Spain has deployed military personnel to Ceuta, its North African enclave, after an unprecedented surge of migrants crossed from Morocco, triggering one of Europe's biggest border crises in recent years.

According to reports, tens of thousands of migrants attempted to enter Ceuta by land and sea, while dozens reportedly lost their lives during the dangerous journey. Reception centers have become overwhelmed as authorities struggle to accommodate the growing number of arrivals.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has vowed to deploy all necessary resources while coordinating with Moroccan authorities to restore order. Meanwhile, Italy has called for Spain's suspension from the Schengen free-travel zone, arguing that Madrid's migration policies threaten European security—a claim Spain has rejected.

Political Tensions Grow Over Europe's Migration Policies | Wion 

Austria has officially transformed Adolf Hitler's birthplace into a police station in a landmark effort to prevent the historic building from becoming a pilgrimage site for neo-Nazis. After years of political debate, legal battles, and public controversy, the government completed the €23 million project in Braunau am Inn, replacing the building's dark legacy with a symbol of democracy, law, and public security.

The former birthplace of Hitler has now become a district police headquarters, while the memorial stone reading "Never Again Fascism" remains outside the building. Authorities say the move is intended to strip the property of its symbolic value for extremist groups. However, Holocaust survivor organizations remain divided, arguing that the building should instead have served as a permanent educational memorial.

Austria converts Hitler's birthplace into police station | Nazi legacy erased? | Wion 

All eyes are on France as National Rally leader Marine Le Pen awaits a crucial verdict that could have far-reaching consequences for her political future. The decision is being closely watched by supporters, opponents, and political observers across Europe. In this edition of Race To Power, we explore the case, its significance for French politics, and what the ruling could mean for the future of the country's right-wing movement.

France's national rally leader Marine Le Pen awaits a defining verdict

Did you know that there's an organisation that promotes the idea that some races are genetically 'low IQ'? Welcome to 'scientific racism', the underground movement that seeks to cloak&nbsp;racial stereotypes under explanations based on widely discredited theories.

A joint probe by the British paper The Guardian and the advocacy group Hope Not Hate has found that the organisation,&nbsp;Human Diversity Foundation, has got funding from the multimillionaire US tech entrepreneur Andrew Conru. 
 
Conru reportedly pulled the support after he was outed as a donor.&nbsp;

The moderately named Human Diversity Foundation, or HDF, links race theories to genetics, including claims of superior intelligence for some ethnic groups.

Their methods, according to the investigation, include podcasts, videos, newsletters and 'research papers' spreading what Hope Not Hate called 'dangerous ideology.'

Watch: AI-created German song sparks racism debate

<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/ai-created-german-song-sparks-racism-debate-751392/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Conru, who gave more than $1 million to the group, reportedly pulled the support after seeing its activities strayed from non-partisan academic research.

HDF seeks to repackage racial stereotypes, trying to explain that genetic factors are behind inequalities among racial groups, and seeking to undermine government policies aimed at addressing racial discrimination.

The investigation showed that HDF is linked to right-wing extremist groups in Europe, and even to Alternative für Deutschland or AfD, the mainstream far-right party in Germany.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pissed-trump-used-n-word-over-damage-to-car-nephew-claims-in-memoir-743781">Also read: Trump used ‘n-word’ over damage to car, nephew claims in memoir</a>

One of their clarion calls is for the so-called 'remigration' of ethnic minorities.

It was advocated by German extreme right activist Erik Ahrens, who even even called for creating a secret club to restore 'white society' on the lines of what Adolf Hitler did in Germany during the Nazi regime. 
 
Interestingly, immigration is a trope used by current US presidential candidate Donald Trump in his campaign rallies.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-have-no-choice-donald-trump-promises-largest-deportation-in-american-history-732318">'We have no choice': Donald Trump promises largest deportation in American history</a>

The organiser of HDF in UK is a former religious studies teacher, according to The Guardian.

Undercover videos of him from a far-right conference were recorded by Hope Not Hate, which first investigated the group, and shared with The Guardian.

<h2>What is 'scientific racism'?</h2>

'Scientific racism' is a broad term given by mainstream academics to describe the movement to revive 'race science', which seeks to repurpose arguments such as some races have higher average IQ, while others have a tendency to commit crime.

Scientific racism advocates try to explain out racial inequality by attributing it to genetics, and not discrimination over the years.

(With inputs from agencies)

Did you know that there's an organisation that promotes the idea that some races are genetically 'low IQ'? Welcome to 'scientific racism', the underground movement that seeks to cloak racial stereotypes under explanations based on widely discredited theories.

Did you know that there's an organisation that promotes the idea that some races are genetically 'low IQ'? Welcome to 'scientific racism', the underground movement that seeks to cloak racial stereotypes under explanations based on widely discredited theories. A joint probe by the British paper The Guardian and the advocacy group Hope Not Hate has found that the organisation, Human Diversity Foundation, has got funding from the multimillionaire US tech entrepreneur Andrew Conru. Conru reportedly pulled the support after he was outed as a donor. The moderately named Human Diversity Foundation, or HDF, links race theories to genetics, including claims of superior intelligence for some ethnic groups. Their methods, according to the investigation, include podcasts, videos, newsletters and 'research papers' spreading what Hope Not Hate called 'dangerous ideology.' Watch: AI-created German song sparks racism debate × Conru, who gave more than $1 million to the group, reportedly pulled the support after seeing its activities strayed from non-partisan academic research. HDF seeks to repackage racial stereotypes, trying to explain that genetic factors are behind inequalities among racial groups, and seeking to undermine government policies aimed at addressing racial discrimination. The investigation showed that HDF is linked to right-wing extremist groups in Europe, and even to Alternative für Deutschland or AfD, the mainstream far-right party in Germany. Also read: Trump used ‘n-word’ over damage to car, nephew claims in memoir One of their clarion calls is for the so-called 'remigration' of ethnic minorities. It was advocated by German extreme right activist Erik Ahrens, who even even called for creating a secret club to restore 'white society' on the lines of what Adolf Hitler did in Germany during the Nazi regime. Interestingly, immigration is a trope used by current US presidential candidate Donald Trump in his campaign rallies. 'We have no choice': Donald Trump promises largest deportation in American history The organiser of HDF in UK is a former religious studies teacher, according to The Guardian. Undercover videos of him from a far-right conference were recorded by Hope Not Hate, which first investigated the group, and shared with The Guardian. What is 'scientific racism'? 'Scientific racism' is a broad term given by mainstream academics to describe the movement to revive 'race science', which seeks to repurpose arguments such as some races have higher average IQ, while others have a tendency to commit crime. Scientific racism advocates try to explain out racial inequality by attributing it to genetics, and not discrimination over the years. (With inputs from agencies)

'Scientific racism' exposed: How a secretive group promotes racist stereotypes in Europe

Germany's Ursula von der Leyen secured European parliamentary approval on Tuesday (July 16) to become the first female European Commission president after she won over socialists and liberals with her vision of a greener, fairer and rule-based Europe.

Von der Leyen secures powerful EU executive top job

Spain is facing its deepest constitutional crisis since the restoration of democracy in 1977, and it&rsquo;s only getting deeper. On October 18, the Spanish government invoked Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution, beginning the process of stripping the Catalan government of its autonomy and imposing the direct federal rule. Just hours after the announcement was made by the Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, 450,000 people took to the streets in protest.

Citing the Catalan government&rsquo;s &ldquo;conscious and systematic rebellion and disobedience&rdquo;, this is a heavy-handed response to Catalonia&rsquo;s recent separatist moves. Spain hardened its line when it jailed the leaders of two of the largest separatist organisations. The national attorney general has now threatened to arrest the Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, and others for sedition should a further declaration of independence be issued.

These tough measures aren&rsquo;t just politically risky and pragmatically dubious, but also constitutionally untested. It is the first time that Article 155 has been invoked, allowing the government to intervene in one of Spain&rsquo;s regions if its autonomous government &ldquo;fails to fulfil the obligations imposed upon it by the constitution or other laws or acts in a way seriously prejudicing the general interests of Spain&rdquo;.

The Constitution of 1978 provides for a flexible and open framework that recognises both &ldquo;the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation&rdquo; and &ldquo;the right to autonomy of nationalities and regions&rdquo;. And while the Catalan government&rsquo;s decision to hold the October 1 referendum undoubtedly violated both the Spanish Constitution and the Catalan Statute of Autonomy, the refusal of the central government to pursue dialogue with the Catalan government, and its attempts to oust democratically elected leaders and suspend regional autonomy will only deepen the antagonism between Catalonia and Madrid.

The question, then, is what an appropriate and reasonable response to this secession claim would look like. And inconveniently, this is something of a grey area.

Taking independence seriously

While international law affirms that peoples have a general right to self-determination, it provides little guidance on how that right should be exercised. It&rsquo;s particularly vague when it comes to secession, which leaves claims like the Catalans&rsquo; in something of a legal vacuum. In its Kosovo opinion of 2010, the International Court of Justice found that a unilateral declaration of independence does &ldquo;not violate general international law&rdquo;, but the specific international or domestic legal ramifications of a secessionist claim were left unclear.

The upshot is that different national governments can treat these claims almost as they see fit. The resulting ambiguity is a tricky problem, and it&rsquo;s played out vividly in two analogous independence movements: Quebec&rsquo;s and Scotland&rsquo;s.

In 1995, the Quebecois independence movement lost a referendum on independence by a mere 1.16 per cent. The result kicked off years of political talks and legal wrangling, and in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed in on whether secession claims were legitimate in principle.

It concluded that outside of a colonial context and in the absence of severe repression or exclusion from the state, there is no positive entitlement to claim statehood. But it also found that the Canadian state, at least on the basis of its own constitutional law, could not &ldquo;remain indifferent to the clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada&rdquo;. Crucially, the court noted that under the Canadian constitution, the government has a duty to negotiate. Were it to refuse, that could undermine its claim to legitimacy, which could have international ramifications.

Following this logic were Quebec to vote for independence in some future referendum, that would impose a duty on the federal government and the province alike to enter into negotiations in good faith &ndash; though there would be no specific obligation to conclude the negotiations amicably.

Then there&rsquo;s Scotland. The UK Government took a similar approach to Canada, passing the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012, which granted Scottish nationalists legal authority to stage an independence referendum. They duly did so in 2014. And while that vote ultimately endorsed the status quo, had a majority been in favour of independence, it was largely accepted that the result would have been binding.

Refuse and reject

The Spanish government has chosen to pursue a different course. While the vast majority of Catalans wanted to vote in a referendum, the central authorities have been steadfast in their refusal to allow a vote, or recognise the result, and are now refusing to engage in dialogue with the Catalan authorities.

This intransigence dates back to at least 2010 when the independence campaign emerged in response to a growing dissatisfaction with current constitutional arrangements, a centralisation of the distribution of competences, and the impact of the financial crisis. With the Spanish government not responding to requests for dialogue, the Catalan authorities have for years continually invoked a &ldquo;right to decide&rdquo;, derived from a broad reading of self-determination as the right to &ldquo;democratic management of public affairs&rdquo;.

Legally speaking, it&rsquo;s a stretch to argue that the principle of self-determination guarantees the right to hold a vote on secession. Nevertheless, the principle of free political participation and representation is clearly established under international law, and it could certainly provide the basis of a demand for dialogue and negotiation where there is broad public support for independence.

Given that there is also scope for seeking dialogue under the Spanish Constitution, this latest sabre-rattling by the Spanish government is unwarranted, as are its actions in recent weeks &ndash; threats to arrest Catalan mayors, interference with civic budgets, raids on newspaper office, and mass police deployment including excessive force used by the Spanish police in attempting to prevent the Referendum taking place. These all reinforce the secessionists&rsquo; narrative of repression by an anti-Catalan Spanish regime.

For the good of Spain as a whole, a collaborative and productive dialogue needs to begin. The Spanish government&rsquo;s actions have not yet crossed the threshold of repression that would grant the Catalans a so-called &ldquo;remedial right&rdquo; of independence under international law, but its intransigent, hardline approach is inflaming tensions to no end &ndash; and enhancing the credibility of the Catalan claim.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/spains-hard-line-on-catalonia-is-no-way-to-handle-a-serious-secession-crisis-86243" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

Photo Credit: EPA

The Spanish government is dealing with the Catalonian secession movement in entirely the wrong way, its intransigent, hardline approach is inflaming tensions to no end

Spain is facing its deepest constitutional crisis since the restoration of democracy in 1977, and it’s only getting deeper. On October 18, the Spanish government invoked Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution, beginning the process of stripping the Catalan government of its autonomy and imposing the direct federal rule. Just hours after the announcement was made by the Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, 450,000 people took to the streets in protest. Citing the Catalan government’s “conscious and systematic rebellion and disobedience”, this is a heavy-handed response to Catalonia’s recent separatist moves. Spain hardened its line when it jailed the leaders of two of the largest separatist organisations. The national attorney general has now threatened to arrest the Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, and others for sedition should a further declaration of independence be issued. These tough measures aren’t just politically risky and pragmatically dubious, but also constitutionally untested. It is the first time that Article 155 has been invoked, allowing the government to intervene in one of Spain’s regions if its autonomous government “fails to fulfil the obligations imposed upon it by the constitution or other laws or acts in a way seriously prejudicing the general interests of Spain”. The Constitution of 1978 provides for a flexible and open framework that recognises both “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation” and “the right to autonomy of nationalities and regions”. And while the Catalan government’s decision to hold the October 1 referendum undoubtedly violated both the Spanish Constitution and the Catalan Statute of Autonomy, the refusal of the central government to pursue dialogue with the Catalan government, and its attempts to oust democratically elected leaders and suspend regional autonomy will only deepen the antagonism between Catalonia and Madrid. The question, then, is what an appropriate and reasonable response to this secession claim would look like. And inconveniently, this is something of a grey area. Taking independence seriously While international law affirms that peoples have a general right to self-determination, it provides little guidance on how that right should be exercised. It’s particularly vague when it comes to secession, which leaves claims like the Catalans’ in something of a legal vacuum. In its Kosovo opinion of 2010, the International Court of Justice found that a unilateral declaration of independence does “not violate general international law”, but the specific international or domestic legal ramifications of a secessionist claim were left unclear. The upshot is that different national governments can treat these claims almost as they see fit. The resulting ambiguity is a tricky problem, and it’s played out vividly in two analogous independence movements: Quebec’s and Scotland’s. In 1995, the Quebecois independence movement lost a referendum on independence by a mere 1.16 per cent. The result kicked off years of political talks and legal wrangling, and in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed in on whether secession claims were legitimate in principle. It concluded that outside of a colonial context and in the absence of severe repression or exclusion from the state, there is no positive entitlement to claim statehood. But it also found that the Canadian state, at least on the basis of its own constitutional law, could not “remain indifferent to the clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada”. Crucially, the court noted that under the Canadian constitution, the government has a duty to negotiate. Were it to refuse, that could undermine its claim to legitimacy, which could have international ramifications. Following this logic were Quebec to vote for independence in some future referendum, that would impose a duty on the federal government and the province alike to enter into negotiations in good faith – though there would be no specific obligation to conclude the negotiations amicably. Then there’s Scotland. The UK Government took a similar approach to Canada, passing the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012, which granted Scottish nationalists legal authority to stage an independence referendum. They duly did so in 2014. And while that vote ultimately endorsed the status quo, had a majority been in favour of independence, it was largely accepted that the result would have been binding. Refuse and reject The Spanish government has chosen to pursue a different course. While the vast majority of Catalans wanted to vote in a referendum, the central authorities have been steadfast in their refusal to allow a vote, or recognise the result, and are now refusing to engage in dialogue with the Catalan authorities. This intransigence dates back to at least 2010 when the independence campaign emerged in response to a growing dissatisfaction with current constitutional arrangements, a centralisation of the distribution of competences, and the impact of the financial crisis. With the Spanish government not responding to requests for dialogue, the Catalan authorities have for years continually invoked a “right to decide”, derived from a broad reading of self-determination as the right to “democratic management of public affairs”. Legally speaking, it’s a stretch to argue that the principle of self-determination guarantees the right to hold a vote on secession. Nevertheless, the principle of free political participation and representation is clearly established under international law, and it could certainly provide the basis of a demand for dialogue and negotiation where there is broad public support for independence. Given that there is also scope for seeking dialogue under the Spanish Constitution, this latest sabre-rattling by the Spanish government is unwarranted, as are its actions in recent weeks – threats to arrest Catalan mayors, interference with civic budgets, raids on newspaper office, and mass police deployment including excessive force used by the Spanish police in attempting to prevent the Referendum taking place. These all reinforce the secessionists’ narrative of repression by an anti-Catalan Spanish regime. For the good of Spain as a whole, a collaborative and productive dialogue needs to begin. The Spanish government’s actions have not yet crossed the threshold of repression that would grant the Catalans a so-called “remedial right” of independence under international law, but its intransigent, hardline approach is inflaming tensions to no end – and enhancing the credibility of the Catalan claim. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. Photo Credit: EPA

Catalonia: Spain's hard line is no way to handle a secession crisis