The Constitutional Court has agreed to hear former President Jacob Zuma's rescission application which means Zuma will no longer be going to prison on Sunday.

South Africa's top court to hear Jacob Zuma's plea again

A Brazilian congressman, who has denounced alleged wrongdoing in a 1.6 billion reais ($323 million) COVID-19 vaccine contract signed by Brazil's government arrived at a Senate commission inquiry on Friday wearing a bullet-proof vest for safety. 
 
Congressman Luis Miranda and his brother Luis Ricardo Miranda, the whistleblower at the Health Ministry, who raised suspicions about the vaccine deal with India's Bharat Biotech, are the key witnesses in a hearing underway on Friday. 
 
The parliamentary inquiry is looking into the government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than half a million people in Brazil, and accusations that it deliberately delayed securing vaccines to fight COVID-19. 
 
Far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, who is under growing pressure to explain the deal with Bharat, said on Friday there were no irregularities in the contract for the Indian drugmaker's Covaxin shot. 
 
"There is nothing wrong with the Covaxin contract, there is no overpricing," he said at a news conference in the interior of São Paulo. 
 
The president, who was elected on an anti-graft platform, added that his enemies were trying to stain his government with unfounded accusations of corruption. 
 
"I am incorruptible," he said. 
 
The allegations regarding the Bharat contract threaten to damage Bolsonaro's pledge of zero tolerance for corruption in his government. 
 
The coordinator of the Senate inquiry has called for protection for the Miranda brothers, and also for the owners of the Brazilian company Precisa Medicamentos, which acts as an intermediary for Bharat. 
 
The contract is being probed by federal prosecutors and lawmakers to see why the government struck a speedy agreement with Bharat after COVID-19 vaccine offers from Pfizer Inc at a lower price were ignored. 
 
Luis Ricardo Miranda and his lawmaker brother met with Bolsonaro in March and said they warned him of the suspicious contract, but that nothing was done to investigate the deal. 
 
Legislator Luis Miranda said that Bolsonaro recognised that the situation was serious and told them that another congressman, Ricardo Barros, was involved in the Bharat deal. 
 
Barros, the government's whip in the legislature's lower house, responded on Twitter that he had no involvement in the Bharat deal and that further investigation would show the president did not cite his name in the meeting. 
 
Bolsonaro's press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about implicating Barros. 
 
Luis Ricardo Miranda, head of imports at the Health Ministry, told senators he refused to approve an import license because an invoice for a first shipment asked for up-front payment and was sent by a company not mentioned in the contract, Singapore-based Madison Biotech. 
 
Miranda has told prosecutors he was pressured by Alex Lial Marinho, an aide to one of Bolsonaro's closest allies, former Health Minister Eduardo Pazuello. Miranda's account was backed up by his congressman brother. 
 
The accusations raise awkward questions for Bolsonaro and Pazuello, who is facing criminal and civil investigations into his handling of the pandemic while minister. 
 
On Thursday, Bolsonaro said Brazil never paid for or received any doses of the Covaxin shot, and pledged to take action if any corruption was discovered in his government. 
 
In a statement issued in India, Bharat Biotech said, "We strongly refute and deny any kind of allegation or implication of any wrongdoing whatsoever with respect to the supply of COVAXIN." It said Madison Biotech was its global sales and marketing unit.

(With inputs from agencies)

A Brazilian congressman, who has denounced alleged wrongdoing in a 1.6 billion reais ($323 million) COVID-19 vaccine contract signed by Brazil's government arrived at a Senate commission inquiry on Friday wearing a bullet-proof vest for safety.

A Brazilian congressman, who has denounced alleged wrongdoing in a 1.6 billion reais ($323 million) COVID-19 vaccine contract signed by Brazil's government arrived at a Senate commission inquiry on Friday wearing a bullet-proof vest for safety. Congressman Luis Miranda and his brother Luis Ricardo Miranda, the whistleblower at the Health Ministry, who raised suspicions about the vaccine deal with India's Bharat Biotech, are the key witnesses in a hearing underway on Friday. The parliamentary inquiry is looking into the government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than half a million people in Brazil, and accusations that it deliberately delayed securing vaccines to fight COVID-19. Far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, who is under growing pressure to explain the deal with Bharat, said on Friday there were no irregularities in the contract for the Indian drugmaker's Covaxin shot. "There is nothing wrong with the Covaxin contract, there is no overpricing," he said at a news conference in the interior of São Paulo. The president, who was elected on an anti-graft platform, added that his enemies were trying to stain his government with unfounded accusations of corruption. "I am incorruptible," he said. The allegations regarding the Bharat contract threaten to damage Bolsonaro's pledge of zero tolerance for corruption in his government. The coordinator of the Senate inquiry has called for protection for the Miranda brothers, and also for the owners of the Brazilian company Precisa Medicamentos, which acts as an intermediary for Bharat. The contract is being probed by federal prosecutors and lawmakers to see why the government struck a speedy agreement with Bharat after COVID-19 vaccine offers from Pfizer Inc at a lower price were ignored. Luis Ricardo Miranda and his lawmaker brother met with Bolsonaro in March and said they warned him of the suspicious contract, but that nothing was done to investigate the deal. Legislator Luis Miranda said that Bolsonaro recognised that the situation was serious and told them that another congressman, Ricardo Barros, was involved in the Bharat deal. Barros, the government's whip in the legislature's lower house, responded on Twitter that he had no involvement in the Bharat deal and that further investigation would show the president did not cite his name in the meeting. Bolsonaro's press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about implicating Barros. Luis Ricardo Miranda, head of imports at the Health Ministry, told senators he refused to approve an import license because an invoice for a first shipment asked for up-front payment and was sent by a company not mentioned in the contract, Singapore-based Madison Biotech. Miranda has told prosecutors he was pressured by Alex Lial Marinho, an aide to one of Bolsonaro's closest allies, former Health Minister Eduardo Pazuello. Miranda's account was backed up by his congressman brother. The accusations raise awkward questions for Bolsonaro and Pazuello, who is facing criminal and civil investigations into his handling of the pandemic while minister. On Thursday, Bolsonaro said Brazil never paid for or received any doses of the Covaxin shot, and pledged to take action if any corruption was discovered in his government. In a statement issued in India, Bharat Biotech said, "We strongly refute and deny any kind of allegation or implication of any wrongdoing whatsoever with respect to the supply of COVAXIN." It said Madison Biotech was its global sales and marketing unit. (With inputs from agencies)

Brazilian lawmaker denouncing vaccine deal wears bullet-proof vest to hearing

Crowds gathered outside a Hong Kong court early on Saturday ahead of a hearing for two executives of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily charged under the city's sweeping national security law, in a case that has drawn international condemnation. 
 
Editor-in-chief Ryan Law, 47, and chief executive Cheung Kim-hung, 59, were among five Apple Daily executives arrested on Thursday when 500 police raided the outlet's newsroom, which authorities described as a 'crime scene'. 
 
Both are charged with collusion with foreign powers, raising alarm over media freedoms in the financial hub as authorities intensify a crackdown under the contentious legislation. 
 
The other three, Chief Operating Officer Chow Tat-kuen, Deputy Chief Editor Chan Puiman and Chief Executive Editor Cheung Chi-wai, were released on bail late on Friday, according to Apple Daily. 
 
"I already left Apple Daily due to personal and safety reasons," said Chan, 37, a former Apple Daily reporter. 
 
"I hope the two being charged can think about themselves first. They also have their families. I worked with them before. We are like friends." 
 
The national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020 on the former British colony has brought an authoritarian tone to most aspects of life in Hong Kong, including education and arts. 
 
It punishes what Beijing broadly refers to as secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces with up to life in prison. 
 
Police said dozens of the newspaper's articles were suspected of violating the national security law - the first time media articles have been cited as potentially falling foul of the legislation. 
 
Crowds gathered at dawn on Saturday outside West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts, some holding yellow umbrellas or wearing Apple Daily T-shirts saying, "No fear, fight on." 
 
"Right now, you can be charged with NSL because of a word or a speech that they didn't like. It's a big regression,” Lo, 29, a reader of the popular, 26-year-old paper, said. 
 
The arrests and scale of the Apple Daily raid have been criticised by Western nations, global rights groups, press associations and the chief UN&nbsp;spokesperson for human rights. 
 
Apple Daily and its listed publisher Next Digital have come under increasing pressure since their owner, pro-democracy activist and staunch Beijing critic Jimmy Lai, was arrested last year under the legislation. 
 
Lai, whose assets have been frozen under the security law, is already in jail for taking part in unauthorised assemblies and awaiting trial in his national security case. 
 
As investigations into Apple Daily and its senior executives ramp up, some employees and observers have expressed deepening concern over the newspaper's future. 
 
Since the law was imposed by Beijing in June last year, more than 100 people have been arrested, with most denied bail. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Crowds gathered outside a Hong Kong court early on Saturday ahead of a hearing for two executives of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily charged under the city's sweeping national security law, in a case that has drawn international condemnation.

Crowds gathered outside a Hong Kong court early on Saturday ahead of a hearing for two executives of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily charged under the city's sweeping national security law, in a case that has drawn international condemnation. Editor-in-chief Ryan Law, 47, and chief executive Cheung Kim-hung, 59, were among five Apple Daily executives arrested on Thursday when 500 police raided the outlet's newsroom, which authorities described as a 'crime scene'. Both are charged with collusion with foreign powers, raising alarm over media freedoms in the financial hub as authorities intensify a crackdown under the contentious legislation. The other three, Chief Operating Officer Chow Tat-kuen, Deputy Chief Editor Chan Puiman and Chief Executive Editor Cheung Chi-wai, were released on bail late on Friday, according to Apple Daily. "I already left Apple Daily due to personal and safety reasons," said Chan, 37, a former Apple Daily reporter. "I hope the two being charged can think about themselves first. They also have their families. I worked with them before. We are like friends." The national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020 on the former British colony has brought an authoritarian tone to most aspects of life in Hong Kong, including education and arts. It punishes what Beijing broadly refers to as secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces with up to life in prison. Police said dozens of the newspaper's articles were suspected of violating the national security law - the first time media articles have been cited as potentially falling foul of the legislation. Crowds gathered at dawn on Saturday outside West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts, some holding yellow umbrellas or wearing Apple Daily T-shirts saying, "No fear, fight on." "Right now, you can be charged with NSL because of a word or a speech that they didn't like. It's a big regression,” Lo, 29, a reader of the popular, 26-year-old paper, said. The arrests and scale of the Apple Daily raid have been criticised by Western nations, global rights groups, press associations and the chief UN spokesperson for human rights. Apple Daily and its listed publisher Next Digital have come under increasing pressure since their owner, pro-democracy activist and staunch Beijing critic Jimmy Lai, was arrested last year under the legislation. Lai, whose assets have been frozen under the security law, is already in jail for taking part in unauthorised assemblies and awaiting trial in his national security case. As investigations into Apple Daily and its senior executives ramp up, some employees and observers have expressed deepening concern over the newspaper's future. Since the law was imposed by Beijing in June last year, more than 100 people have been arrested, with most denied bail. (With inputs from agencies)

Crowds gather for hearing of two Apple Daily executives on national security charge

World Health Organisation (WHO) has released its first-ever report on hearing which suggests that 1 in 4 people of the world's population will suffer from hearing problems by 2050.

WHO: 1 in 4 people to have hearing problems by 2050

While the world is currently fighting the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which has claimed millions of lives, the World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a warning about another possible danger in the near future.

A report by the WHO suggests that by 2050 one in four of the world's population will suffer from hearing problems.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/modernas-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-are-severe-but-worth-it-cdc-study-367057" hreflang="en">Moderna's coronavirus vaccine side effects are severe, but worth it: CDC study</a>

The first-ever global report on hearing claims that causes of many of these problems, such as infections, diseases, birth defects, noise exposure and lifestyle choices can be prevented.&nbsp;

WHO has called for immediate and extra investment in prevention and treatment. As per the proposed package of measures in WHO's report, it would cost $1.33 per person per year.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-may-be-less-effective-in-obesity-study-367008" hreflang="en">Pfizer coronavirus vaccine may be less effective in obesity: Study</a>

"Failure to act will be costly in terms of the health and well-being of those affected, and the financial losses arising from their exclusion from communication, education and employment," the report said.

While right now there are one in five people who suffer from hearing problems, the number can increase to 2.5 billion soon, the report warned.

"The number of people with hearing loss may increase more than 1.5-fold during the next three decades" to 2.5 billion people, which was previously 1.6 billion in 2019.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/large-study-shows-pfizers-coronavirus-vaccine-94-effective-366057" hreflang="en">Large study shows Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine 94% effective</a>

Out of these 2.5 billion, nearly 700 million people would be suffering from serious hearing problems by 2050. The 700 million people may even require major treatment for the hearing condition, which would be a major increase from 430 million people in 2019.

One of the major reason behind this alarming increase is demographic and population trends, the report explained.

This issue has also been increasing due to lack of access to care, especially in the low-income countries — as nearly 80 per cent of people live in these countries — as the majority of them are not getting the required help.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/future-vaccines-depend-on-test-subjects-in-short-supply-monkeys-365739" hreflang="en">Future vaccines depend on test subjects in short supply: Monkeys</a>

The lack of accurate information and an increasing stigma around ear diseases and loss of hearing also contributes to the increasing number of people who are suffering from hearing problems.

"Even among health-care providers, knowledge relevant to prevention, early identification and management of hearing loss and ear diseases is commonly lacking," the report said.

The package of measures proposed by the WHO include public health initiatives such as reduction of noise in public spaces and an increase in vaccinations for diseases that can lead to hearing loss. It also proposed systematic screening to identify the problem.

"An estimated one trillion US dollars is lost each year due to our collective failure to adequately address hearing loss," WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said. "While the financial burden is enormous, what cannot be quantified is the distress caused by the loss of communication, education and social interaction that accompanies unaddressed hearing loss."

While the world is currently fighting the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which has claimed millions of lives, the World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a warning about another possible danger in the near future.

While the world is currently fighting the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which has claimed millions of lives, the World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a warning about another possible danger in the near future. A report by the WHO suggests that by 2050 one in four of the world's population will suffer from hearing problems. Also read | Moderna's coronavirus vaccine side effects are severe, but worth it: CDC study The first-ever global report on hearing claims that causes of many of these problems, such as infections, diseases, birth defects, noise exposure and lifestyle choices can be prevented. WHO has called for immediate and extra investment in prevention and treatment. As per the proposed package of measures in WHO's report, it would cost $1.33 per person per year. Also read | Pfizer coronavirus vaccine may be less effective in obesity: Study "Failure to act will be costly in terms of the health and well-being of those affected, and the financial losses arising from their exclusion from communication, education and employment," the report said. While right now there are one in five people who suffer from hearing problems, the number can increase to 2.5 billion soon, the report warned. "The number of people with hearing loss may increase more than 1.5-fold during the next three decades" to 2.5 billion people, which was previously 1.6 billion in 2019. Also read | Large study shows Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine 94% effective Out of these 2.5 billion, nearly 700 million people would be suffering from serious hearing problems by 2050. The 700 million people may even require major treatment for the hearing condition, which would be a major increase from 430 million people in 2019. One of the major reason behind this alarming increase is demographic and population trends, the report explained. This issue has also been increasing due to lack of access to care, especially in the low-income countries — as nearly 80 per cent of people live in these countries — as the majority of them are not getting the required help. Also read | Future vaccines depend on test subjects in short supply: Monkeys The lack of accurate information and an increasing stigma around ear diseases and loss of hearing also contributes to the increasing number of people who are suffering from hearing problems. "Even among health-care providers, knowledge relevant to prevention, early identification and management of hearing loss and ear diseases is commonly lacking," the report said. The package of measures proposed by the WHO include public health initiatives such as reduction of noise in public spaces and an increase in vaccinations for diseases that can lead to hearing loss. It also proposed systematic screening to identify the problem. "An estimated one trillion US dollars is lost each year due to our collective failure to adequately address hearing loss," WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said. "While the financial burden is enormous, what cannot be quantified is the distress caused by the loss of communication, education and social interaction that accompanies unaddressed hearing loss."

Louder please? 1 in 4 people will have hearing problems by 2050, WHO warns

Google and Facebook took the sharpest jabs for alleged abuse of their market power from Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday in a much-anticipated congressional hearing that put four of America's most prominent tech CEOs in the hot seat. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-apple-facebook-amazon-tech-giant-ceos-testify-at-us-antitrust-hearing-316845">ALSO READ | Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon: Tech Giant CEOs testify at US antitrust hearing</a>

Facebook Inc's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon.com Inc's Jeff Bezos, Google owner Alphabet Inc's Sundar Pichai and Apple Inc's Tim Cook - whose companies have a combined market value of about $5 trillion - parried a range of accusations from lawmakers that they crippled smaller rivals in the quest for market share, via a videoconference hearing. 
 
Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/apple-google-facebook-and-amazon-have-too-much-power-says-us-antitrust-panel-316826" hreflang="en">Apple, Google, Facebook &amp; Amazon have too much power, says US antitrust panel</a>

Though it was Bezos' first congressional testimony, he appeared the least fazed. Cook drew fewer barbed questions than Bezos and handled them efficiently. Zuckerberg took the most damage, stumbling at times when confronted with internal emails.

Pichai, CEO of both Alphabet and Google, took the most heat from conservatives on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel and looked the worse for it, as he repeatedly told lawmakers he would be happy to look into various situations and get back to them.

Unfortunately, the Big Tech hearing was decidedly low-tech. Bezos escaped questioning for about an hour in what may have been a tech issue, and was caught on screen reaching for what appeared to be a snack.

Poor audio, flat-screen televisions switching off, and chief executives appearing together as thumbnails on a large screen frustrated viewers and led to mockery of the virtual set-up on Twitter.

Lawmakers descended into shouting at points, with a pandemic twist. One lawmaker shouted: "Put your mask on!"

Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat and chair of the antitrust subcommittee, set the tone when he began by accusing Google of theft.

"Why does Google steal content from honest businesses?" he asked.

Cicilline alleged Google stole reviews from Yelp Inc and said Google threatened to delist Yelp from search results if it objected.

Pichai responded mildly that he would want to know the specifics of the accusation. "We conduct ourselves to the highest standards," he added, disagreeing with the characterization that Google steals content to win users.

Facebook's Zuckerberg took a series of questions about the company's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and whether it was acquired because it was a threat.

Zuckerberg responded that the deal had been reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission and that Instagram at the time was a tiny photo-sharing app rather than a social-media phenomenon. "People didn't think of them competing with us in that space," he said.

In one of the more notable exchanges, Representative Pramila Jayapal pushed Zuckerberg on whether Facebook had ever copied its competitors.

"We've certainly adapted features that others have led in," he said.

"How many companies did Facebook end up copying?" she asked. "Is it less than five? Less than 50?"

"Congresswoman, I don't know," Zuckerberg said.

The hearing was the first time the four CEOs have appeared together before lawmakers.

Jayapal pressed Amazon's Bezos on whether the company used data from third-party sellers in making sales decisions. An Amazon executive previously had denied the practice under oath and was contradicted by a news report.

Bezos answered cautiously that the company had a policy against such actions. "If we found that somebody violated it, we would take action against them," he said.

On the Republican side, Representative Jim Jordan accused the companies of taking a long list of actions that he said showed they try to hamper conservatives from reaching their supporters.

"Big Tech is out to get conservatives," he said.

Jordan's allegations come after President Donald Trump, who has clashed with several of the biggest tech companies, on Wednesday threatened to take action against them with executive orders.

Jordan also pressed Pichai on whether Google would help former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, win in November.

"We support both campaigns. We approach our work in a nonpartisan fashion," Pichai responded.

Republican Representative Matt Gaetz pressed Facebook's Zuckerberg on whether content moderators disadvantaged conservative content.

Zuckerberg said they were trained to be neutral. "We aim to be a platform for all ideas," he said. "I certainly don't want our platform to be run in such a way to have a ... bias."

'STREET FIGHT'

Apple's Cook rejected the notion there is nothing to stop his company from raising the commissions it charges in the App Store.

"I disagree strongly with that," he said. "The competition for developers - they can write their apps for Android or Windows or Xbox or PlayStation. We have fierce competition at the developer side and the customer side, which is essentially so competitive I would describe it as a street fight."

A detailed report with antitrust allegations against the four tech platforms and recommendations on how to tame their market power could be released by late summer or early fall by the committee, senior committee aides said.

Google and Facebook took the sharpest jabs for alleged abuse of their market power from Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday in a much-anticipated congressional hearing that put four of America's most prominent tech CEOs in the hot seat.

Google and Facebook took the sharpest jabs for alleged abuse of their market power from Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday in a much-anticipated congressional hearing that put four of America's most prominent tech CEOs in the hot seat. ALSO READ | Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon: Tech Giant CEOs testify at US antitrust hearing Facebook Inc's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon.com Inc's Jeff Bezos, Google owner Alphabet Inc's Sundar Pichai and Apple Inc's Tim Cook - whose companies have a combined market value of about $5 trillion - parried a range of accusations from lawmakers that they crippled smaller rivals in the quest for market share, via a videoconference hearing. Also read: Apple, Google, Facebook & Amazon have too much power, says US antitrust panel Though it was Bezos' first congressional testimony, he appeared the least fazed. Cook drew fewer barbed questions than Bezos and handled them efficiently. Zuckerberg took the most damage, stumbling at times when confronted with internal emails. Pichai, CEO of both Alphabet and Google, took the most heat from conservatives on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel and looked the worse for it, as he repeatedly told lawmakers he would be happy to look into various situations and get back to them. Unfortunately, the Big Tech hearing was decidedly low-tech. Bezos escaped questioning for about an hour in what may have been a tech issue, and was caught on screen reaching for what appeared to be a snack. Poor audio, flat-screen televisions switching off, and chief executives appearing together as thumbnails on a large screen frustrated viewers and led to mockery of the virtual set-up on Twitter. Lawmakers descended into shouting at points, with a pandemic twist. One lawmaker shouted: "Put your mask on!" Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat and chair of the antitrust subcommittee, set the tone when he began by accusing Google of theft. "Why does Google steal content from honest businesses?" he asked. Cicilline alleged Google stole reviews from Yelp Inc and said Google threatened to delist Yelp from search results if it objected. Pichai responded mildly that he would want to know the specifics of the accusation. "We conduct ourselves to the highest standards," he added, disagreeing with the characterization that Google steals content to win users. Facebook's Zuckerberg took a series of questions about the company's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and whether it was acquired because it was a threat. Zuckerberg responded that the deal had been reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission and that Instagram at the time was a tiny photo-sharing app rather than a social-media phenomenon. "People didn't think of them competing with us in that space," he said. In one of the more notable exchanges, Representative Pramila Jayapal pushed Zuckerberg on whether Facebook had ever copied its competitors. "We've certainly adapted features that others have led in," he said. "How many companies did Facebook end up copying?" she asked. "Is it less than five? Less than 50?" "Congresswoman, I don't know," Zuckerberg said. The hearing was the first time the four CEOs have appeared together before lawmakers. Jayapal pressed Amazon's Bezos on whether the company used data from third-party sellers in making sales decisions. An Amazon executive previously had denied the practice under oath and was contradicted by a news report. Bezos answered cautiously that the company had a policy against such actions. "If we found that somebody violated it, we would take action against them," he said. On the Republican side, Representative Jim Jordan accused the companies of taking a long list of actions that he said showed they try to hamper conservatives from reaching their supporters. "Big Tech is out to get conservatives," he said. Jordan's allegations come after President Donald Trump, who has clashed with several of the biggest tech companies, on Wednesday threatened to take action against them with executive orders. Jordan also pressed Pichai on whether Google would help former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, win in November. "We support both campaigns. We approach our work in a nonpartisan fashion," Pichai responded. Republican Representative Matt Gaetz pressed Facebook's Zuckerberg on whether content moderators disadvantaged conservative content. Zuckerberg said they were trained to be neutral. "We aim to be a platform for all ideas," he said. "I certainly don't want our platform to be run in such a way to have a ... bias." 'STREET FIGHT' Apple's Cook rejected the notion there is nothing to stop his company from raising the commissions it charges in the App Store. "I disagree strongly with that," he said. "The competition for developers - they can write their apps for Android or Windows or Xbox or PlayStation. We have fierce competition at the developer side and the customer side, which is essentially so competitive I would describe it as a street fight." A detailed report with antitrust allegations against the four tech platforms and recommendations on how to tame their market power could be released by late summer or early fall by the committee, senior committee aides said.

'Google steals content from honest businesses': Sundar Pichai questioned

Big Tech executives faced an onslaught of criticism from US lawmakers Wednesday at a high-stakes antitrust hearing which could lay the groundwork for tougher regulation and legal actions against the major internet platforms.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/apple-google-facebook-and-amazon-have-too-much-power-says-us-antitrust-panel-316826" hreflang="en">Apple, Google, Facebook &amp; Amazon have too much power, says US antitrust panel</a>

CEOs Tim Cook of Apple, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google were grilled for more than five hours in the unprecedented joint appearance -- by video -- before a House of Representatives panel investigating market dominance.

While the hearing was called to focus on whether the companies have abused their dominant positions in the market, it veered quickly into other topics including political bias, privacy, dealings with China and how platforms deal with misinformation.

"Simply put, they have too much power," said Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island who chairs the panel conducting a year-long investigation into the business practices of the four companies.

Cicilline said the hearing made clear that the firms "have monopoly power -- some need to be broken up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable."

Congress has no formal role in antitrust enforcement, but several lawmakers appeared intent on revising US laws to deal with the extraordinary market power and dominance of large technology firms.

<h2>Pandemic strength&nbsp;</h2>

Cicilline said the coronavirus outbreak has strengthened the economic clout of the four, saying:&nbsp;"They are likely to emerge (from the pandemic) stronger and more powerful than ever before."

A few comments from lawmakers sought to play down the competitive harms of the companies, which have also won praise for innovating and introducing new technologies and offering lifelines during the virus lockdowns.

"Being big is not inherently bad," said Jim&nbsp;Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin. "Quite the opposite, in America you should be rewarded for success.

<h2>Abusing platforms?&nbsp;</h2>

Some lawmakers sought to highlight problems with tech companies operating platforms while competing with rivals on those systems.

Democrat Pramila Jayapal of Washington state question Pichai on how Google operates its ad platform, claiming that this hurts other online services such as news outlets.

Google "is running the marketplace it's acting on the buy side and it's acting on the sell side, which is a major conflict of interest," Jayapal said.

Apple's Cook faced tough questioning over the market power of the company's App Store and its treatment of developers.

"We treat all app developers the same," Cook said. "We do not retaliate or bully people."

Bezos, in his first appearance before a congressional committee, defended&nbsp;Amazon's dealings with third-party sellers after a blistering attack from Cicilline.

"Isn't it true that small businesses have no real option but rely on Amazon to connect with customers to make online sales?" the committee chair asked.

"We've heard from third party sellers again and again during the course of our investigation that Amazon is the only game in town."

Bezos disputed the characterization while adding, "There are a lot of options for small firms..&nbsp; I think we are the best one."

<h2>Playing politics&nbsp;</h2>

President Donald Trump, who has accused Facebook and Twitter of censoring his remarks and being biased against conservatives, weighed in with a tweet shortly before the hearing began, and some Republican lawmakers echoed those remarks.

"If Congress doesn't bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders," Trump said.&nbsp;

Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, said during the hearing: "I'll just cut to the chase -- Big Tech is out to get conservatives. That's not a suspicion. That's not a hunch. That's a fact."

Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland rejected the argument, saying Facebook and other platforms have failed to contain misinformation from Trump and his supporters, including unverified COVID-19 claims.

"If Facebook is out there trying to repress conservative speech they're doing a terrible job," Raskin said. "I don't understand this endless whining" from Republicans.

<h2>Moving forward&nbsp;</h2>

Some analysts said the hearing could set the stage for revising US antitrust laws, which at present make it difficult for enforcers to target companies simply for being large or dominant without also showing harm to consumers or abuse of market power.

"There was considerable skepticism toward the tech sector as legislators worry about unfair competition and unfair practices," said Darrell West, director of the center for technology innovation at the Brookings Institution.

"If Democrats gain control in the (November elections), this hearing will serve as a blueprint for enhanced regulatory oversight," West said.

Michael Carrier, a Rutgers University professor of antitrust law, said that "the hearing showed that&nbsp;the representatives did their homework" and showed documents hinting at anticompetitive actions.

"I don't think any immediate changes will result from the hearing, but it will provide support for the continuing momentum to challenge these companies," he said.

Avery Gardiner, a former government antitrust lawyer who follows competition for the Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, said the hearing was "an opportunity squandered" which failed to demonstrate specific anticompetitive actions, leaving the matter now to regulatory agencies.

"Congressional hearings, which by their nature are broad-ranging, do not lend themselves well to thoughtful analysis about what Big Tech does that could affect competition," she said.

Big Tech executives faced an onslaught of criticism from US lawmakers Wednesday at a high-stakes antitrust hearing which could lay the groundwork for tougher regulation and legal actions against the major internet platforms.

Big Tech executives faced an onslaught of criticism from US lawmakers Wednesday at a high-stakes antitrust hearing which could lay the groundwork for tougher regulation and legal actions against the major internet platforms. Also read: Apple, Google, Facebook & Amazon have too much power, says US antitrust panel CEOs Tim Cook of Apple, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google were grilled for more than five hours in the unprecedented joint appearance -- by video -- before a House of Representatives panel investigating market dominance. While the hearing was called to focus on whether the companies have abused their dominant positions in the market, it veered quickly into other topics including political bias, privacy, dealings with China and how platforms deal with misinformation. "Simply put, they have too much power," said Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island who chairs the panel conducting a year-long investigation into the business practices of the four companies. Cicilline said the hearing made clear that the firms "have monopoly power -- some need to be broken up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable." Congress has no formal role in antitrust enforcement, but several lawmakers appeared intent on revising US laws to deal with the extraordinary market power and dominance of large technology firms. Pandemic strength Cicilline said the coronavirus outbreak has strengthened the economic clout of the four, saying: "They are likely to emerge (from the pandemic) stronger and more powerful than ever before." A few comments from lawmakers sought to play down the competitive harms of the companies, which have also won praise for innovating and introducing new technologies and offering lifelines during the virus lockdowns. "Being big is not inherently bad," said Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin. "Quite the opposite, in America you should be rewarded for success. Abusing platforms? Some lawmakers sought to highlight problems with tech companies operating platforms while competing with rivals on those systems. Democrat Pramila Jayapal of Washington state question Pichai on how Google operates its ad platform, claiming that this hurts other online services such as news outlets. Google "is running the marketplace it's acting on the buy side and it's acting on the sell side, which is a major conflict of interest," Jayapal said. Apple's Cook faced tough questioning over the market power of the company's App Store and its treatment of developers. "We treat all app developers the same," Cook said. "We do not retaliate or bully people." Bezos, in his first appearance before a congressional committee, defended Amazon's dealings with third-party sellers after a blistering attack from Cicilline. "Isn't it true that small businesses have no real option but rely on Amazon to connect with customers to make online sales?" the committee chair asked. "We've heard from third party sellers again and again during the course of our investigation that Amazon is the only game in town." Bezos disputed the characterization while adding, "There are a lot of options for small firms.. I think we are the best one." Playing politics President Donald Trump, who has accused Facebook and Twitter of censoring his remarks and being biased against conservatives, weighed in with a tweet shortly before the hearing began, and some Republican lawmakers echoed those remarks. "If Congress doesn't bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders," Trump said. Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, said during the hearing: "I'll just cut to the chase -- Big Tech is out to get conservatives. That's not a suspicion. That's not a hunch. That's a fact." Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland rejected the argument, saying Facebook and other platforms have failed to contain misinformation from Trump and his supporters, including unverified COVID-19 claims. "If Facebook is out there trying to repress conservative speech they're doing a terrible job," Raskin said. "I don't understand this endless whining" from Republicans. Moving forward Some analysts said the hearing could set the stage for revising US antitrust laws, which at present make it difficult for enforcers to target companies simply for being large or dominant without also showing harm to consumers or abuse of market power. "There was considerable skepticism toward the tech sector as legislators worry about unfair competition and unfair practices," said Darrell West, director of the center for technology innovation at the Brookings Institution. "If Democrats gain control in the (November elections), this hearing will serve as a blueprint for enhanced regulatory oversight," West said. Michael Carrier, a Rutgers University professor of antitrust law, said that "the hearing showed that the representatives did their homework" and showed documents hinting at anticompetitive actions. "I don't think any immediate changes will result from the hearing, but it will provide support for the continuing momentum to challenge these companies," he said. Avery Gardiner, a former government antitrust lawyer who follows competition for the Center for Democracy & Technology, said the hearing was "an opportunity squandered" which failed to demonstrate specific anticompetitive actions, leaving the matter now to regulatory agencies. "Congressional hearings, which by their nature are broad-ranging, do not lend themselves well to thoughtful analysis about what Big Tech does that could affect competition," she said.

Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon: Tech Giant CEOs testify at US antitrust hearing

Five key questions about the MH17 trial

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the mediation panel to resolve the Ayodhya land dispute to submit a status report in the case by July 18. The apex court has fixed July 25 as the next date for hearing. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya land dispute: Top Court likely to begin hearing from July 25

A Pakistan court heard the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/a-decade-of-mumbai-terror-attack-what-all-happened-during-attacks-and-in-years-to-follow-179407&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjv0fXUuYPgAhVUfXAKHa52B8oQFggSMAU&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw31vZgk0QTYYvZ1newbXenL">2008 Mumbai attack case</a> to let the prosecutor produce more witnesses. 
&nbsp; 
Ten Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists had sailed into <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-court-summons-sharif-treason-case-over-mumbai-attack-remarks-167459&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjv0fXUuYPgAhVUfXAKHa52B8oQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1TwF2StqSd3ZG5PLHmKQ_X">Mumbai </a>from Karachi and carried out coordinated attacks, killing 166 people and injuring over 300 in November 2008.

The trial, underway in an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan against seven activists, has made little headway in more than 10 years as the Pakistani establishment has been claiming lack of enough evidence against them.&nbsp;

A divisional bench of Islamabad High Court, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhter Kiyani, on Tuesday conducted hearing on a petition by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) seeking a stay on anti-terrorism court proceedings.

Seven LeT suspects — Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, Abdul Wajid, Mazhar Iqbal, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younis Anjum —are facing charges of abetment to murder, attempted murder, planning and executing the Mumbai attack since 2009.

Except Lakhvi, the other six are kept in the high-security Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi.&nbsp;

A Pakistan court heard the 2008 Mumbai attack case to let the prosecutor produce more witnesses. Ten Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists had sailed into Mumbai from Karachi and carried out coordinated attacks, killing 166 people and injuring over 300 in November 2008.

A Pakistan court heard the 2008 Mumbai attack case to let the prosecutor produce more witnesses. Ten Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists had sailed into Mumbai from Karachi and carried out coordinated attacks, killing 166 people and injuring over 300 in November 2008. The trial, underway in an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan against seven activists, has made little headway in more than 10 years as the Pakistani establishment has been claiming lack of enough evidence against them. A divisional bench of Islamabad High Court, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhter Kiyani, on Tuesday conducted hearing on a petition by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) seeking a stay on anti-terrorism court proceedings. Seven LeT suspects — Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, Abdul Wajid, Mazhar Iqbal, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younis Anjum —are facing charges of abetment to murder, attempted murder, planning and executing the Mumbai attack since 2009. Except Lakhvi, the other six are kept in the high-security Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi.

Pakistan court temporarily halts Mumbai attack case hearing

&nbsp;A defiant Vijay Mallya today appeared at Westminster Magistrates&nbsp;Court in London for his pre-trial hearing where the liquor baron&#39;s extradition hearing was confirmed for eight days starting&nbsp;December 4.

The 61-year-old businessman, out on bail on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard earlier this year, was released by the judge on the same bail conditions and asked to appear at court on&nbsp;December 4.

The trial will last until&nbsp;December 14, with&nbsp;December 8&nbsp;marked as a non-sitting day.

Speaking to reporters as he left today&#39;s case management hearing, Mallya said he has repeatedly stressed that he has done nothing wrong and will let the evidence speak in court.

&quot;It will all become clear in court,&quot; he said.

The UKs Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which is arguing the case against Mallya on behalf of the Indian authorities, had presented additional &quot;supplemental&quot; charges of money laundering to the previous charges of fraud at the last hearing in the case on&nbsp;October 3.

The previous fraud charges relate to?Mallya&#39;s now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines owing more than Rs 9,000 crore to various Indian banks.

The UB Group chief has been on self-imposed exile in the UK since he left India on March 2, 2016.

The CPS said it was technically re-filing its extradition request in court, after the new charges &quot;superseded&quot; the previous ongoing case.

The judge, Chief Magistrate Emma Louise Arbuthnot, agreed to formally re-open a fresh case while keeping to the same time-table as set before.

However, she had concurred with Mallya&#39;s defence team that if further evidence keeps coming in it could put the&nbsp;December 4&nbsp;trial date at &quot;risk&quot; before releasing him on the same bail conditions as before.&nbsp;

The trial will last until?December 14, with?December 8?marked as a non-sitting day

A defiant Vijay Mallya today appeared at Westminster Magistrates Court in London for his pre-trial hearing where the liquor baron's extradition hearing was confirmed for eight days starting December 4. The 61-year-old businessman, out on bail on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard earlier this year, was released by the judge on the same bail conditions and asked to appear at court on December 4. The trial will last until December 14, with December 8 marked as a non-sitting day. Speaking to reporters as he left today's case management hearing, Mallya said he has repeatedly stressed that he has done nothing wrong and will let the evidence speak in court. "It will all become clear in court," he said. The UKs Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which is arguing the case against Mallya on behalf of the Indian authorities, had presented additional "supplemental" charges of money laundering to the previous charges of fraud at the last hearing in the case on October 3. The previous fraud charges relate to?Mallya's now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines owing more than Rs 9,000 crore to various Indian banks. The UB Group chief has been on self-imposed exile in the UK since he left India on March 2, 2016. The CPS said it was technically re-filing its extradition request in court, after the new charges "superseded" the previous ongoing case. The judge, Chief Magistrate Emma Louise Arbuthnot, agreed to formally re-open a fresh case while keeping to the same time-table as set before. However, she had concurred with Mallya's defence team that if further evidence keeps coming in it could put the December 4 trial date at "risk" before releasing him on the same bail conditions as before.

Watch: Vijay Mallya extradition hearing confirmed for 8 days from December 4

A Muslim policeman who sued the New York City Police Department (NYPD) after he was suspended for refusing to shave his beard has been reinstated and the department has agreed to review its ban on beards, his lawyers said on Thursday. 
 
A judge last week ordered the NYPD to continue paying Officer Masood Syed his salary and benefits after he sued the department, claiming that the no-beard policy was unconstitutional. 
 
&quot;It seems like the department has taken the crucial first step in addressing an important and growing concern of officers of different faiths,&quot; Syed said in a statement.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;I am hopeful that the department&rsquo;s new policy will in fact allow myself and other officers to wear our beards at a reasonable length without the fear of retaliation or hostility,&quot; he said.&nbsp; 
 
NYPD spokesperson could not be reached for a comment.&nbsp; 
 
In a letter sent to the judge and provided to news agencies by Syed&#39;s attorneys, the city&#39;s law department has asked that a hearing scheduled for July 8 in the case be adjourned because the officer had been &quot;restored to full duty&quot; and the two sides were discussing a resolution of the lawsuit. 
 
The NYPD&#39;s written policy is that officers cannot wear beards, but an unwritten policy designed for religious accommodation allows for beards of up to 1 millimetre long, according to the lawsuit. 
 
Syed, a law clerk in the department, has worn a beard of about 1/2 to 1 inch (13 to 25mm) for years for religious reasons. 
 
In December, according to the lawsuit, he was told by supervisors that his beard was too long and ordered to shorten it. When he did not, he was suspended, according to the complaint. 
 
In 2013, a Hasidic Jewish probationary officer won a lawsuit against the department over the same policy.&nbsp; 
 
US district judge Harold Baer ruled in 2013 that the policy violated the First Amendment guarantee of free religious exercise. 
 
The Hasidic officer, Fishel Litzman, was allowed to return to work with a beard of 1 inch length, according to Syed&#39;s lawyer. 
 
(Reuters)

Masood Syed's lawyers say the department has agreed to review its ban on beards

A Muslim policeman who sued the New York City Police Department (NYPD) after he was suspended for refusing to shave his beard has been reinstated and the department has agreed to review its ban on beards, his lawyers said on Thursday. A judge last week ordered the NYPD to continue paying Officer Masood Syed his salary and benefits after he sued the department, claiming that the no-beard policy was unconstitutional. "It seems like the department has taken the crucial first step in addressing an important and growing concern of officers of different faiths," Syed said in a statement. "I am hopeful that the department’s new policy will in fact allow myself and other officers to wear our beards at a reasonable length without the fear of retaliation or hostility," he said. NYPD spokesperson could not be reached for a comment. In a letter sent to the judge and provided to news agencies by Syed's attorneys, the city's law department has asked that a hearing scheduled for July 8 in the case be adjourned because the officer had been "restored to full duty" and the two sides were discussing a resolution of the lawsuit. The NYPD's written policy is that officers cannot wear beards, but an unwritten policy designed for religious accommodation allows for beards of up to 1 millimetre long, according to the lawsuit. Syed, a law clerk in the department, has worn a beard of about 1/2 to 1 inch (13 to 25mm) for years for religious reasons. In December, according to the lawsuit, he was told by supervisors that his beard was too long and ordered to shorten it. When he did not, he was suspended, according to the complaint. In 2013, a Hasidic Jewish probationary officer won a lawsuit against the department over the same policy. US district judge Harold Baer ruled in 2013 that the policy violated the First Amendment guarantee of free religious exercise. The Hasidic officer, Fishel Litzman, was allowed to return to work with a beard of 1 inch length, according to Syed's lawyer. (Reuters)

Muslim officer wins battle of the beard, New York police reinstate him

hearing

Hearing, News on Hearing, stories on Hearing, articles on Hearing, Hearing stories at Wion, Hearing news, Hearing latest news