice Holmes anticipated, to take over the voter registration process.

Congress initially designed Section 5 to last for five years; it was renewed for five more years, then seven and, in 1982, for 25 years. In the early renewals, Congress updated the coverage formula to include elections from 1968 and 1972. But later renewals did not update the coverage formula.

The last time the full Congress considered Section 5 was in 2006. The areas of the country still covered then had not changed much since 1975; indeed, most had been covered since 1965. Still, when experts (including me) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006, we urged Congress to update the coverage formula. The failure to do so, we feared, would create a significant risk that the John Roberts-Anthony Kennedy court would hold this part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

But Congress had no interest in making those politically charged decisions — determining whether voting practices were more discriminatory today in Ohio, say, than in Virginia. It left the coverage status quo in place and renewed Section 5 for 25 more years.

In the Shelby County case, the Supreme Court said that the coverage formula was no longer tied to “current conditions” but that Congress could draft an updated formula.

That is precisely what the John Lewis Act aims to do. A version the House passed in 2019 would cover only those states that have had 15 or more voting-rights violations in the past 25 years (or 10 violations if one was at the state level). Coverage would end after 10 years if the state has a clean record. The period rolls, or continuously moves, so that the act would remain tied to conditions in those time frames.

The act faces an uphill battle in securing enough Republican votes for passage. But because it is the only legislation with any bipartisan support so far, it might be the most plausible route for now to bolster national voting-rights policy — and to help bring greater legitimacy to our election process.

THE JOHN LEWIS ACT WOULD REAFFIRM CONGRESS’S CENTRAL ROLE IN PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE AGAINST RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES. With the For the People Act on indefinite hold after a filibuster by Republicans in the Senate on Tuesday, the Voting Rights Act is about to return to center stage in Washington.

THE JOHN LEWIS ACT WOULD REAFFIRM CONGRESS’S CENTRAL ROLE IN PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE AGAINST RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES. With the For the People Act on indefinite hold after a filibuster by Republicans in the Senate on Tuesday, the Voting Rights Act is about to return to center stage in Washington. The Supreme Court will soon decide a case on how a crucial part of the landmark law applies to voting laws challenged as racially discriminatory. The country is already roiling with controversies over whether a variety of post-2020 state voting changes reflect legitimate policy concerns or racially discriminatory ones. In Congress, Senators Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski have turned a spotlight on the Voting Rights Act with their endorsement of a version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. It would reaffirm Congress’s central role in protecting the right to vote against racially discriminatory changes and give the Justice Department (or, in Mr. Manchin’s version, the federal courts) the critical power to approve changes that are legitimate and block those that are invidious. The John Lewis Act might well offer the best chance of new national legislation protecting the right to vote in America, and its significance is best seen in historical context, especially that of two Supreme Court cases. The John Lewis Act would restore provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Sections 4 and 5) that were effectively invalidated by the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder. When enacted in 1965, these provisions identified certain parts of the country and put their voting systems under a regime of federal control. These areas had to submit voting changes to the federal government, which had the power to block a proposal if it would diminish minority voter power. The federal government does not normally have veto power over state laws, but Section 5 created one. Congress identified those areas based on voting practices in 1964. This coverage formula mainly singled out the states where extensive disenfranchisement had been in effect since the turn of the 20th century — especially since a Supreme Court case from 1903, Giles v. Harris. Plessy v. Ferguson, which had upheld segregation in 1896, is more widely known, but Giles might well be more important. Written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the majority opinion in Giles contains an extraordinary, chilling passage. The complaint “imports that the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote. “Unless we are prepared to supervise the voting in that state by officers of the court, it seems to us that all that the plaintiff could get from equity would be an empty form.” What is shocking is both the court’s brutal realpolitik about the former Confederate states’ disenfranchisement of Black voters and its confession of impotence in the face of it. Giles was the last gasp in the effort to stop the destruction of voting rights for Black citizens (and many poor white ones) that took place throughout the South from 1890 to 1908. As late as the 1890s, half of adult Black men voted in Southern gubernatorial elections. But with disenfranchisement, the effects were stark. In Louisiana, for example, half of registered voters, more than 130,000 people, were Black in 1896; by 1910, that had fallen to 730 men. The court’s power to enforce its rulings comes down to the willingness of the other branches to step up and do so. In 1890, Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party withdrew support for a Federal Elections Bill, which signaled Congress’s abandonment of its commitment to protect Black voting rights in the South. When Congress finally enacted the Voting Rights Act, it required sending federal officials into parts of the South, as Justice Holmes anticipated, to take over the voter registration process. Congress initially designed Section 5 to last for five years; it was renewed for five more years, then seven and, in 1982, for 25 years. In the early renewals, Congress updated the coverage formula to include elections from 1968 and 1972. But later renewals did not update the coverage formula. The last time the full Congress considered Section 5 was in 2006. The areas of the country still covered then had not changed much since 1975; indeed, most had been covered since 1965. Still, when experts (including me) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006, we urged Congress to update the coverage formula. The failure to do so, we feared, would create a significant risk that the John Roberts-Anthony Kennedy court would hold this part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. But Congress had no interest in making those politically charged decisions — determining whether voting practices were more discriminatory today in Ohio, say, than in Virginia. It left the coverage status quo in place and renewed Section 5 for 25 more years. In the Shelby County case, the Supreme Court said that the coverage formula was no longer tied to “current conditions” but that Congress could draft an updated formula. That is precisely what the John Lewis Act aims to do. A version the House passed in 2019 would cover only those states that have had 15 or more voting-rights violations in the past 25 years (or 10 violations if one was at the state level). Coverage would end after 10 years if the state has a clean record. The period rolls, or continuously moves, so that the act would remain tied to conditions in those time frames. The act faces an uphill battle in securing enough Republican votes for passage. But because it is the only legislation with any bipartisan support so far, it might be the most plausible route for now to bolster national voting-rights policy — and to help bring greater legitimacy to our election process.

The really big fight on voting rights is just around the corner

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal protections against workplace discrimination apply equally to sexual orientation, contrary to the position taken by the administration of President Donald Trump. 
 
The landmark decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination against employees because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status. 
 
"Today we must decide whether someone can be fired simply for being homosexual or transgender," the court said. "The answer is clear." 
 
Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights (LGBT) activists, as well as Democratic politicians and several major businesses had been demanding that the court spell out that the community was protected by the law.&nbsp; 
 
"This is a huge victory for LGBTQ equality," said James Esseks, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's LGBTQ &amp; HIV Project. 
 
"The court has caught up to the majority of our country, which already knows that discriminating against LGBTQ people is both unfair and against the law," he said in a statement.&nbsp; 
 
Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic governor of New York state, concurred on Twitter."This #SCOTUS decision is a major victory for #LGBTQ rights," he said&nbsp; 
 
"No one should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity," he added. 
In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal, a landmark victory for the LGBTQ community. 
 
But rights activists feared that the appointment by Trump of two new conservative judges to the top court could hinder further wins for their cause. 
 
Yet it was one of them, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority decision, joining with the court's four progressive judges and Chief Justice John Roberts. 
 
"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote. 
 
The ruling was a blow for the Trump administration, which had effectively thrown in its lot with employers. 
 
"Sex refers to whether you were born woman or man, not your sexual orientation or gender identity," argued Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the government's position before the court. He said it is the job of Congress to update the law, not the justice system. 
 
That position was echoed by Brett Kavanaugh, the other conservative judge appointed by Trump. 
 
Despite his opposition, Kavanaugh wrote in his own separate dissent that the decision still represented an "important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans." 
 
Donna Stephens, the wife of transgender plaintiff Aimee Stephens who died last month, hailed her late partner's struggle for justice after being sacked by a Detroit funeral parlor when she came out. 
 
"For the last seven years of Aimes's life, she rose as a leader who fought against discrimination against transgender people, starting when she was fired for coming out as a woman, despite her recent promotion at the time.&nbsp; 
 
"I am grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity," she said in a statement after the court pronounced its ruling.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal protections against workplace discrimination apply equally to sexual orientation, contrary to the position taken by the administration of President Donald Trump.

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal protections against workplace discrimination apply equally to sexual orientation, contrary to the position taken by the administration of President Donald Trump. The landmark decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination against employees because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status. "Today we must decide whether someone can be fired simply for being homosexual or transgender," the court said. "The answer is clear." Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights (LGBT) activists, as well as Democratic politicians and several major businesses had been demanding that the court spell out that the community was protected by the law. "This is a huge victory for LGBTQ equality," said James Esseks, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "The court has caught up to the majority of our country, which already knows that discriminating against LGBTQ people is both unfair and against the law," he said in a statement. Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic governor of New York state, concurred on Twitter."This #SCOTUS decision is a major victory for #LGBTQ rights," he said "No one should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity," he added. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal, a landmark victory for the LGBTQ community. But rights activists feared that the appointment by Trump of two new conservative judges to the top court could hinder further wins for their cause. Yet it was one of them, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority decision, joining with the court's four progressive judges and Chief Justice John Roberts. "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote. The ruling was a blow for the Trump administration, which had effectively thrown in its lot with employers. "Sex refers to whether you were born woman or man, not your sexual orientation or gender identity," argued Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the government's position before the court. He said it is the job of Congress to update the law, not the justice system. That position was echoed by Brett Kavanaugh, the other conservative judge appointed by Trump. Despite his opposition, Kavanaugh wrote in his own separate dissent that the decision still represented an "important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans." Donna Stephens, the wife of transgender plaintiff Aimee Stephens who died last month, hailed her late partner's struggle for justice after being sacked by a Detroit funeral parlor when she came out. "For the last seven years of Aimes's life, she rose as a leader who fought against discrimination against transgender people, starting when she was fired for coming out as a woman, despite her recent promotion at the time. "I am grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity," she said in a statement after the court pronounced its ruling.

US top court rules civil rights law protects LGBT workers

'A day without us': Women stage protest by absence against femicide

Same-sex marriage and abortion laws in Northern Ireland <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/northern-irish-lawmakers-sit-to-oppose-abortion-reform-257142">were liberalised on Monday</a> in a landmark shift for the province aimed at bringing it into line with mainland Britain but which has stoked resentment.

The relaxation of the UK-ruled territory's restrictive laws on the issues occurred at midnight 2300 GMT, after a deadline elapsed for local lawmakers to stop the changes imposed by MPs in Westminster.&nbsp;

British lawmakers in July approved decriminalising abortion and creating lawful access to abortion services, as well as rolling out new regulations to allow same-sex marriage and civil partnerships.

They gave Northern&nbsp;Ireland's assembly -- suspended since January 2017, until October 21 to institute alterations to the reforms, which will see the province broadly match the rest of Britain.

Abortion and same-sex marriage are legal in England, Wales and Scotland.

The assembly was briefly restored on Monday, but without support from opposition parties, they were unable to constitute an executive and pass any changes.

"At midnight&nbsp;history will be made," Grainne Teggart,&nbsp;Amnesty&nbsp;International's Northern Ireland campaign manager, said on Monday hours before the deadline.

"This is a hugely significant moment and&nbsp;the beginning of a new era for Northern Ireland, one in which we're free from oppressive laws that have policed our bodies and healthcare."

Northern Ireland Secretary of State Julian Smith told parliament the law forbidding abortions would be repealed at midnight and there will be a moratorium on criminal prosecutions.

"A new legal framework for lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland will be put in place by 31st March 2020," he said.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, regulations for same-sex partnership will be outlined by January 13.

"This means at the latest, the first civil same-sex marriages will take place on the week of Valentine's Day 2020," Smith added.

'Stunt' politics

The Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who returned to the chamber of devolved government at Stormont were predominantly from the anti-abortion Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Without participation from the main opposition party Sinn Fein, they could not form an executive under the region's power-sharing laws.

"It is a very sad day," DUP leader Arlene Foster told reporters after leaving the chamber.

"I know some people will seek to celebrate today and I would say to those people: 'Think of those of us who are sad today and who believe that this is an affront to human dignity and to human life.'"

Pressure has been growing in traditionally conservative Northern Ireland for its abortion law to be relaxed, in particular following the landslide 2018 referendum to repeal the abortion ban in the Republic of Ireland.

Sinn Fein vice-president Michelle O'Neill called the DUP-led reconvening of the assembly a "stunt".

She said it "achieved nothing other than to bring the political institutions into further disrepute and further undermine public confidence".

"It is not lost on the public that the first time the DUP recalled the assembly was yet another attempt to deny a section of our community rights," she added, welcoming the reforms.

Celebratory scenes

Outside Stormont protestors gathered Monday, some backing the MLAs in their bid to avert the change, others condemning it.

Around 150 anti-abortion protesters spent the morning and afternoon singing and praying with placards reading "Not in my name".

"It was the Westminster government who forced in legislation," said Bernadette Smyth, director of pro-life Precious Life Northern Ireland.

"This is undemocratic and it's wrong. So it's important that we're here today to be a voice for the vulnerable, unborn children in our society."

A boisterous crowd of some 150 pro-choice campaigners were also present, unfurling banners and chanting "What do we want? The right to chose. When do we want it? Now."

Danielle Roberts, an activist with Alliance for Choice, said "human rights have always been the responsibility of Westminster." &nbsp;&nbsp;

"There have been repeated calls for Westminster to act and finally they've actually done their duty," she told AFP.

Among the crowd, some were also keen to voice their support for the new same-sex marriage provisions.

Chef Jane Peaker, 24, attended holding the hand of her partner Meg. The pair got engaged over the summer.

"I think that we're happy that it's happened, but maybe not so happy that it hasn't come from our government," she said.&nbsp;

"But I think it's a victory nonetheless."

Peaker said the pair would like to marry on February 14, Valentine's Day and likely the earliest possible date.

Same-sex marriage and abortion laws in Northern Ireland were liberalised on Monday in a landmark shift for the province aimed at bringing it into line with mainland Britain but which has stoked resentment.

Same-sex marriage and abortion laws in Northern Ireland were liberalised on Monday in a landmark shift for the province aimed at bringing it into line with mainland Britain but which has stoked resentment. The relaxation of the UK-ruled territory's restrictive laws on the issues occurred at midnight 2300 GMT, after a deadline elapsed for local lawmakers to stop the changes imposed by MPs in Westminster. British lawmakers in July approved decriminalising abortion and creating lawful access to abortion services, as well as rolling out new regulations to allow same-sex marriage and civil partnerships. They gave Northern Ireland's assembly -- suspended since January 2017, until October 21 to institute alterations to the reforms, which will see the province broadly match the rest of Britain. Abortion and same-sex marriage are legal in England, Wales and Scotland. The assembly was briefly restored on Monday, but without support from opposition parties, they were unable to constitute an executive and pass any changes. "At midnight history will be made," Grainne Teggart, Amnesty International's Northern Ireland campaign manager, said on Monday hours before the deadline. "This is a hugely significant moment and the beginning of a new era for Northern Ireland, one in which we're free from oppressive laws that have policed our bodies and healthcare." Northern Ireland Secretary of State Julian Smith told parliament the law forbidding abortions would be repealed at midnight and there will be a moratorium on criminal prosecutions. "A new legal framework for lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland will be put in place by 31st March 2020," he said. Meanwhile, regulations for same-sex partnership will be outlined by January 13. "This means at the latest, the first civil same-sex marriages will take place on the week of Valentine's Day 2020," Smith added. 'Stunt' politics The Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who returned to the chamber of devolved government at Stormont were predominantly from the anti-abortion Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Without participation from the main opposition party Sinn Fein, they could not form an executive under the region's power-sharing laws. "It is a very sad day," DUP leader Arlene Foster told reporters after leaving the chamber. "I know some people will seek to celebrate today and I would say to those people: 'Think of those of us who are sad today and who believe that this is an affront to human dignity and to human life.'" Pressure has been growing in traditionally conservative Northern Ireland for its abortion law to be relaxed, in particular following the landslide 2018 referendum to repeal the abortion ban in the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Fein vice-president Michelle O'Neill called the DUP-led reconvening of the assembly a "stunt". She said it "achieved nothing other than to bring the political institutions into further disrepute and further undermine public confidence". "It is not lost on the public that the first time the DUP recalled the assembly was yet another attempt to deny a section of our community rights," she added, welcoming the reforms. Celebratory scenes Outside Stormont protestors gathered Monday, some backing the MLAs in their bid to avert the change, others condemning it. Around 150 anti-abortion protesters spent the morning and afternoon singing and praying with placards reading "Not in my name". "It was the Westminster government who forced in legislation," said Bernadette Smyth, director of pro-life Precious Life Northern Ireland. "This is undemocratic and it's wrong. So it's important that we're here today to be a voice for the vulnerable, unborn children in our society." A boisterous crowd of some 150 pro-choice campaigners were also present, unfurling banners and chanting "What do we want? The right to chose. When do we want it? Now." Danielle Roberts, an activist with Alliance for Choice, said "human rights have always been the responsibility of Westminster." "There have been repeated calls for Westminster to act and finally they've actually done their duty," she told AFP. Among the crowd, some were also keen to voice their support for the new same-sex marriage provisions. Chef Jane Peaker, 24, attended holding the hand of her partner Meg. The pair got engaged over the summer. "I think that we're happy that it's happened, but maybe not so happy that it hasn't come from our government," she said. "But I think it's a victory nonetheless." Peaker said the pair would like to marry on February 14, Valentine's Day and likely the earliest possible date.

Gay marriage, abortion laws liberalised in Northern Ireland

The streets of Coimbatore were filled with colours on Sunday as the city hosted its first official Pride march.

The march which was organised by Sahodari Foundation was aimed at educating the people about the issues related to the LGBTQ community.

The volunteers, dressed up in casual attire were heard sloganeering and playing musical instruments during the pride march.

The Pride march commenced from the CCMC North Zone office and will conclude at the VOC Park East Gate in the evening.

In Siliguri last month, members of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community celebrated the year anniversary of the Supreme Court's verdict on Section 377, which lifted a colonial-era ban on gay sex.

More than a hundred members of the community of the Black Rose Society in North Bengal took out a procession in which the members were seen dressed in bright coloured clothes and dancing on the roads.

The streets of Coimbatore were filled with colours on Sunday as the city hosted its first official Pride march. The march which was organised by Sahodari Foundation was aimed at educating the people about the issues related to the LGBTQ community.

The streets of Coimbatore were filled with colours on Sunday as the city hosted its first official Pride march. The march which was organised by Sahodari Foundation was aimed at educating the people about the issues related to the LGBTQ community. The volunteers, dressed up in casual attire were heard sloganeering and playing musical instruments during the pride march. The Pride march commenced from the CCMC North Zone office and will conclude at the VOC Park East Gate in the evening. In Siliguri last month, members of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community celebrated the year anniversary of the Supreme Court's verdict on Section 377, which lifted a colonial-era ban on gay sex. More than a hundred members of the community of the Black Rose Society in North Bengal took out a procession in which the members were seen dressed in bright coloured clothes and dancing on the roads.

Coimbatore hosts LGBT pride parade

Transgender people in Pakistan`s Sindh province will be able to serve as regular duty police officers, the police chief said, adding it was time to offer more opportunities to a group relegated to menial jobs in government.

After years of sometimes brutal persecution, transgender Pakistanis gained recognition in 2009 when the Supreme Court granted them special status with rights equal to other citizens.

While discrimination still persists, the move to allow transgender police recruits would be a significant step for the community, activists say.

"We will make them part of Sindh police," Syed Kaleem Imam, Inspector General of the Sindh police told Reuters in Karachi, the capital of Sindh province.

"They are good God-gifted people. Citizens like us. We should stand by them," said Imam, who as a junior officer became aware of the discrimination against the community.

As in neighbouring India and Bangladesh, transgender Pakistanis have faced widespread discrimination for decades. Many live in secluded communities, earning a living as dancers or forced into sex work or begging.

A 2017 census counted 10,418 transgender people in the country of 207 million, but rights group Charity Trans Action Pakistan estimates there are at least 500,000.

`TRANS-FRIENDLY`

In a major step forward in 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that transgender people could receive national identity cards as a "third sex" and in 2017, the government issued its first passport with a transgender category.

While some transgender people have achieved celebrity as news anchors or fashion models, entry into the police force would be a major development for the community.

"Police behaviour and their complaint mechanism is not trans-friendly. I will try to make police trans-friendly and educate colleagues when I join the police," said Shahzadi Rai, a 29-year-old transgender activist who hopes to join the force.

"When we go to lodge any report at the police station, their behaviour and questions hurt us. They don`t ask questions about the case, but about our gender," Rai said.

Zehrish Khan, a programme manager at Gender Interactive Alliance, a transgender rights group, said the community had always sought inclusion and was now seeing the fruits of the 2009 Supreme Court ruling.

"If we are inducted into the police, we`ll show we can work harder compared to men and women," Khan told Reuters.&nbsp;

It could be months before the first transgender police officers are hired, Imam said, but they will have the same opportunities as other recruits and perform regular duties in the field.

"We will give them space, facilitate them so that they can come into the mainstream," the police chief said.

Transgender people in Pakistan`s Sindh province will be able to serve as regular duty police officers, the police chief said, adding it was time to offer more opportunities to a group relegated to menial jobs in government.

Transgender people in Pakistan`s Sindh province will be able to serve as regular duty police officers, the police chief said, adding it was time to offer more opportunities to a group relegated to menial jobs in government. After years of sometimes brutal persecution, transgender Pakistanis gained recognition in 2009 when the Supreme Court granted them special status with rights equal to other citizens. While discrimination still persists, the move to allow transgender police recruits would be a significant step for the community, activists say. "We will make them part of Sindh police," Syed Kaleem Imam, Inspector General of the Sindh police told Reuters in Karachi, the capital of Sindh province. "They are good God-gifted people. Citizens like us. We should stand by them," said Imam, who as a junior officer became aware of the discrimination against the community. As in neighbouring India and Bangladesh, transgender Pakistanis have faced widespread discrimination for decades. Many live in secluded communities, earning a living as dancers or forced into sex work or begging. A 2017 census counted 10,418 transgender people in the country of 207 million, but rights group Charity Trans Action Pakistan estimates there are at least 500,000. `TRANS-FRIENDLY` In a major step forward in 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that transgender people could receive national identity cards as a "third sex" and in 2017, the government issued its first passport with a transgender category. While some transgender people have achieved celebrity as news anchors or fashion models, entry into the police force would be a major development for the community. "Police behaviour and their complaint mechanism is not trans-friendly. I will try to make police trans-friendly and educate colleagues when I join the police," said Shahzadi Rai, a 29-year-old transgender activist who hopes to join the force. "When we go to lodge any report at the police station, their behaviour and questions hurt us. They don`t ask questions about the case, but about our gender," Rai said. Zehrish Khan, a programme manager at Gender Interactive Alliance, a transgender rights group, said the community had always sought inclusion and was now seeing the fruits of the 2009 Supreme Court ruling. "If we are inducted into the police, we`ll show we can work harder compared to men and women," Khan told Reuters. It could be months before the first transgender police officers are hired, Imam said, but they will have the same opportunities as other recruits and perform regular duties in the field. "We will give them space, facilitate them so that they can come into the mainstream," the police chief said.

Police to allow transgender recruits in Pakistan province

Weeks ahead of Saudi Arabia is to lift the ban from women driving, seven women's rights activists were arrested on Saturday by the authorities.

The reason for the arrest is not cleared yet but media reports quoted activists saying that it was an attempt to silence the voices of women. However, the state's new channel has reported that arrests were made for allegedly working with foreign powers.

According to media reports, pro-government media outlets&nbsp;have also posted their photos and accused them of being "traitors".

Seven people who have been arrested include two-man -- Loujain al-Hathloul and Eman ak-Nafjan -- also all of them have raised their voices against the woman driving ban in past.

Another two woman activists, Nagjan and&nbsp;Hathloul have also been detained. Hathloul has been detained twice in the past. In 2014 she was detained after she attempted to drive across the border from the United Arab Emirates.

She was again briefly arrested for several days in 2017.

Among the various other reforms under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman under his vision 2030, Saudi Arabia announced to lift the ban from women driving in September 2017. It will come into effect from June 2 and will allow women to drive cars, motorcycles and trucks.

Women drivers involved in road accidents traffic violations will be dealt&nbsp;at special centres established and run by women officials, noted an AFP report.

The vision 2030 is set to reduce the kingdom's dependence on oil and to diversify the economy and to also open up Saudi society.

Following these reforms, first film theatre was also opened in Riyadh, Saudi after a decade-long ban on theatres. Under which&nbsp;Saudi Arabia has reportedly planned to set up around 350 cinemas with over 2,500 screens by 2030 in hope to attract $1 billion through annual ticket sales.

Women are also allowed to join military services except the combat roles. The reforms have also allowed women to start their own business without taking permission from their husband or their guardian.

The reason for the arrest is not cleared yet but media reports quoted activists saying that it was an attempt to silence the voices of women

Weeks ahead of Saudi Arabia is to lift the ban from women driving, seven women's rights activists were arrested on Saturday by the authorities. The reason for the arrest is not cleared yet but media reports quoted activists saying that it was an attempt to silence the voices of women. However, the state's new channel has reported that arrests were made for allegedly working with foreign powers. According to media reports, pro-government media outlets have also posted their photos and accused them of being "traitors". Seven people who have been arrested include two-man -- Loujain al-Hathloul and Eman ak-Nafjan -- also all of them have raised their voices against the woman driving ban in past. Another two woman activists, Nagjan and Hathloul have also been detained. Hathloul has been detained twice in the past. In 2014 she was detained after she attempted to drive across the border from the United Arab Emirates. She was again briefly arrested for several days in 2017. Among the various other reforms under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman under his vision 2030, Saudi Arabia announced to lift the ban from women driving in September 2017. It will come into effect from June 2 and will allow women to drive cars, motorcycles and trucks. Women drivers involved in road accidents traffic violations will be dealt at special centres established and run by women officials, noted an AFP report. The vision 2030 is set to reduce the kingdom's dependence on oil and to diversify the economy and to also open up Saudi society. Following these reforms, first film theatre was also opened in Riyadh, Saudi after a decade-long ban on theatres. Under which Saudi Arabia has reportedly planned to set up around 350 cinemas with over 2,500 screens by 2030 in hope to attract $1 billion through annual ticket sales. Women are also allowed to join military services except the combat roles. The reforms have also allowed women to start their own business without taking permission from their husband or their guardian.

Saudi Arabia detains seven activists ahead of lifting of driving ban

Cannes film festival experienced something different this year as women were seen protesting regarding their status in the movie industry that needs to be improved to prevent sexual harassment. The protest was part of the ongoing global Times Up movement. 
 
The protest witnessed 82 women lead by Cate Blanchett and Kristen Stewart and was attended by the likes of Salma Hayek, Jane Fonda, Nandita Das, Ava Duvernay, Marion Cottilard and Patty Jenkins among others. The women were all prominent actors, filmmakers who were representing various countries at the festival.&nbsp;

Blanchett spoke about equality and stated how male filmmakers outnumber their female counterparts in award nominations. &nbsp;

Rasika Duggal, who is presently in Cannes for the premiere of her film Manto, lent support to the Time is Up event at the Cannes Film Festival 2018.“There are very few times when you are part of a historical moment and you know it. This was one of those. It was a very emotional experience holding hands and walking in solidarity with 82 women at Cannes. Not much was said but yet many of us were moved to tears. The unspoken regard and understanding and solidarity for the challenges we have all had to face to be here was so so powerful. It was my first time at the Palais de festivals red carpet at the Cannes film festival and I shared that moment with Salma Hayek, Patty Jenkins, Nandita Das and so many other women. I couldn't have asked for a better introduction. Cate Blanchett's powerful speech just made me feel more than ever how important this is. I mean we know there is rampant gender discrimination and we face it every day (in so so many small things) &nbsp;It was her first time at the Palais de festivals red carpet at the Cannes film festival and she shared that moment with Salma Hayek, Patty Jenkins, Nandita Das and so many other women.

<img alt="Untitled design (9)_0.jpg" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="430" src="http://images.wionews.com/iniline-images/Untitled%20design%20(9)_0.jpg" width="770" />

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb">
Finally got Twitter on my phone. Let me start from the beginning in <a href="https://twitter.com/Festival_Cannes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Festival_Cannes</a> was part of the 82 women who marched up the red carpet to ask for more representation of women. V moving experience. Holding hands in solidarity So glad to be a part of it <a href="https://t.co/4VBZWY5rwa">https://t.co/4VBZWY5rwa</a>
— Nandita Das (@nanditadas) <a href="https://twitter.com/nanditadas/status/995975557828501504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">14 May 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

After the iconic protest that took place on Saturday, France's Minister of Culture, Francoise Nyssen, said on Sunday, that few women work in movie-related fields in her country and they make less money than men. She also said many women become victims of discrimination, harassment, and violence.

Cannes experienced a historical movement wherein 82 well-known women, celebrities and filmmakers protests across different countries regarding their equal rights and gender equality

Cannes film festival experienced something different this year as women were seen protesting regarding their status in the movie industry that needs to be improved to prevent sexual harassment. The protest was part of the ongoing global Times Up movement. The protest witnessed 82 women lead by Cate Blanchett and Kristen Stewart and was attended by the likes of Salma Hayek, Jane Fonda, Nandita Das, Ava Duvernay, Marion Cottilard and Patty Jenkins among others. The women were all prominent actors, filmmakers who were representing various countries at the festival. Blanchett spoke about equality and stated how male filmmakers outnumber their female counterparts in award nominations. Rasika Duggal, who is presently in Cannes for the premiere of her film Manto, lent support to the Time is Up event at the Cannes Film Festival 2018.“There are very few times when you are part of a historical moment and you know it. This was one of those. It was a very emotional experience holding hands and walking in solidarity with 82 women at Cannes. Not much was said but yet many of us were moved to tears. The unspoken regard and understanding and solidarity for the challenges we have all had to face to be here was so so powerful. It was my first time at the Palais de festivals red carpet at the Cannes film festival and I shared that moment with Salma Hayek, Patty Jenkins, Nandita Das and so many other women. I couldn't have asked for a better introduction. Cate Blanchett's powerful speech just made me feel more than ever how important this is. I mean we know there is rampant gender discrimination and we face it every day (in so so many small things) It was her first time at the Palais de festivals red carpet at the Cannes film festival and she shared that moment with Salma Hayek, Patty Jenkins, Nandita Das and so many other women. Finally got Twitter on my phone. Let me start from the beginning in @Festival_Cannes was part of the 82 women who marched up the red carpet to ask for more representation of women. V moving experience. Holding hands in solidarity So glad to be a part of it https://t.co/4VBZWY5rwa — Nandita Das (@nanditadas) 14 May 2018 × After the iconic protest that took place on Saturday, France's Minister of Culture, Francoise Nyssen, said on Sunday, that few women work in movie-related fields in her country and they make less money than men. She also said many women become victims of discrimination, harassment, and violence.

Cannes 2018: 82 women converge at the red carpet demanding equal rights

The Supreme Court to hear the writ petition filed by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy, who alleged Air India, refused her a job due to her gender, on March 5.

On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender.

Sanavi Ponnusami has alleged that Air India rejected her, telling her that they don&#39;t have a category for trans-women.

She had said that her living condition is not great and can&#39;t afford advocates to fight a case, as the Supreme Court listens to cases like hers.

She approached the Apex Court against the alleged discrimination in 2017.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender

The Supreme Court to hear the writ petition filed by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy, who alleged Air India, refused her a job due to her gender, on March 5. On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender. Sanavi Ponnusami has alleged that Air India rejected her, telling her that they don't have a category for trans-women. She had said that her living condition is not great and can't afford advocates to fight a case, as the Supreme Court listens to cases like hers. She approached the Apex Court against the alleged discrimination in 2017.

Supreme Court to hear writ petition by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy

equal-rights

Equal Rights, News on Equal Rights, stories on Equal Rights, articles on Equal Rights, Equal Rights stories at Wion, Equal Rights news, Equal Rights latest news