Several Arab countries have started to establish formal ties with Israel. But it seems Iraq doesn’t want to follow suit. The country’s parliament has approved a law on Thursday to ban normalising relations with Israel, media reports said.&nbsp;The parliament of Iraq has also not been able to convene on any other important issue like electing a new president or forming own government. This has been happening due to a prolonged political standoff. &nbsp;

Since Israel’s establishment in 1948, it has never been recognised by Iraq. Till now, citizens and companies of Iraq cannot visit Israel. The new law has criminalised any attempt to normalise relations with Israel. &nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

An influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr proposed the law. His party opposes close ties with not just Israel but the United States too. It had won more seats in parliament elections last year. &nbsp;

"Approving the law is not only a victory for the Iraqi people but to the heroes in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon," said Iraqi Shiite lawmaker Hassan Salim. He represents Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which is the Iranian-backed militia. &nbsp;

Sadr's party lawmakers said the law was proposed to curb claims by rival parties backed by Iran that Sadr is looking to make coalitions with Sunni and Kurds may have secret ties with Israel. &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Several Arab countries have started to establish formal ties with Israel. But it seems Iraq doesn’t want to follow suit. The country’s parliament has approved a law on Thursday to ban normalising relations with Israel, media reports said.

Several Arab countries have started to establish formal ties with Israel. But it seems Iraq doesn’t want to follow suit. The country’s parliament has approved a law on Thursday to ban normalising relations with Israel, media reports said. The parliament of Iraq has also not been able to convene on any other important issue like electing a new president or forming own government. This has been happening due to a prolonged political standoff. Since Israel’s establishment in 1948, it has never been recognised by Iraq. Till now, citizens and companies of Iraq cannot visit Israel. The new law has criminalised any attempt to normalise relations with Israel. WATCH WION LIVE HERE An influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr proposed the law. His party opposes close ties with not just Israel but the United States too. It had won more seats in parliament elections last year. "Approving the law is not only a victory for the Iraqi people but to the heroes in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon," said Iraqi Shiite lawmaker Hassan Salim. He represents Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which is the Iranian-backed militia. Sadr's party lawmakers said the law was proposed to curb claims by rival parties backed by Iran that Sadr is looking to make coalitions with Sunni and Kurds may have secret ties with Israel. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

Drastic step: Iraq approves  law that makes normalising ties with Israel illegal

Amid the ongoing tussle between the European Union and tech giants, Alphabet & Meta to strengthen their security policies. EU Vice President lauded the decision by tech giants.

Alphabet & Meta to strengthen their security policies, EU Vice President lauds the decision

Custodian of cricket laws, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), has decided to move the law relating to run-outs at non-striker's end from "unfair play" section besides completely banning the use of saliva to shine the ball in amendments to its 2022 code that will come into effect in October.

Run-outs at non-striker's end have often triggered heated debates on spirit of the game and several players like India's premier off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin have advocated for it as a fair mode of dismissal.

"Law 41.16 -&nbsp;running out the non-striker -&nbsp;has been moved from Law 41 (Unfair play) to Law 38 (Run out). The wording of the Law remains the same," the MCC said in a media statement late on Tuesday.

The MCC also said that using saliva to shine the ball would be treated as an unfair practice. Saliva application was barred by the ICC in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and MCC said its research found that applying saliva had no impact on the ball's movement.

ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/exclusive-no-reason-why-kolkata-knight-riders-cannot-win-the-ipl-this-year-says-sam-billings-469688">Exclusive | No reason why Kolkata Knight Riders cannot win the IPL this year, says Sam Billings</a>

"When cricket resumed following the onset of Covid-19, playing conditions were written in most forms of the game stating that applying saliva to the ball was no longer permitted.

"MCC's research found that this had little or no impact on the amount of swing the bowlers were getting. Players were using sweat to polish the ball, and this was equally effective," it said.

"The new Laws will not permit the use of saliva on the ball, which also removes any grey areas of fielders eating sugary sweets to alter their saliva to apply to the ball. Using saliva will be treated the same way as any other unfair methods of changing the condition of the ball," it asserted.

The changes in the code, which first came into existence in 2017, were suggested by MCC Laws sub-committee "which were subsequently approved at the Club's Main Committee meeting last week."

The amendments will not come into force until October.

"...The 2022 Code makes some rather bigger changes, from the way we talk about cricket to the way it's played," Fraser Stewart, MCC Laws Manager, said.

"It is important that we announce these changes now as part of the Club's global commitment to the game, giving officials from all over the world the chance to learn under the new Code ahead of the Laws coming into force in October."

ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/ipl-2022-ravindra-jadeja-makes-150th-appearance-joins-ms-dhoni-and-suresh-raina-in-elite-list-469670">IPL 2022: Ravindra Jadeja makes 150th appearance, joins MS Dhoni and Suresh Raina in elite list</a> 
 
The other changes recommended are: 
 
Law 1 -&nbsp;Replacement players:

The replacement players will be treated "as if they were the player they replaced, inheriting any sanctions or dismissals that player has done in that match." 
 
Law 18 -&nbsp;Batters returning when Caught 
 
When a batter is out caught, the "new batter shall come in at the end the striker was at, i.E. To face the next ball (unless it is the end of an over)." 
 
Law 20.4.2.12 -&nbsp;Dead ball 
 
The amendment suggests that the the calling of Dead ball takes into account "if either side is disadvantaged by a person, animal or other object within the field of play."

"From a pitch invader to a dog running onto the field, sometimes there is outside interference,&nbsp;if this is the case, and it has a material impact on the game, the umpires will call and signal Dead ball." 
 
Law 21.4 -&nbsp;Bowler throwing at striker's end before delivery 
 
"If a bowler throws the ball in an attempt to run out the striker before entering their delivery stride, it will now be Dead ball. This is an extremely rare scenario, which has until now been called as a No ball." 
 
Law 22.1 -&nbsp;Judging a Wide 
 
The amendment takes into account movement of a batter before the ball is bowled.

"It was felt unfair that a delivery might be called 'Wide' if it passes where the batter had stood as the bowler entered his/her delivery stride.

ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/ban-him-for-life-send-him-to-rehab-ravi-shastri-on-cricketer-who-bullied-yuzvendra-chahal-at-mi-in-2013-469664">'Ban him for life, send him to rehab': Ravi Shastri on cricketer who 'bullied' Yuzvendra Chahal at MI in 2013</a>

"Therefore, Law 22.1 has been amended so that a Wide will apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began their run up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position." 
 
Law 25.8 -&nbsp;striker's right to play the ball 
 
"If the ball should land away from the pitch, the new Law allows the striker to play the ball so long as some part of their bat or person remains within the pitch. Should they venture beyond that, the umpire will call and signal Dead ball. As recompense to the batter, any ball which would force them to leave the pitch will also be called No ball." 
 
Laws 27.4 and 28.6 -&nbsp;Unfair movement by fielding side 
 
"Until now, any member of the fielding side who moved unfairly, was punished only with a Dead ball...Given the action is both unfair and deliberate, it will now see the batting side awarded 5 Penalty runs."

Custodian of cricket laws, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), has decided to move the law relating to run-outs at non-striker's end from "unfair play" section besides completely banning the use of saliva to shine the ball in amendments to its 2022 code that will come into effect in October.

Custodian of cricket laws, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), has decided to move the law relating to run-outs at non-striker's end from "unfair play" section besides completely banning the use of saliva to shine the ball in amendments to its 2022 code that will come into effect in October. Run-outs at non-striker's end have often triggered heated debates on spirit of the game and several players like India's premier off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin have advocated for it as a fair mode of dismissal. "Law 41.16 - running out the non-striker - has been moved from Law 41 (Unfair play) to Law 38 (Run out). The wording of the Law remains the same," the MCC said in a media statement late on Tuesday. The MCC also said that using saliva to shine the ball would be treated as an unfair practice. Saliva application was barred by the ICC in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and MCC said its research found that applying saliva had no impact on the ball's movement. ALSO READ: Exclusive | No reason why Kolkata Knight Riders cannot win the IPL this year, says Sam Billings "When cricket resumed following the onset of Covid-19, playing conditions were written in most forms of the game stating that applying saliva to the ball was no longer permitted. "MCC's research found that this had little or no impact on the amount of swing the bowlers were getting. Players were using sweat to polish the ball, and this was equally effective," it said. "The new Laws will not permit the use of saliva on the ball, which also removes any grey areas of fielders eating sugary sweets to alter their saliva to apply to the ball. Using saliva will be treated the same way as any other unfair methods of changing the condition of the ball," it asserted. The changes in the code, which first came into existence in 2017, were suggested by MCC Laws sub-committee "which were subsequently approved at the Club's Main Committee meeting last week." The amendments will not come into force until October. "...The 2022 Code makes some rather bigger changes, from the way we talk about cricket to the way it's played," Fraser Stewart, MCC Laws Manager, said. "It is important that we announce these changes now as part of the Club's global commitment to the game, giving officials from all over the world the chance to learn under the new Code ahead of the Laws coming into force in October." ALSO READ: IPL 2022: Ravindra Jadeja makes 150th appearance, joins MS Dhoni and Suresh Raina in elite list The other changes recommended are: Law 1 - Replacement players: The replacement players will be treated "as if they were the player they replaced, inheriting any sanctions or dismissals that player has done in that match." Law 18 - Batters returning when Caught When a batter is out caught, the "new batter shall come in at the end the striker was at, i.E. To face the next ball (unless it is the end of an over)." Law 20.4.2.12 - Dead ball The amendment suggests that the the calling of Dead ball takes into account "if either side is disadvantaged by a person, animal or other object within the field of play." "From a pitch invader to a dog running onto the field, sometimes there is outside interference, if this is the case, and it has a material impact on the game, the umpires will call and signal Dead ball." Law 21.4 - Bowler throwing at striker's end before delivery "If a bowler throws the ball in an attempt to run out the striker before entering their delivery stride, it will now be Dead ball. This is an extremely rare scenario, which has until now been called as a No ball." Law 22.1 - Judging a Wide The amendment takes into account movement of a batter before the ball is bowled. "It was felt unfair that a delivery might be called 'Wide' if it passes where the batter had stood as the bowler entered his/her delivery stride. ALSO READ: 'Ban him for life, send him to rehab': Ravi Shastri on cricketer who 'bullied' Yuzvendra Chahal at MI in 2013 "Therefore, Law 22.1 has been amended so that a Wide will apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began their run up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position." Law 25.8 - striker's right to play the ball "If the ball should land away from the pitch, the new Law allows the striker to play the ball so long as some part of their bat or person remains within the pitch. Should they venture beyond that, the umpire will call and signal Dead ball. As recompense to the batter, any ball which would force them to leave the pitch will also be called No ball." Laws 27.4 and 28.6 - Unfair movement by fielding side "Until now, any member of the fielding side who moved unfairly, was punished only with a Dead ball...Given the action is both unfair and deliberate, it will now see the batting side awarded 5 Penalty runs."

MCC amends code to remove run-out at non-striker's end from unfair play laws

EU floats landmark law against big tech in an attempt to ease accountability in the digital market sphere. Europe will get stronger monitoring power.

EU floats landmark law against big tech in an attempt to ease accountability in digital market

Lawmakers in the European Union are giving final touches to a new law that would impact big tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon.

AFP quoted sources to say that talks between negotiators from the European Parliament and EU member states on Thuesday may result in an agreement on the legislation.

"We really expect that we can reach an agreement on Thursday, that we can endorse the Digital Markets Act," said French MEP Stephanie Yon-Courtin, a key backer of the law.

This is a "a historic text that will clearly change the rules of the game," she added.

Once adopted, it would give regulators in Brussels unparallelled power to take a close and up-to-the-minute look at business decisions by the giants, especially when they acquire promising startups.

The rules would also set a list of do’s and don’ts including forcing Apple to open up its app store to competing payment systems -- a demand the iPhone maker has resisted arduously in courts for years.

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) could also force Google and Meta-owned Facebook to reveal precious information from their world-dominating ad platforms, potentially leaving them vulnerable to new rivals.

In their final push, lawmakers from the European Parliament would also like to impose interoperability between messaging systems such as WhatsApp, Signal or Apple’s iMessage.

Violation of the rules could lead to fines as high as 10 percent of annual global sales with some MEPs calling for even tougher penalties for repeat offenders.

The big tech companies have lobbied hard against the new rules.

(With inputs from agencies)

Lawmakers in the European Union are giving final touches to a new law that would impact big tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon. AFP quoted sources to say that talks between negotiators from the European Parliament and EU member states on Thuesday may result in an agreement on the legislation.

Lawmakers in the European Union are giving final touches to a new law that would impact big tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon. AFP quoted sources to say that talks between negotiators from the European Parliament and EU member states on Thuesday may result in an agreement on the legislation. "We really expect that we can reach an agreement on Thursday, that we can endorse the Digital Markets Act," said French MEP Stephanie Yon-Courtin, a key backer of the law. This is a "a historic text that will clearly change the rules of the game," she added. Once adopted, it would give regulators in Brussels unparallelled power to take a close and up-to-the-minute look at business decisions by the giants, especially when they acquire promising startups. The rules would also set a list of do’s and don’ts including forcing Apple to open up its app store to competing payment systems -- a demand the iPhone maker has resisted arduously in courts for years. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) could also force Google and Meta-owned Facebook to reveal precious information from their world-dominating ad platforms, potentially leaving them vulnerable to new rivals. In their final push, lawmakers from the European Parliament would also like to impose interoperability between messaging systems such as WhatsApp, Signal or Apple’s iMessage. Violation of the rules could lead to fines as high as 10 percent of annual global sales with some MEPs calling for even tougher penalties for repeat offenders. The big tech companies have lobbied hard against the new rules. (With inputs from agencies)

EU gives final touches to law on Big Tech 

A Democratic super PAC said it is filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Monday accusing Donald Trump of violating campaign finance law by spending political funds on a 2024 presidential bid without formally declaring himself a candidate.

The complaint uses Trump’s own words about a 2024 run — “I know what I’m going to do, but we’re not supposed to be talking about it yet from the standpoint of campaign finance laws,” he said in the fall — to accuse him of improperly using his existing political committees to advance a presidential run.

Federal rules require those who raise or spend more than $5,000 in support of a presidential campaign to register with the Federal Election Commission.

Trump has repeatedly teased that he plans to run for president again, saying at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, “We did it twice and we’ll do it again.” But though he formally filed for reelection the day of his inauguration in 2017, Trump has not done so for 2024. Such a filing would set off restrictions on how he could raise and spend campaign money, including his existing war chest.

Trump-controlled committees entered 2022 with $122 million in the bank — far more than the Republican Party itself.

“He should have to adhere to the law in a way that all other candidates do,” said Jessica Floyd, president of American Bridge, the Democratic group that is filing the complaint. “When he says ‘I’m going to do it a third time,’ that’s not flirting. That’s more than a toe dip.”

Floyd noted that Trump’s citations of campaign law show clear intentions to evade the existing rules. “It’s not like he doesn’t know what he’s doing,” she said.

Taylor Budowich, a spokesman for Trump, called the complaint frivolous.

“America is spiraling into disaster because of the Democrats’ failures, and instead of reversing course, they are busy filing frivolous complaints that have zero merit,” he said.

Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity in July that he had made up his mind about another White House bid. A month later, he said on Fox News again that it was “unbelievably stupid” campaign finance laws that prevented him from directly stating his intentions.

“Let me put it this way: I think you’ll be happy, and I think that a lot of our friends will be very happy. But I’m not actually allowed to answer it,” Trump said then. “It makes it very difficult if I do.”

Nothing legally bars Trump from declaring he is running for president. But he would be subject to additional fundraising limits and disclosure requirements if he did so.

Once a politician has decided to run for federal office and begun fundraising, the person is supposed to file paperwork declaring the candidacy. There is also an interim step for those who are “testing the waters” of a run.

The American Bridge complaint says Trump has crossed both thresholds, though the line is notoriously blurry.

For now, Trump’s main PAC, called Save America, is registered as a committee that can spend on behalf of others, and the PAC did give away $350,000 to other candidates in 2021, though that sum is far less than the amount the PAC has spent on Trump’s own properties.

The complaint would appear unlikely to generate any crackdown by the Federal Election Commission, which is equally divided between commissioners aligned with the Democratic and Republican parties, and often deadlocks on contentious matters. The watchdog agency’s investigations process is also notoriously slow. A complaint to the commission related to the pre-candidacy activities of Jeb Bush, who announced his run for president in 2015, was still in court as recently as December.

A Democratic super PAC said it is filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Monday accusing Donald Trump of violating campaign finance law by spending political funds on a 2024 presidential bid without formally declaring himself a candidate.

A Democratic super PAC said it is filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Monday accusing Donald Trump of violating campaign finance law by spending political funds on a 2024 presidential bid without formally declaring himself a candidate. The complaint uses Trump’s own words about a 2024 run — “I know what I’m going to do, but we’re not supposed to be talking about it yet from the standpoint of campaign finance laws,” he said in the fall — to accuse him of improperly using his existing political committees to advance a presidential run. Federal rules require those who raise or spend more than $5,000 in support of a presidential campaign to register with the Federal Election Commission. Trump has repeatedly teased that he plans to run for president again, saying at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, “We did it twice and we’ll do it again.” But though he formally filed for reelection the day of his inauguration in 2017, Trump has not done so for 2024. Such a filing would set off restrictions on how he could raise and spend campaign money, including his existing war chest. Trump-controlled committees entered 2022 with $122 million in the bank — far more than the Republican Party itself. “He should have to adhere to the law in a way that all other candidates do,” said Jessica Floyd, president of American Bridge, the Democratic group that is filing the complaint. “When he says ‘I’m going to do it a third time,’ that’s not flirting. That’s more than a toe dip.” Floyd noted that Trump’s citations of campaign law show clear intentions to evade the existing rules. “It’s not like he doesn’t know what he’s doing,” she said. Taylor Budowich, a spokesman for Trump, called the complaint frivolous. “America is spiraling into disaster because of the Democrats’ failures, and instead of reversing course, they are busy filing frivolous complaints that have zero merit,” he said. Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity in July that he had made up his mind about another White House bid. A month later, he said on Fox News again that it was “unbelievably stupid” campaign finance laws that prevented him from directly stating his intentions. “Let me put it this way: I think you’ll be happy, and I think that a lot of our friends will be very happy. But I’m not actually allowed to answer it,” Trump said then. “It makes it very difficult if I do.” Nothing legally bars Trump from declaring he is running for president. But he would be subject to additional fundraising limits and disclosure requirements if he did so. Once a politician has decided to run for federal office and begun fundraising, the person is supposed to file paperwork declaring the candidacy. There is also an interim step for those who are “testing the waters” of a run. The American Bridge complaint says Trump has crossed both thresholds, though the line is notoriously blurry. For now, Trump’s main PAC, called Save America, is registered as a committee that can spend on behalf of others, and the PAC did give away $350,000 to other candidates in 2021, though that sum is far less than the amount the PAC has spent on Trump’s own properties. The complaint would appear unlikely to generate any crackdown by the Federal Election Commission, which is equally divided between commissioners aligned with the Democratic and Republican parties, and often deadlocks on contentious matters. The watchdog agency’s investigations process is also notoriously slow. A complaint to the commission related to the pre-candidacy activities of Jeb Bush, who announced his run for president in 2015, was still in court as recently as December.

Democratic group says Trump is breaking campaign law by not declaring for 2024

While he was president, Donald Trump was known to destroy, tear up, remove and even flush White House documents down the toilet. He often eschewed the White House switchboard, using his own cellphone or those of his aides to communicate.

The practices, which have drawn fresh attention as a result of the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, have raised the question of whether Trump’s norm-breaking behavior was also a crime.

The House Oversight Committee said this week that Trump’s handling of documents appeared to constitute “serious violations” of the Presidential Records Act and announced an investigation of it.

The National Archives consulted the Justice Department about Trump’s record preservation practices after it discovered he had taken more than a dozen boxes of presidential files, including what it believes are classified documents, with him when he left office. The Washington Post reported that some of them were clearly marked “top secret.”

And his use of cellphones to conduct official business has led to large gaps in the official White House logs of his calls on Jan. 6, 2021, hampering investigators’ efforts to construct an accurate record of what he was doing during the riot. If he failed to preserve cellphone records and turn them over to the National Archives, that, too, could run afoul of the law.

Here’s what the Presidential Records Act is and why Trump’s behavior may have violated it.

Presidents don’t own their documents.

In 1978, after Watergate, Congress enacted the Presidential Records Act, which made a president’s documents the property of the United States, not his personal property, and laid out a process for ensuring that Congress and the public could eventually gain access to them.

It was aimed at preventing future presidents from doing what Richard M. Nixon wanted to after he resigned in disgrace, when he planned to destroy recordings that documented steps he and others took in response to the Watergate investigation.

The law requires that a president’s records be turned over to the National Archives once he leaves office and that they be made available to the public 12 years later — although certain entities, such as congressional investigators, can obtain them sooner.

The act excludes a president’s personal records — identified as those “of a purely private or nonpublic character” — from preservation requirements and grants a president a “high degree of discretion over what materials are to be preserved,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

It also provides a process for destroying records that typically includes seeking permission from the archivist of the United States, who may consult with Congress. There is no indication that Trump did so in the cases in question.

Trump openly flouted the requirements.

The House Oversight Committee has asked the National Archives to provide information regarding its communications with Trump’s team about 15 boxes of White House records discovered at Mar-a-Lago, his residence in Palm Beach, Florida, after he left office.

Trump had been loath to return the materials despite repeated efforts by the National Archives to obtain them, and at one point, the agency threatened to send a letter to Congress or the Justice Department if he continued to withhold the boxes, according to a person familiar with private discussions.

“If former President Trump was intentionally destroying records or hiding records from the National Archives — where they are legally required to be kept — he must be held accountable,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chair of the oversight panel.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said it appeared that Trump had violated the Presidential Records Act, given his penchant for ripping up documents.

“Any act of unauthorized destruction or unauthorized removal of records is contrary to law,” Aftergood said.

The question of Trump’s cellphone use is murkier. The act was written before the invention of email or cellphones, so it does not mention either. But given the purpose of the law — ensuring a complete record of presidential business — some experts believe Trump’s practices violated its spirit, if not its letter.

There are few consequences for Trump’s actions under the Presidential Records Act.

A flaw some experts see in the Presidential Records Act is its lack of a strong enforcement mechanism.

Under the law, the archivist has the “ultimate responsibility” for assuring the preservation and integrity of presidential records, Aftergood said.

“But the archives does not have its own police force and doesn’t have much investigative capability to speak of,” he said. “They can ask questions and they can write sternly worded letters. But the response depends on the White House or the president or the agency involved.”

Destroying documents could violate other laws.

Trump’s practice of ripping up documents could open him to additional criminal exposure, if the destruction of documents were part of an effort to impede an investigation.

“There could be liability under an obstruction statute, but the context and the facts would be critical there,” said David H. Laufman, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

“If there’s some intent to destroy documents to preclude a government agency from carrying out its lawful function, there could be a conspiracy to defraud the United States,” Laufman said.

But he cautioned that the Justice Department is often reluctant to pursue prosecutions that have no historical precedent, and the agency has never charged a former president with the destruction or removal of records.

“In a case involving a former president, the burden should be particularly high for particular conduct that has not been the basis of prior enforcement action,” Laufman said.

Trump could face consequences for his handling of classified information.

Criminal codes, which carry jail time, prohibit conduct that “willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States” or “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys” government documents.

Samuel Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty in 2015 to a misdemeanor charge for removing classified material from a government archive.

Presidents have the power to decide what is classified and what is not — but only while they are in office.

“That could present a complicating factor for prosecutors in evaluating their likely success if they were to charge him or others with a crime,” Laufman said.

While he was president, Donald Trump was known to destroy, tear up, remove and even flush White House documents down the toilet. He often eschewed the White House switchboard, using his own cellphone or those of his aides to communicate.

While he was president, Donald Trump was known to destroy, tear up, remove and even flush White House documents down the toilet. He often eschewed the White House switchboard, using his own cellphone or those of his aides to communicate. The practices, which have drawn fresh attention as a result of the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, have raised the question of whether Trump’s norm-breaking behavior was also a crime. The House Oversight Committee said this week that Trump’s handling of documents appeared to constitute “serious violations” of the Presidential Records Act and announced an investigation of it. The National Archives consulted the Justice Department about Trump’s record preservation practices after it discovered he had taken more than a dozen boxes of presidential files, including what it believes are classified documents, with him when he left office. The Washington Post reported that some of them were clearly marked “top secret.” And his use of cellphones to conduct official business has led to large gaps in the official White House logs of his calls on Jan. 6, 2021, hampering investigators’ efforts to construct an accurate record of what he was doing during the riot. If he failed to preserve cellphone records and turn them over to the National Archives, that, too, could run afoul of the law. Here’s what the Presidential Records Act is and why Trump’s behavior may have violated it. Presidents don’t own their documents. In 1978, after Watergate, Congress enacted the Presidential Records Act, which made a president’s documents the property of the United States, not his personal property, and laid out a process for ensuring that Congress and the public could eventually gain access to them. It was aimed at preventing future presidents from doing what Richard M. Nixon wanted to after he resigned in disgrace, when he planned to destroy recordings that documented steps he and others took in response to the Watergate investigation. The law requires that a president’s records be turned over to the National Archives once he leaves office and that they be made available to the public 12 years later — although certain entities, such as congressional investigators, can obtain them sooner. The act excludes a president’s personal records — identified as those “of a purely private or nonpublic character” — from preservation requirements and grants a president a “high degree of discretion over what materials are to be preserved,” according to the Congressional Research Service. It also provides a process for destroying records that typically includes seeking permission from the archivist of the United States, who may consult with Congress. There is no indication that Trump did so in the cases in question. Trump openly flouted the requirements. The House Oversight Committee has asked the National Archives to provide information regarding its communications with Trump’s team about 15 boxes of White House records discovered at Mar-a-Lago, his residence in Palm Beach, Florida, after he left office. Trump had been loath to return the materials despite repeated efforts by the National Archives to obtain them, and at one point, the agency threatened to send a letter to Congress or the Justice Department if he continued to withhold the boxes, according to a person familiar with private discussions. “If former President Trump was intentionally destroying records or hiding records from the National Archives — where they are legally required to be kept — he must be held accountable,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chair of the oversight panel. Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said it appeared that Trump had violated the Presidential Records Act, given his penchant for ripping up documents. “Any act of unauthorized destruction or unauthorized removal of records is contrary to law,” Aftergood said. The question of Trump’s cellphone use is murkier. The act was written before the invention of email or cellphones, so it does not mention either. But given the purpose of the law — ensuring a complete record of presidential business — some experts believe Trump’s practices violated its spirit, if not its letter. There are few consequences for Trump’s actions under the Presidential Records Act. A flaw some experts see in the Presidential Records Act is its lack of a strong enforcement mechanism. Under the law, the archivist has the “ultimate responsibility” for assuring the preservation and integrity of presidential records, Aftergood said. “But the archives does not have its own police force and doesn’t have much investigative capability to speak of,” he said. “They can ask questions and they can write sternly worded letters. But the response depends on the White House or the president or the agency involved.” Destroying documents could violate other laws. Trump’s practice of ripping up documents could open him to additional criminal exposure, if the destruction of documents were part of an effort to impede an investigation. “There could be liability under an obstruction statute, but the context and the facts would be critical there,” said David H. Laufman, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. “If there’s some intent to destroy documents to preclude a government agency from carrying out its lawful function, there could be a conspiracy to defraud the United States,” Laufman said. But he cautioned that the Justice Department is often reluctant to pursue prosecutions that have no historical precedent, and the agency has never charged a former president with the destruction or removal of records. “In a case involving a former president, the burden should be particularly high for particular conduct that has not been the basis of prior enforcement action,” Laufman said. Trump could face consequences for his handling of classified information. Criminal codes, which carry jail time, prohibit conduct that “willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States” or “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys” government documents. Samuel Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty in 2015 to a misdemeanor charge for removing classified material from a government archive. Presidents have the power to decide what is classified and what is not — but only while they are in office. “That could present a complicating factor for prosecutors in evaluating their likely success if they were to charge him or others with a crime,” Laufman said.

Trump flouted Presidential Records Law. Will he face consequences?

A North Korean defector has been indicted on charges of breaking a South Korean law banning the spread of propaganda leaflets along the inter-Korean border, prosecutors and attorneys said Friday.

Park Sang Hak is the first person to be indicted under the new law, which critics say puts a policy of engagement with North Korea above human rights.

For years, Park and others like him have launched balloons into North Korea loaded with propaganda leaflets urging North Koreans to rise up against their authoritarian leader, Kim Jong Un. Under the law, which went into effect last March, sending such leaflets was made a crime punishable by a fine or a prison term of up to three years.

Park defied the ban in April by launching 10 balloons carrying a half million leaflets. The police later raided his office and interrogated him. In July, they formally asked prosecutors to indict Park under the law, which President Moon Jae-in has vowed to strictly enforce.

Lee Hun, Park’s attorney, said Friday that he received a formal notice from prosecutors that Park had been indicted Wednesday on charges of “attempting” to send the leaflets because investigators lacked evidence that the leaflets actually landed in the North.

A remnant from the Cold War, the leaflets have created tensions not only between the two Koreas but also between North Korean human rights activists and Moon’s government.

North Korea has called the leaflets an “intolerable provocation.” Moon’s government​ sponsored the new law after accusing activists of provoking the North unnecessarily.

The president’s conservative critics accused him of suppressing freedom of speech ​and aiding Kim’s totalitarian regime “at​ ​North Korea’s behest​.”

Lee said he planned to take the case to the Constitutional Court and ask it to overturn the law.

“If an evil law is a law, send me to prison!” Park said Friday. “Even if they send me to prison, my colleagues will continue to send leaflets​.”

After Park launched the leaflets in April, Kim’s sister and spokesperson, Kim Yo Jong, called him “dirty human scum” and warned of “consequences.”

About 33,800 North Koreans have fled to South Korea since the 1990s. Park, who fled in 1999, has stood out for his highly public campaign supporting North Korean human rights, although critics consider him theatrical.

His group, Fighters For Free North Korea, calls the ruling Kim family in Pyongyang womanizers and “dictatorial pigs,” and burns them in effigy during outdoor rallies in South Korea. Its leaflets also call Kim a “human butcher” who killed his uncle and half brother.

There has been no credible study on how many North Koreans read or react to the propaganda leaflets. Analysts say that leaflets are not as effective as radio broadcasts and flash drives smuggled across the Chinese border. But launching leaflets is perhaps the activists’ most visible campaign tactic.

Park has often invited media to his balloon-launching ceremonies, where the large hydrogen balloons waft across the world’s most heavily armed border. Once in North Korea, timer devices click, unfastening vinyl bundles. Leaflets, dollar bills, mini-Bibles and USB drives chock-full of content banned in the North fall out of the sky like snowflakes.

Kim keeps his people under a total information blackout in North Korea, blocking the internet and making sure all radio and TV sets receive his government’s propaganda broadcasts only. The government in Seoul said the balloons endanger people living on both sides of the border.

In 2014, the North Korean military fired shells at balloons drifting across the border, but instead hit South Korean villages, prompting the South to return fire.

In a poll taken last May, 51% of the respondents in South Korea supported the new ban, while 37% said it violated freedom of speech. Among those living close to the border, the support rate was 57-60%. Cities and provinces near the border have also called for Park’s punishment.

When North Korea blew up in 2020 a liaison office on its side of the border where officials from both Koreas had worked together, it cited South Korea’s failure to implement an agreement banning leaflets and other propaganda warfare as the impetus. Moon’s government accelerated its efforts to push the anti-leaflet bill through Parliament after the liaison office was destroyed.

South Korea’s conservative opposition has noted a jarring contrast between Moon’s crackdown on leaflets and his restrained response when North Korea killed a South Korean fisheries official or when the country likened Moon to a “parrot” and “mongrel dog” that followed orders from the United States.

“President Moon seems to believe that the only way to keep peace on the Korean Peninsula is to do nothing that will disturb the Kim brother and sister in the North,” said Tae Yong-ho, a former North Korean diplomat who is now an opposition lawmaker in Seoul.

Park, who is set to go to trial in the coming weeks for violating the leaflet ban, has some harsh critics of his own, many of whom are also North Korean human rights activists.

Lee Min-bok, another defector from North Korea, criticized not only the law but also Park, who he said jeopardized the entire balloon campaign by provoking both governments.

Lee started sending leaflets in 2006, before Park, and favored low-key operations that didn’t attract media attention. He launched leaflets that focused on providing news from outside North Korea, rather than criticizing the Kim regime.

“The extremely provocative language in Park Sang-hak’s leaflets has nothing to do with promoting North Korean human rights, but is tailored to please conservatives and provoke progressives in the South,” Lee said. “He wants to become a hero by going to prison for fighting this law.”

Park’s legal troubles precede Friday’s indictment. He is also on trial for breaking a law on collecting donations. In August, he was given a suspended eight-month prison term for beating a South Korean TV reporter who showed up at his home for an interview request.

Park has denied the allegations against him and dismissed his critics as “snakes” and “hypocrites.” He often points to an incident in 2011, when a man was arrested in South Korea on a charge of plotting to assassinate him with a poison needle at North Korea’s request.

“Kim Jong Un wants to kill me, and President Moon wants to send me to prison,” Park told reporters in May. “But they cannot stop us from telling facts and truth.”

A North Korean defector has been indicted on charges of breaking a South Korean law banning the spread of propaganda leaflets along the inter-Korean border, prosecutors and attorneys said Friday.

A North Korean defector has been indicted on charges of breaking a South Korean law banning the spread of propaganda leaflets along the inter-Korean border, prosecutors and attorneys said Friday. Park Sang Hak is the first person to be indicted under the new law, which critics say puts a policy of engagement with North Korea above human rights. For years, Park and others like him have launched balloons into North Korea loaded with propaganda leaflets urging North Koreans to rise up against their authoritarian leader, Kim Jong Un. Under the law, which went into effect last March, sending such leaflets was made a crime punishable by a fine or a prison term of up to three years. Park defied the ban in April by launching 10 balloons carrying a half million leaflets. The police later raided his office and interrogated him. In July, they formally asked prosecutors to indict Park under the law, which President Moon Jae-in has vowed to strictly enforce. Lee Hun, Park’s attorney, said Friday that he received a formal notice from prosecutors that Park had been indicted Wednesday on charges of “attempting” to send the leaflets because investigators lacked evidence that the leaflets actually landed in the North. A remnant from the Cold War, the leaflets have created tensions not only between the two Koreas but also between North Korean human rights activists and Moon’s government. North Korea has called the leaflets an “intolerable provocation.” Moon’s government sponsored the new law after accusing activists of provoking the North unnecessarily. The president’s conservative critics accused him of suppressing freedom of speech and aiding Kim’s totalitarian regime “at North Korea’s behest.” Lee said he planned to take the case to the Constitutional Court and ask it to overturn the law. “If an evil law is a law, send me to prison!” Park said Friday. “Even if they send me to prison, my colleagues will continue to send leaflets.” After Park launched the leaflets in April, Kim’s sister and spokesperson, Kim Yo Jong, called him “dirty human scum” and warned of “consequences.” About 33,800 North Koreans have fled to South Korea since the 1990s. Park, who fled in 1999, has stood out for his highly public campaign supporting North Korean human rights, although critics consider him theatrical. His group, Fighters For Free North Korea, calls the ruling Kim family in Pyongyang womanizers and “dictatorial pigs,” and burns them in effigy during outdoor rallies in South Korea. Its leaflets also call Kim a “human butcher” who killed his uncle and half brother. There has been no credible study on how many North Koreans read or react to the propaganda leaflets. Analysts say that leaflets are not as effective as radio broadcasts and flash drives smuggled across the Chinese border. But launching leaflets is perhaps the activists’ most visible campaign tactic. Park has often invited media to his balloon-launching ceremonies, where the large hydrogen balloons waft across the world’s most heavily armed border. Once in North Korea, timer devices click, unfastening vinyl bundles. Leaflets, dollar bills, mini-Bibles and USB drives chock-full of content banned in the North fall out of the sky like snowflakes. Kim keeps his people under a total information blackout in North Korea, blocking the internet and making sure all radio and TV sets receive his government’s propaganda broadcasts only. The government in Seoul said the balloons endanger people living on both sides of the border. In 2014, the North Korean military fired shells at balloons drifting across the border, but instead hit South Korean villages, prompting the South to return fire. In a poll taken last May, 51% of the respondents in South Korea supported the new ban, while 37% said it violated freedom of speech. Among those living close to the border, the support rate was 57-60%. Cities and provinces near the border have also called for Park’s punishment. When North Korea blew up in 2020 a liaison office on its side of the border where officials from both Koreas had worked together, it cited South Korea’s failure to implement an agreement banning leaflets and other propaganda warfare as the impetus. Moon’s government accelerated its efforts to push the anti-leaflet bill through Parliament after the liaison office was destroyed. South Korea’s conservative opposition has noted a jarring contrast between Moon’s crackdown on leaflets and his restrained response when North Korea killed a South Korean fisheries official or when the country likened Moon to a “parrot” and “mongrel dog” that followed orders from the United States. “President Moon seems to believe that the only way to keep peace on the Korean Peninsula is to do nothing that will disturb the Kim brother and sister in the North,” said Tae Yong-ho, a former North Korean diplomat who is now an opposition lawmaker in Seoul. Park, who is set to go to trial in the coming weeks for violating the leaflet ban, has some harsh critics of his own, many of whom are also North Korean human rights activists. Lee Min-bok, another defector from North Korea, criticized not only the law but also Park, who he said jeopardized the entire balloon campaign by provoking both governments. Lee started sending leaflets in 2006, before Park, and favored low-key operations that didn’t attract media attention. He launched leaflets that focused on providing news from outside North Korea, rather than criticizing the Kim regime. “The extremely provocative language in Park Sang-hak’s leaflets has nothing to do with promoting North Korean human rights, but is tailored to please conservatives and provoke progressives in the South,” Lee said. “He wants to become a hero by going to prison for fighting this law.” Park’s legal troubles precede Friday’s indictment. He is also on trial for breaking a law on collecting donations. In August, he was given a suspended eight-month prison term for beating a South Korean TV reporter who showed up at his home for an interview request. Park has denied the allegations against him and dismissed his critics as “snakes” and “hypocrites.” He often points to an incident in 2011, when a man was arrested in South Korea on a charge of plotting to assassinate him with a poison needle at North Korea’s request. “Kim Jong Un wants to kill me, and President Moon wants to send me to prison,” Park told reporters in May. “But they cannot stop us from telling facts and truth.”

Fiery North Korean defector charged under new propaganda law

If you want to know why our politics are so awful, check out our recent public debates about abortion.

Everybody is sensing where the Supreme Court seems to be heading on Roe v. Wade. But as our politics have grown coarser and more combative, a lot of conservatives aren’t even acknowledging the problems that have always made this issue so hard. For example: How do we show proper respect and deference to women who become pregnant in terrible circumstances? How do we respect women who say: “This is not abstract. This is my body and my private concern?” What would it look like to ban abortion in places where vast majorities do not believe that life begins at conception? Many conservatives focus on the fetus to the exclusion of all else.

A lot of the progressive commentary, on the other hand, won’t recognize the fetus at all. Over the past day or two I’ve seen progressives refer to abortion as just health care for women, or an entirely private decision about what a woman does with her body. A lot of progressives talk about abortion as if it couldn’t possibly be a termination of a human life.

Especially now, in the post-Trump degradation of public life, politicos, propagandists and activists on this issue elide the hard and complex issues in order to powerfully advocate their side. And that’s what we see on issue after issue. The armies of certitude march forth and dominate debate and politics. The rest of us, hampered by ambivalence, hang back. We live in a democracy in which the majority often does not rule.

For a professional pundit, I’ve written remarkably little on abortion because I am so torn. For most of my life I’ve considered myself pro-choice because I didn’t have any confidence that I knew when life began and didn’t want to impose my views on others. But like many people, my life has intersected with the issue.

When I was about 19 a friend came home from college and realized she was pregnant, she asked me to accompany her through the abortion process, which I did. My progressive milieu did not prepare me for the moral and emotional anguish she endured before and especially after the abortion. I realized how grave an issue this was, and with what humility it must be addressed.

Then, there came the science. Like a lot of people, I’ve been influenced by the sonograms, and the way they show a human form at the early fetal stages.

I’ve read my share of books about human development, and my takeaway is that things are happening a lot earlier in the womb than we used to think. By 20 or 21 weeks, before what has been considered viability, the fetus is possibly moving, sucking its thumb, moving its eyes, hearing sounds. A female fetus has eggs of her own. These are sobering realities.

Then there are miscarriages. I have watched so many grieve over miscarriages. I’ve grieved myself. It doesn’t feel like the loss of some cells, but of life.

Experience and the moral sentiments that derive from it have moved me many notches over toward the anti-abortion position. Does that mean I know when life begins? That no longer seems like the right question. I’ve come to believe that all human beings have some piece of themselves that has no size, shape, color or weight but gives them infinite value and dignity, and it is their soul. To me the crucial question is when does a living organism become a human soul. My intuition is that it’s not a moment, but a process — a process shrouded in divine mystery.

This leaves me in a humdrum political position, I’m afraid — with the roughly half of Americans who want to restrict abortion in some circumstances, but — perhaps because they feel it would be unworkable or wrong — don’t want to ban it totally. Third- and some second-trimester abortions seem increasingly wrong to me, except in extraordinary circumstances. But the first trimester? I don’t know, and therefore I’d defer to each woman’s conscience.

Given where the Supreme Court seems to be heading, I’d sign onto the compromise position that Claremont McKenna professor Jon A. Shields sketched out in these pages in October, which could involve tightening restrictions on abortion after the first trimester.

I guess that means I’m rooting for John Roberts in the current deliberations over Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. He has signaled that he’s open to exploring whether the court could uphold Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks, but not overturn Roe and allow states to enact total or near-total bans. But he may be in a minority of one.

I used to support overturning Roe because I thought it would be healthy to get the abortion issue out of the courts and back to state legislatures. I used to think that most states would wind up where the nation’s center of gravity is — with restrictions but not bans.

But we’re now trying to deal with a miserably complex issue in a brutalized political culture. Majorities don’t rule in this country; polarized minorities do. The evidence this week is that the post-Roe politics would make even our current politics seem tame. I’m not sure our democracy is strong enough for that.

If you want to know why our politics are so awful, check out our recent public debates about abortion. Everybody is sensing where the Supreme Court seems to be heading on Roe v.

If you want to know why our politics are so awful, check out our recent public debates about abortion. Everybody is sensing where the Supreme Court seems to be heading on Roe v. Wade. But as our politics have grown coarser and more combative, a lot of conservatives aren’t even acknowledging the problems that have always made this issue so hard. For example: How do we show proper respect and deference to women who become pregnant in terrible circumstances? How do we respect women who say: “This is not abstract. This is my body and my private concern?” What would it look like to ban abortion in places where vast majorities do not believe that life begins at conception? Many conservatives focus on the fetus to the exclusion of all else. A lot of the progressive commentary, on the other hand, won’t recognize the fetus at all. Over the past day or two I’ve seen progressives refer to abortion as just health care for women, or an entirely private decision about what a woman does with her body. A lot of progressives talk about abortion as if it couldn’t possibly be a termination of a human life. Especially now, in the post-Trump degradation of public life, politicos, propagandists and activists on this issue elide the hard and complex issues in order to powerfully advocate their side. And that’s what we see on issue after issue. The armies of certitude march forth and dominate debate and politics. The rest of us, hampered by ambivalence, hang back. We live in a democracy in which the majority often does not rule. For a professional pundit, I’ve written remarkably little on abortion because I am so torn. For most of my life I’ve considered myself pro-choice because I didn’t have any confidence that I knew when life began and didn’t want to impose my views on others. But like many people, my life has intersected with the issue. When I was about 19 a friend came home from college and realized she was pregnant, she asked me to accompany her through the abortion process, which I did. My progressive milieu did not prepare me for the moral and emotional anguish she endured before and especially after the abortion. I realized how grave an issue this was, and with what humility it must be addressed. Then, there came the science. Like a lot of people, I’ve been influenced by the sonograms, and the way they show a human form at the early fetal stages. I’ve read my share of books about human development, and my takeaway is that things are happening a lot earlier in the womb than we used to think. By 20 or 21 weeks, before what has been considered viability, the fetus is possibly moving, sucking its thumb, moving its eyes, hearing sounds. A female fetus has eggs of her own. These are sobering realities. Then there are miscarriages. I have watched so many grieve over miscarriages. I’ve grieved myself. It doesn’t feel like the loss of some cells, but of life. Experience and the moral sentiments that derive from it have moved me many notches over toward the anti-abortion position. Does that mean I know when life begins? That no longer seems like the right question. I’ve come to believe that all human beings have some piece of themselves that has no size, shape, color or weight but gives them infinite value and dignity, and it is their soul. To me the crucial question is when does a living organism become a human soul. My intuition is that it’s not a moment, but a process — a process shrouded in divine mystery. This leaves me in a humdrum political position, I’m afraid — with the roughly half of Americans who want to restrict abortion in some circumstances, but — perhaps because they feel it would be unworkable or wrong — don’t want to ban it totally. Third- and some second-trimester abortions seem increasingly wrong to me, except in extraordinary circumstances. But the first trimester? I don’t know, and therefore I’d defer to each woman’s conscience. Given where the Supreme Court seems to be heading, I’d sign onto the compromise position that Claremont McKenna professor Jon A. Shields sketched out in these pages in October, which could involve tightening restrictions on abortion after the first trimester. I guess that means I’m rooting for John Roberts in the current deliberations over Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. He has signaled that he’s open to exploring whether the court could uphold Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks, but not overturn Roe and allow states to enact total or near-total bans. But he may be in a minority of one. I used to support overturning Roe because I thought it would be healthy to get the abortion issue out of the courts and back to state legislatures. I used to think that most states would wind up where the nation’s center of gravity is — with restrictions but not bans. But we’re now trying to deal with a miserably complex issue in a brutalized political culture. Majorities don’t rule in this country; polarized minorities do. The evidence this week is that the post-Roe politics would make even our current politics seem tame. I’m not sure our democracy is strong enough for that.

Abortion: The voice of the ambivalent majority

In what is being termed as the largest legislative reform in its history, the United Arab Emirates has updated its law. This comes in as a move to further develop the legislative system.&nbsp;

Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE has approved these reforms to strengthen economic and commercial opportunities, enhance social stability, and ensure the rights of individuals, as well as&nbsp;institutions.&nbsp; 
 
During the "Year of the 50th," new laws and legislative changes were drafted to keep up with the UAE's developmental accomplishments and represent the country's future goals.

The reforms encompass more than 40 laws, making them the greatest legislative reform in the young nation's 50-year history.&nbsp;

One of the most important provisions introduced is that the law is applied to anyone who commits, or participates in, a premeditated murder that occurs against a citizen of the UAE, even if the crime takes place outside the country.

Also, the law aims to enhance community protection from a set of online crimes. The main aim is to combat the spread of rumours and ‘fake news’, and preserve personal privacy and rights.

The law includes various provisions related to fake news and misleading information. It gives courts the power to confiscate devices, software, content.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-praises-south-africa-for-quick-transparent-reporting-of-new-covid-variant-omicron-432491">Also read |&nbsp;US praises South Africa for quick, transparent reporting of new Covid variant Omicron</a>

The new law addresses online false advertising and promotions. This also includes unlicensed trading in crypto-currencies and medical products and supplements.

The new law prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages in a public place or in unlicensed locations. Also, it prohibits the sale, provision or incitement or inducement to consume alcoholic beverages to any person below 21 years of age.

The new law addresses the crime of indecent assault with imprisonment or a fine starting from Dh 10,000. If there has been the use of force, the penalty shall be imprisonment for a period of at least five years and not exceeding 20 twenty years.

The new legislative changes came into being after there were intensive discussions at both the local and federal levels. Teams of 540 specialists and experts from 50 federal and local authorities have worked together over the past five months.&nbsp;

The new legislation will be enacted from January 2, 2022.&nbsp; 
 
Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/new-criminal-code-to-come-into-force-in-united-arab-emirates-432618/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

(With inputs from agencies)

In what is being termed as the largest legislative reform in its history, the United Arab Emirates has updated its law. This comes in as a move to further develop the legislative system.

In what is being termed as the largest legislative reform in its history, the United Arab Emirates has updated its law. This comes in as a move to further develop the legislative system. Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE has approved these reforms to strengthen economic and commercial opportunities, enhance social stability, and ensure the rights of individuals, as well as institutions. During the "Year of the 50th," new laws and legislative changes were drafted to keep up with the UAE's developmental accomplishments and represent the country's future goals. The reforms encompass more than 40 laws, making them the greatest legislative reform in the young nation's 50-year history. One of the most important provisions introduced is that the law is applied to anyone who commits, or participates in, a premeditated murder that occurs against a citizen of the UAE, even if the crime takes place outside the country. Also, the law aims to enhance community protection from a set of online crimes. The main aim is to combat the spread of rumours and ‘fake news’, and preserve personal privacy and rights. The law includes various provisions related to fake news and misleading information. It gives courts the power to confiscate devices, software, content. Also read | US praises South Africa for quick, transparent reporting of new Covid variant Omicron The new law addresses online false advertising and promotions. This also includes unlicensed trading in crypto-currencies and medical products and supplements. The new law prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages in a public place or in unlicensed locations. Also, it prohibits the sale, provision or incitement or inducement to consume alcoholic beverages to any person below 21 years of age. The new law addresses the crime of indecent assault with imprisonment or a fine starting from Dh 10,000. If there has been the use of force, the penalty shall be imprisonment for a period of at least five years and not exceeding 20 twenty years. The new legislative changes came into being after there were intensive discussions at both the local and federal levels. Teams of 540 specialists and experts from 50 federal and local authorities have worked together over the past five months. The new legislation will be enacted from January 2, 2022. Watch: (With inputs from agencies)

In a move to develop the legislative system, UAE adopts largest legal reform in its 50-year history

One major disadvantage of social media is that it allows massive trolling based on anonymity, hampering the mental health of many people. However, now many countries are introducing laws that will allow breaking the barrier of anonymity, thus stopping online trolling.

The Australian government has been examining new legislation to tackle the problem of online trolls. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced that under the new law, social media giants will be required to provide details of users who post defamatory comments.

"The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people," Morrison said at a press briefing.

He added, "That is not what can happen in the real world, and there is no case for it to be able to be happening in the digital world."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/uks-online-safety-bill-internet-trolls-could-face-two-years-in-prison-for-psychological-harm-426045">Also read |&nbsp;UK's online safety bill: Internet trolls could face two years in prison for psychological harm</a>

'Complaints mechanism,' will be a major highlight of the new legislation. This means if somebody thinks that they have been defamed or bullied on any social media platform, they will be able to require the platform to take the material down.

Digital platforms,&nbsp;these online companies, must have proper processes to enable the takedown of this content," Morrison said.

"They have created the space and they need to make it safe, and if they won't, we will make them (through) laws such as this."

Social media giants will also be required to set up online customer shopfronts in Australia. This will ensure that they comply with orders as part of the measures.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, the British government examined new legislation to tackle online abuse, as internet "trolls" might face two years in prison for words or material that cause "psychological injury."&nbsp;

This was a result of high-profile internet abuse cases involving sports journalists and Premier League sportsmen. The Department for Culture, Media and Sports then adopted suggestions from the Law Commission to base offences on "probable psychological injury."&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

One major disadvantage of social media is that it allows massive trolling based on anonymity, hampering the mental health of many people. However, now many countries are introducing laws that will allow breaking the barrier of anonymity, thus stopping online trolling.

One major disadvantage of social media is that it allows massive trolling based on anonymity, hampering the mental health of many people. However, now many countries are introducing laws that will allow breaking the barrier of anonymity, thus stopping online trolling. The Australian government has been examining new legislation to tackle the problem of online trolls. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced that under the new law, social media giants will be required to provide details of users who post defamatory comments. "The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people," Morrison said at a press briefing. He added, "That is not what can happen in the real world, and there is no case for it to be able to be happening in the digital world." Also read | UK's online safety bill: Internet trolls could face two years in prison for psychological harm 'Complaints mechanism,' will be a major highlight of the new legislation. This means if somebody thinks that they have been defamed or bullied on any social media platform, they will be able to require the platform to take the material down. Digital platforms, these online companies, must have proper processes to enable the takedown of this content," Morrison said. "They have created the space and they need to make it safe, and if they won't, we will make them (through) laws such as this." Social media giants will also be required to set up online customer shopfronts in Australia. This will ensure that they comply with orders as part of the measures. Meanwhile, earlier this month, the British government examined new legislation to tackle online abuse, as internet "trolls" might face two years in prison for words or material that cause "psychological injury." This was a result of high-profile internet abuse cases involving sports journalists and Premier League sportsmen. The Department for Culture, Media and Sports then adopted suggestions from the Law Commission to base offences on "probable psychological injury." (With inputs from agencies)

In a bid to get rid of anonymous trolls, Australia to come up with new laws

India’s Bimal Patel, who has been elected to the UN’s International Law Commission, has called for regional voices from Africa and Asia in the international law-making process.

Professor Patel, who is also the vice-chancellor of Rashtriya Raksha University, Gujarat, and a member of the 21st Law Commission of India, has been elected for 5 years, starting from January 1, 2023.

Speaking exclusively to WION's diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, Patel said, “Until and unless due importance to regional voices, be it, Africa, Asia, are not given in the international law making process, the laws can hardly have any appeal or the utility to the international community as a whole."

He got overwhelming support during the election, with 163 votes in 192 members present and voting. India topped in the Asia Pacific group.

International&nbsp;Law Commission, which holds its session in Geneva, has 34 member countries. The commission deals with the codification of international law. Laws like the Rome statute, and UNCLOS owe their origin to the proposals by the commission.&nbsp;

WION: Your first reaction to you being elected to the international law commission?

Patel: It is my great pleasure and honour. I thank our honourable PM (Modi), Home Minister (Amit Shah), External Affairs Minister (S Jaishankar) and the entire ministry for having faith in me and for their efforts in securing the highest votes for India for the term 2023-2027. It is a matter of great pride. I would like to live up to the expectations of the country with utmost sincerity, hard work and commitment.&nbsp;

WION: You met the leadership in Delhi. What was their message to you?

Patel:&nbsp;There is a huge revival and importance of international law. The international law is not just for development, but also for security, and in some cases important to the very survival of nation-states. So, international law has never received so much importance as of now especially in India, which is increasing its quality footprint in terms of brining a global voice, not just for India but also in similarly situated countries. To develop international law as a common language to resolve a number of problems and forge international cooperation and friendship, thereby the Ministry of External Affairs and the country is looking forward as to what international law has for the country and how international law can become a vehicle for cooperation and friendship.

WION: Can you tell us a bit about the importance of the commission?

Patel:&nbsp;International Law Commission (ILC) is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations General Assembly. Thirty-four members are elected every 5 years for a term 5-year term. The main aim of the commission is to study the codification of international law and progressive development of international law. The international law commission studies and proposes to the General Assembly and to the UN member states what the new legal instruments should look like--treaty, resolution or simply report. Depending on the requirement of the international community an independent expert body proposes to the UN member how legal instruments will directly benefit the member states in future while promoting UN charter and aims. The ILC holds great importance in international law making, execution and interpretation. By studying the concerns of member states, we bring the needs, interests and concerns to the ILC, and to UNGA. ILC is one of the prestigious and significant conventions. The UNCLOS, which we call as the constitution of the ocean, was very much the work of the International Law Commission.

WION: What does India brings to the table here at the ILC

Patel: India brings a unique perspective as one of the most important and principal legal systems. This combination of legal system and oldest civilization, if we look at the entire south Asian sub-continent, it brings the convention, the treaties and norms that evolved in practices and all the countries in South Asia hold importance in the international law making. I must emphasise that while I was interacting with delegates in New York for the elections, our honourable PM's vision of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (whole world is one family) has been actualized by people at the International Law Commission. And PM's vision of ‘Sabka Sath Sabka Vikas’ (everyone's support, everyone's development), the pandemic has made us realise the importance of this mantra. I will try to put forward these mantras given PM at the ILC. Until and unless, due importance is not given to regional voices like Africa, Asia in the international law making process, international law can hardly ever have the appeal or the utility to the international community as a whole. Therefore, I believe international law has never received such an unprecedented importance, and as a member of ILC, I am duty-bound to bring the regional voices into the functioning of the International Law Commission.&nbsp;

WION: What is the future of international law, particularly in new sectors like cryptocurrency?

Patel:&nbsp;Yes, in all these newly emerging sectors, like cryptocurrency, it has direct importance. We are talking of an investor and the state’s arbitration powers. Like the pandemic, we never expected a medical health issue to occupy such an importance in the international legal community. The same is the case with cyber security and data privacy, the responsibility of international organizations is immense. So, these are the new areas where we believe international law can have a significant influence, similar to the ones like the WHO. We will be working with sector-specific organizations to make sure that sectoral inputs get fine-tuned and translated into the development of international legal product and guide the member states as to how they should conduct themselves in resolving or framing issues.

India’s Bimal Patel, who has been elected to the UN’s International Law Commission, has called for regional voices from Africa and Asia in the international law-making process.

India’s Bimal Patel, who has been elected to the UN’s International Law Commission, has called for regional voices from Africa and Asia in the international law-making process. Professor Patel, who is also the vice-chancellor of Rashtriya Raksha University, Gujarat, and a member of the 21st Law Commission of India, has been elected for 5 years, starting from January 1, 2023. Speaking exclusively to WION's diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, Patel said, “Until and unless due importance to regional voices, be it, Africa, Asia, are not given in the international law making process, the laws can hardly have any appeal or the utility to the international community as a whole." He got overwhelming support during the election, with 163 votes in 192 members present and voting. India topped in the Asia Pacific group. International Law Commission, which holds its session in Geneva, has 34 member countries. The commission deals with the codification of international law. Laws like the Rome statute, and UNCLOS owe their origin to the proposals by the commission. WION: Your first reaction to you being elected to the international law commission? Patel: It is my great pleasure and honour. I thank our honourable PM (Modi), Home Minister (Amit Shah), External Affairs Minister (S Jaishankar) and the entire ministry for having faith in me and for their efforts in securing the highest votes for India for the term 2023-2027. It is a matter of great pride. I would like to live up to the expectations of the country with utmost sincerity, hard work and commitment. WION: You met the leadership in Delhi. What was their message to you? Patel: There is a huge revival and importance of international law. The international law is not just for development, but also for security, and in some cases important to the very survival of nation-states. So, international law has never received so much importance as of now especially in India, which is increasing its quality footprint in terms of brining a global voice, not just for India but also in similarly situated countries. To develop international law as a common language to resolve a number of problems and forge international cooperation and friendship, thereby the Ministry of External Affairs and the country is looking forward as to what international law has for the country and how international law can become a vehicle for cooperation and friendship. WION: Can you tell us a bit about the importance of the commission? Patel: International Law Commission (ILC) is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations General Assembly. Thirty-four members are elected every 5 years for a term 5-year term. The main aim of the commission is to study the codification of international law and progressive development of international law. The international law commission studies and proposes to the General Assembly and to the UN member states what the new legal instruments should look like--treaty, resolution or simply report. Depending on the requirement of the international community an independent expert body proposes to the UN member how legal instruments will directly benefit the member states in future while promoting UN charter and aims. The ILC holds great importance in international law making, execution and interpretation. By studying the concerns of member states, we bring the needs, interests and concerns to the ILC, and to UNGA. ILC is one of the prestigious and significant conventions. The UNCLOS, which we call as the constitution of the ocean, was very much the work of the International Law Commission. WION: What does India brings to the table here at the ILC Patel: India brings a unique perspective as one of the most important and principal legal systems. This combination of legal system and oldest civilization, if we look at the entire south Asian sub-continent, it brings the convention, the treaties and norms that evolved in practices and all the countries in South Asia hold importance in the international law making. I must emphasise that while I was interacting with delegates in New York for the elections, our honourable PM's vision of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (whole world is one family) has been actualized by people at the International Law Commission. And PM's vision of ‘Sabka Sath Sabka Vikas’ (everyone's support, everyone's development), the pandemic has made us realise the importance of this mantra. I will try to put forward these mantras given PM at the ILC. Until and unless, due importance is not given to regional voices like Africa, Asia in the international law making process, international law can hardly ever have the appeal or the utility to the international community as a whole. Therefore, I believe international law has never received such an unprecedented importance, and as a member of ILC, I am duty-bound to bring the regional voices into the functioning of the International Law Commission. WION: What is the future of international law, particularly in new sectors like cryptocurrency? Patel: Yes, in all these newly emerging sectors, like cryptocurrency, it has direct importance. We are talking of an investor and the state’s arbitration powers. Like the pandemic, we never expected a medical health issue to occupy such an importance in the international legal community. The same is the case with cyber security and data privacy, the responsibility of international organizations is immense. So, these are the new areas where we believe international law can have a significant influence, similar to the ones like the WHO. We will be working with sector-specific organizations to make sure that sectoral inputs get fine-tuned and translated into the development of international legal product and guide the member states as to how they should conduct themselves in resolving or framing issues.

Exclusive: Need Asian, African voices to be heard at international law making process, says Prof Bimal Patel

A new law has come up in Abu Dhabi concerning the family matters for non-Muslims, which includes marriage, divorce and inheritance. &nbsp;

UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in his capacity as ruler of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, on Sunday issued a new law to regulate personal status for non-Muslims in the jurisdiction. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israeli-foreign-minister-distances-government-from-blacklisted-nso-group-427318" hreflang="en">Israeli foreign minister distances government from blacklisted NSO Group</a>

This law has been enacted to provide a flexible and advanced judicial mechanism for the determination of personal status disputes for non-Muslims. &nbsp;

The AD Judicial Department has established the first court, which is dedicated to non-Muslim family matters. The procedures of the new court will be bilingual, ie in Arabic and English, to facilitate the understanding of judicial procedures by foreigners and to improve judicial transparency. &nbsp;

The new law consists of 20 articles, which are divided into several chapters, covering divorce, civil marriage, joint custody of children and inheritance. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iraqi-prime-minister-escapes-assassination-attempt-after-explosive-laden-drone-targets-his-house-427315" hreflang="en">Iraqi Prime Minister escapes assassination attempt after explosive-laden drone targets his house</a>

The law will enhance the emirate's position and global competitiveness as one of the most attractive destinations for talent and skills. &nbsp;

Youssef Saeed Al Abri, Undersecretary, Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (ADJD), noted that the new legislation is the first of its kind in the world as it deals with the smallest details regarding non-Muslim family life. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

A new law has come up in Abu Dhabi concerning the family matters for non-Muslims, which includes marriage, divorce and inheritance. UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in his capacity as ruler of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, on Sunday issued a new law to regulate personal status for non-Muslims in the jurisdiction.

A new law has come up in Abu Dhabi concerning the family matters for non-Muslims, which includes marriage, divorce and inheritance. UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in his capacity as ruler of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, on Sunday issued a new law to regulate personal status for non-Muslims in the jurisdiction. Also Read: Israeli foreign minister distances government from blacklisted NSO Group This law has been enacted to provide a flexible and advanced judicial mechanism for the determination of personal status disputes for non-Muslims. The AD Judicial Department has established the first court, which is dedicated to non-Muslim family matters. The procedures of the new court will be bilingual, ie in Arabic and English, to facilitate the understanding of judicial procedures by foreigners and to improve judicial transparency. The new law consists of 20 articles, which are divided into several chapters, covering divorce, civil marriage, joint custody of children and inheritance. Also Read: Iraqi Prime Minister escapes assassination attempt after explosive-laden drone targets his house The law will enhance the emirate's position and global competitiveness as one of the most attractive destinations for talent and skills. Youssef Saeed Al Abri, Undersecretary, Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (ADJD), noted that the new legislation is the first of its kind in the world as it deals with the smallest details regarding non-Muslim family life. (With inputs from agencies)

For non-Muslims, new personal status law introduced in Abu Dhabi

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state.

That would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in September that allowed the law to go into effect. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in that ruling, asked questions suggesting that they thought the novel structure of the Texas law justified allowing the providers to challenge it.

Kavanaugh said that might amount to closing a loophole. Barrett said the law was structured to prevent the providers from presenting a “full constitutional defence.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/cop26-why-the-world-is-worried-about-china-and-co2-levels-425836">Also read |&nbsp;COP26: Why the world is worried about China and CO2 levels</a>

Such a decision would not conclude the case or address whether the law itself is constitutional. Instead, it would return the case to lower courts for further proceedings. It was, moreover, not clear whether the court would temporarily block the law while the case moved forward if it allowed either the providers or the administration to sue.

The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, was drafted to evade review in federal court, a goal the state has so far achieved. The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks and includes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, has caused clinics in the state to turn away many women seeking the procedure.

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state.

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state. That would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in September that allowed the law to go into effect. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in that ruling, asked questions suggesting that they thought the novel structure of the Texas law justified allowing the providers to challenge it. Kavanaugh said that might amount to closing a loophole. Barrett said the law was structured to prevent the providers from presenting a “full constitutional defence.” Also read | COP26: Why the world is worried about China and CO2 levels Such a decision would not conclude the case or address whether the law itself is constitutional. Instead, it would return the case to lower courts for further proceedings. It was, moreover, not clear whether the court would temporarily block the law while the case moved forward if it allowed either the providers or the administration to sue. The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, was drafted to evade review in federal court, a goal the state has so far achieved. The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks and includes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, has caused clinics in the state to turn away many women seeking the procedure.

Supreme court hints it may allow challenge to Texas abortion law

Amnesty International on Monday said that it will shutter its Hong Kong offices because of the threat posed to staff by a national security law that has led to a sweeping crackdown.

Amnesty International on Monday said that it will shutter its Hong Kong offices because of the threat posed to staff by a national security law that has led to a sweeping crackdown. The decision came the same day as a court in the Chinese city convicted a former food delivery driver of inciting secession by shouting slogans in the second national security case to come to trial. Anjhula Mya Singh Bais, chair of Amnesty's board, said that the decision to close had been made "with a heavy heart" and was "driven by Hong Kong's national security law". "(It) has made it effectively impossible for human rights organisations in Hong Kong to work freely and without fear of serious reprisals from the government," she added. Amnesty maintains two offices in Hong Kong. One is a local branch that focuses on human rights and campaigns in the city. The recent reports included investigations into how the security law has been deployed and studies of the police's use of force against protesters. Also read | Russian cyberattack targeting hundreds of US networks, reveals Microsoft The second office is a regional headquarters that carries out research and advocacy work across East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Amnesty has said the local office would close on October 31 while the regional office would move out "by the end of 2021". Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in June last year that sets out punishment for anything it deems as subversion, secession, colluding with foreign forces and terrorism with up to life in prison, setting the city on a more authoritarian path. Most high-profile democratic politicians and activists have been arrested under the new law or for protest-related charges, or are in self-exile.

'With a heavy heart': Amnesty to shut Hong Kong offices due to security law

With an aim to cut the 'twin pressures' of homework and offsite tutoring in core subjects, China has passed an education law, said the Xinhua news agency on Saturday. &nbsp;

In the new law, local governments are responsible for ensuring that these two pressures are reduced. It also asked the parents to arrange their children's routine in such a manner that they get reasonable rest and exercise, which will help in reducing pressure, said the agency. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-seeks-to-contain-beijing-anger-after-biden-vows-taiwan-defense-423109" hreflang="en">US seeks to contain Beijing anger after Biden vows Taiwan defense</a>

It also looks to curb overuse of the internet. The law has not been published in full. &nbsp; &nbsp;

China seems to be making concerted efforts to exercise a more assertive paternal control this year. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Being concerned with heavy academic burden on children, it has also cut back on homework and banned after-school tutoring for subjects during the weekend and holidays. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-warns-slovakia-czech-republic-over-taiwan-minister-visit-423090" hreflang="en">China warns Slovakia, Czech Republic over Taiwan minister visit</a>

Earlier, China's parliament was considering a legislation to punish parents if their young children exhibit "very bad behaviour" or commit crimes. &nbsp;

In the draft of the family education promotion law, guardians will be reprimanded and ordered to go through family education guidance programmes if prosecutors find very bad or criminal behaviour in children under their care. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

With an aim to cut the 'twin pressures' of homework and offsite tutoring in core subjects, China has passed an education law, said the Xinhua news agency on Saturday.

With an aim to cut the 'twin pressures' of homework and offsite tutoring in core subjects, China has passed an education law, said the Xinhua news agency on Saturday. In the new law, local governments are responsible for ensuring that these two pressures are reduced. It also asked the parents to arrange their children's routine in such a manner that they get reasonable rest and exercise, which will help in reducing pressure, said the agency. Also Read: US seeks to contain Beijing anger after Biden vows Taiwan defense It also looks to curb overuse of the internet. The law has not been published in full. China seems to be making concerted efforts to exercise a more assertive paternal control this year. Being concerned with heavy academic burden on children, it has also cut back on homework and banned after-school tutoring for subjects during the weekend and holidays. Also Read: China warns Slovakia, Czech Republic over Taiwan minister visit Earlier, China's parliament was considering a legislation to punish parents if their young children exhibit "very bad behaviour" or commit crimes. In the draft of the family education promotion law, guardians will be reprimanded and ordered to go through family education guidance programmes if prosecutors find very bad or criminal behaviour in children under their care. (With inputs from agencies)

Parental control? China passes law to check students’ 'twin pressures'

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov. 1.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent.

“For the second time, the court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas,” she wrote. “For the second time, the court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.”

But she added she welcomed the court’s decision to hear arguments in the two cases, which will apparently be limited to the procedural question of whether the Texas law, SB 8, is subject to review in federal court given its novel structure.

The court said it would decide this question in the federal government’s appeal: “May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8 from being enforced?”

The court turned down a request from officials in Texas to use the cases to decide whether to overturn the right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-american-neera-tanden-appointed-bidens-staff-secretary-reports-423070">Also read |&nbsp;Indian-American Neera Tanden appointed Biden's staff secretary: Reports</a>

That question is already before the court in a case challenging a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. Roe and other Supreme Court precedents, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The Mississippi case will be argued Dec. 1, a month after the Texas case.

The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, was designed to evade review in federal court.

Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. However, the Texas law, which makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputises private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counsellors, people who help pay for the procedure or drive them to it are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

The Supreme Court’s earlier encounter with the case left the justices bitterly divided.

In an unsigned opinion in that earlier case, the majority cited “complex and novel” procedural obstacles to blocking the law and stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law.

The majority wrote that its ruling “in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.” Officials in Texas have said that providers can challenge the law by violating it, getting sued and asserting the law’s unconstitutionality as part of their defence.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three more liberal members in dissent in the earlier case. All four dissenting justices filed opinions.

“The court’s order is stunning,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent at the time. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

“The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” Sotomayor wrote. “The court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”

Roberts wrote that he would have blocked the law while appeals moved forward.

“The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.”

After the Supreme Court rejected the providers’ request for emergency relief, the Justice Department then filed its own challenge to the law, one that it said was not subject to the procedural barriers the providers had faced.

On Oct. 6, Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court in Austin ruled for the federal government, granting it a preliminary injunction forbidding the state, its officials and private individuals acting in concert with them for enforcing the law.

“That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide,” he wrote. “This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

An injunction was an appropriate response, Pitman wrote, to a law that both violated the Constitution and was designed to evade judicial review.

“Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “the state contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, stayed Pitman’s ruling, reinstating the law. The Justice Department then filed an application asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay.

“SB 8 is plainly unconstitutional under this court’s precedents,” wrote Brian Fletcher, the acting solicitor general. “Texas has not seriously argued otherwise.”

“SB 8 is an affront to the United States’ sovereign interests in maintaining the supremacy of federal law and ensuring that the traditional mechanisms of judicial review endorsed by Congress and this court remain available to challenge unconstitutional state laws,” he wrote.

Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, responded that the federal government was powerless to challenge the state’s abortion law.

“At bottom, the federal government’s complaint is that SB 8 is difficult to effectively enjoin,” Paxton wrote. “But there is no requirement that a state write its laws such that they can be easily enjoined.”

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov.

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov. 1. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent. “For the second time, the court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas,” she wrote. “For the second time, the court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.” But she added she welcomed the court’s decision to hear arguments in the two cases, which will apparently be limited to the procedural question of whether the Texas law, SB 8, is subject to review in federal court given its novel structure. The court said it would decide this question in the federal government’s appeal: “May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8 from being enforced?” The court turned down a request from officials in Texas to use the cases to decide whether to overturn the right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. Also read | Indian-American Neera Tanden appointed Biden's staff secretary: Reports That question is already before the court in a case challenging a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. Roe and other Supreme Court precedents, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The Mississippi case will be argued Dec. 1, a month after the Texas case. The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, was designed to evade review in federal court. Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. However, the Texas law, which makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputises private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it. The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counsellors, people who help pay for the procedure or drive them to it are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees. The Supreme Court’s earlier encounter with the case left the justices bitterly divided. In an unsigned opinion in that earlier case, the majority cited “complex and novel” procedural obstacles to blocking the law and stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law. The majority wrote that its ruling “in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.” Officials in Texas have said that providers can challenge the law by violating it, getting sued and asserting the law’s unconstitutionality as part of their defence. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three more liberal members in dissent in the earlier case. All four dissenting justices filed opinions. “The court’s order is stunning,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent at the time. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.” “The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” Sotomayor wrote. “The court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.” Roberts wrote that he would have blocked the law while appeals moved forward. “The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.” After the Supreme Court rejected the providers’ request for emergency relief, the Justice Department then filed its own challenge to the law, one that it said was not subject to the procedural barriers the providers had faced. On Oct. 6, Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court in Austin ruled for the federal government, granting it a preliminary injunction forbidding the state, its officials and private individuals acting in concert with them for enforcing the law. “That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide,” he wrote. “This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.” An injunction was an appropriate response, Pitman wrote, to a law that both violated the Constitution and was designed to evade judicial review. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “the state contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.” A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, stayed Pitman’s ruling, reinstating the law. The Justice Department then filed an application asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay. “SB 8 is plainly unconstitutional under this court’s precedents,” wrote Brian Fletcher, the acting solicitor general. “Texas has not seriously argued otherwise.” “SB 8 is an affront to the United States’ sovereign interests in maintaining the supremacy of federal law and ensuring that the traditional mechanisms of judicial review endorsed by Congress and this court remain available to challenge unconstitutional state laws,” he wrote. Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, responded that the federal government was powerless to challenge the state’s abortion law. “At bottom, the federal government’s complaint is that SB 8 is difficult to effectively enjoin,” Paxton wrote. “But there is no requirement that a state write its laws such that they can be easily enjoined.”

Supreme Court again refuses to block Texas abortion law

China's parliament will consider legislation to punish parents if their young children exhibit "very bad behaviour" or commit crimes.

In the draft of the family education promotion law, guardians will be reprimanded and ordered to go through family education guidance programmes if prosecutors find very bad or criminal behaviour in children under their care.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/exhausted-chinese-employees-start-worker-lives-matter-campaign-over-grueling-work-hours-421420">Exhausted Chinese employees start 'worker lives matter' campaign over grueling work hours</a>

"There are many reasons for adolescents to misbehave, and the lack of or inappropriate family education is the major cause," said Zang Tiewei, spokesman of the Legislative Affairs Commission under the National People's Congress (NPC).

The draft family education promotion law, which will be reviewed at the NPC Standing Committee session this week, also urges parents to arrange time for their children to rest, play, and exercise.

Beijing has exercised a more assertive paternal hand this year, from tacking the addiction of youngsters to online games, deemed a form of "spiritual opium", to clamping down on "blind" worship of internet celebrities.

In recent months, the education ministry has limited gaming hours for minors, allowing them to play online games for one hour on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday only.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/with-new-hypersonic-missile-test-in-august-china-surprised-us-officials-421414">With new hypersonic missile test in August, China surprised US officials</a>

It has also cut back on homework and banned after-school tutoring for major subjects during the weekend and holidays, concerned about the heavy academic burden on overwhelmed children.

At the same time, China is urging young Chinese men to be less "feminine" and more "manly".

In its "Proposal to Prevent the Feminisation of Male Adolescents" issued in December, the education ministry urged schools to promote on-campus sports such as soccer.

China's parliament will consider legislation to punish parents if their young children exhibit "very bad behaviour" or commit crimes. In the draft of the family education promotion law, guardians will be reprimanded and ordered to go through family education guidance programmes if prosecutors find very bad or criminal behaviour in children under their care.

China's parliament will consider legislation to punish parents if their young children exhibit "very bad behaviour" or commit crimes. In the draft of the family education promotion law, guardians will be reprimanded and ordered to go through family education guidance programmes if prosecutors find very bad or criminal behaviour in children under their care. Also Read | Exhausted Chinese employees start 'worker lives matter' campaign over grueling work hours "There are many reasons for adolescents to misbehave, and the lack of or inappropriate family education is the major cause," said Zang Tiewei, spokesman of the Legislative Affairs Commission under the National People's Congress (NPC). The draft family education promotion law, which will be reviewed at the NPC Standing Committee session this week, also urges parents to arrange time for their children to rest, play, and exercise. Beijing has exercised a more assertive paternal hand this year, from tacking the addiction of youngsters to online games, deemed a form of "spiritual opium", to clamping down on "blind" worship of internet celebrities. In recent months, the education ministry has limited gaming hours for minors, allowing them to play online games for one hour on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday only. Also Read | With new hypersonic missile test in August, China surprised US officials It has also cut back on homework and banned after-school tutoring for major subjects during the weekend and holidays, concerned about the heavy academic burden on overwhelmed children. At the same time, China is urging young Chinese men to be less "feminine" and more "manly". In its "Proposal to Prevent the Feminisation of Male Adolescents" issued in December, the education ministry urged schools to promote on-campus sports such as soccer.

China drafts law to punish parents for children's bad behaviour

Boris Johnson recently infuriated UK Home Secretary Priti Patel by overruling attempts to make public sexual harassment a crime. This has further led to concerns at the Home Office that the Prime Minister views the issue as mere “wolf-whistling”, rather than the aggressive targeting of women and girls.

After he blocked plans to make public sexual harassment a specific offence, there have been reports of tensions between Johnson and Priti Patel.&nbsp;

Last week, Johnson announced that he did not support any new law on tackling violence against women as he claimed that there is “abundant” existing legislation.&nbsp;

The sources believe the prime minister has completely misjudged the public mood as Patel's consultation on tackling violence against women and girls, drew feedback from 180,000 contributors. The majority were sent after the murder of Sarah Everard in March.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/to-safeguard-lone-women-uk-looks-for-walk-me-home-phone-tracker-419503">Also read |&nbsp;To safeguard lone women, UK looks for 'walk me home' phone-tracker</a>

Also, many respondents complained of being hassled daily.

A senior Home Office source, who requested anonymity, was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Trying to bring it down to wolf-whistling is massively problematic. But we’re going to make this happen. People are prepared to put their political capital behind this, and the home secretary is among those very much behind it.”

Another source said the prime minister seemed not to understand the issue.

“Make no mistake, Boris Johnson is the person blocking and holding this back. He seems to be stuck in the past on this issue," the source was quoted by The Guardian.

Boris Johnson recently infuriated UK Home Secretary Priti Patel by overruling attempts to make public sexual harassment a crime. This has further led to concerns at the Home Office that the Prime Minister views the issue as mere “wolf-whistling”, rather than the aggressive targeting of women and girls.

Boris Johnson recently infuriated UK Home Secretary Priti Patel by overruling attempts to make public sexual harassment a crime. This has further led to concerns at the Home Office that the Prime Minister views the issue as mere “wolf-whistling”, rather than the aggressive targeting of women and girls. After he blocked plans to make public sexual harassment a specific offence, there have been reports of tensions between Johnson and Priti Patel. Last week, Johnson announced that he did not support any new law on tackling violence against women as he claimed that there is “abundant” existing legislation. The sources believe the prime minister has completely misjudged the public mood as Patel's consultation on tackling violence against women and girls, drew feedback from 180,000 contributors. The majority were sent after the murder of Sarah Everard in March. Also read | To safeguard lone women, UK looks for 'walk me home' phone-tracker Also, many respondents complained of being hassled daily. A senior Home Office source, who requested anonymity, was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Trying to bring it down to wolf-whistling is massively problematic. But we’re going to make this happen. People are prepared to put their political capital behind this, and the home secretary is among those very much behind it.” Another source said the prime minister seemed not to understand the issue. “Make no mistake, Boris Johnson is the person blocking and holding this back. He seems to be stuck in the past on this issue," the source was quoted by The Guardian.

Priti Patel furious as Boris Johnson blocks public sexual harassment law

President Joe Biden on Friday signed a law providing financial support for victims of mysterious headaches and nausea, suffered by US diplomats, in what has been termed as the "Havana Syndrome."

As per the Havana act, there will be financial compensation for members of the State Department and CIA who suffer brain injury. Dozens of cases have occurred at US embassies around the world, starting with a cluster in Havana, Cuba.&nbsp;

The cause of the illnesses has not been fully diagnosed.

In a statement, Biden said, "I want to thank Congress for passing it with unanimous bipartisan support, sending the clear message that we take care of our own."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/havana-syndrome-strikes-again-what-is-it-exactly-408221">Also read |&nbsp;Havana Syndrome strikes again? What is it exactly?</a>

"Civil servants, intelligence officers, diplomats, and military personnel all around the world have been affected by anomalous health incidents. Some are struggling with debilitating brain injuries that have curtailed their careers of service to our nation," he added.&nbsp;

Republican Senator Susan Collins, who is the lead author of the law, said in a statement that "Havana Syndrome" illnesses have struck more than 40 US staff in Cuba.

A member of CIA Director William Burns' team had similar symptoms in India this month, reports US media. Two US officials in Germany were also among the recent victims and the New Yorker reported that there have been dozens of cases afflicting US officials in Vienna.

The first case was observed in 2016 when a US intelligence agent in the US embassy in Havana complained of vertigo, ear pain, tinnitus. As per a report in Politico, the doctor said that the agent had inner-ear damage likely caused due to the projected energy device.

Since then similar complaints have been reported from US officials in China, Russia and inside the United States.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/financial-aid-to-havana-syndrome-victims-by-biden-government-419391">Watch:&nbsp;Financial aid to Havana Syndrome victims by Biden government</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/financial-aid-to-havana-syndrome-victims-by-biden-government-419391/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

President Joe Biden on Friday signed a law providing financial support for victims of mysterious headaches and nausea, suffered by US diplomats, in what has been termed as the "Havana Syndrome.

President Joe Biden on Friday signed a law providing financial support for victims of mysterious headaches and nausea, suffered by US diplomats, in what has been termed as the "Havana Syndrome." As per the Havana act, there will be financial compensation for members of the State Department and CIA who suffer brain injury. Dozens of cases have occurred at US embassies around the world, starting with a cluster in Havana, Cuba. The cause of the illnesses has not been fully diagnosed. In a statement, Biden said, "I want to thank Congress for passing it with unanimous bipartisan support, sending the clear message that we take care of our own." Also read | Havana Syndrome strikes again? What is it exactly? "Civil servants, intelligence officers, diplomats, and military personnel all around the world have been affected by anomalous health incidents. Some are struggling with debilitating brain injuries that have curtailed their careers of service to our nation," he added. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who is the lead author of the law, said in a statement that "Havana Syndrome" illnesses have struck more than 40 US staff in Cuba. A member of CIA Director William Burns' team had similar symptoms in India this month, reports US media. Two US officials in Germany were also among the recent victims and the New Yorker reported that there have been dozens of cases afflicting US officials in Vienna. The first case was observed in 2016 when a US intelligence agent in the US embassy in Havana complained of vertigo, ear pain, tinnitus. As per a report in Politico, the doctor said that the agent had inner-ear damage likely caused due to the projected energy device. Since then similar complaints have been reported from US officials in China, Russia and inside the United States. Watch: Financial aid to Havana Syndrome victims by Biden government

Biden signs law to support victims of 'Havana Syndrome'

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care.

Deputy assistant attorney general Brian Netter, in one of the court arguments in Austin, said that the controversial statute represents "an open threat to the rule of law." The government further went on describing the ban as "a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution."

Netter said that adding a "judicial intervention" was necessary to make the law unenforceable until the case is decided.

Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General's office accused Netter of "inflammatory rhetoric" and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/activists-say-texas-anti-abortion-law-shows-terrifying-fragility-of-womens-rights-414113">Also read |&nbsp;Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights</a>

However, the judge Robert Pitman said, "If the state's so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman's access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?"

Earlier, Biden had openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights.

"The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest."

Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades.

As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care.

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care. Deputy assistant attorney general Brian Netter, in one of the court arguments in Austin, said that the controversial statute represents "an open threat to the rule of law." The government further went on describing the ban as "a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution." Netter said that adding a "judicial intervention" was necessary to make the law unenforceable until the case is decided. Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General's office accused Netter of "inflammatory rhetoric" and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent. Also read | Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights However, the judge Robert Pitman said, "If the state's so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman's access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?" Earlier, Biden had openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights. "The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest." Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades. As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

Joe Biden's administration urges judge to block Texas anti-abortion law

The new anti-abortion law in Texas is a “terrifying” reminder of the fragility of hard-won rights, pro-choice activists have said.&nbsp; 
They have also warned of a “more aggressive, much better organised [and] better funded” global opposition movement.

Sarah Shaw, head of advocacy at MSI Reproductive choices was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Even though we have seen little gains here and there, in some places, we can never, ever be complacent because we’re only ever really hanging on to these rights by the skin of our teeth."

She further said that the Texas law was “really terrifying” because of the emboldening message it sent to other anti-choice governments and organisations.

“This is all happening in the context of a rising, much more aggressive, much better organised, better funded and much more legitimised opposition movement than we’ve ever seen before,” Shaw said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-lashes-out-at-us-supreme-court-for-texas-abortion-law-410322">Also read |&nbsp;Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law</a>

US President Joe Biden has openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. 
Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights.

"The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest."

Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades.

As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

The new anti-abortion law in Texas is a “terrifying” reminder of the fragility of hard-won rights, pro-choice activists have said. They have also warned of a “more aggressive, much better organised [and] better funded” global opposition movement.

The new anti-abortion law in Texas is a “terrifying” reminder of the fragility of hard-won rights, pro-choice activists have said. They have also warned of a “more aggressive, much better organised [and] better funded” global opposition movement. Sarah Shaw, head of advocacy at MSI Reproductive choices was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Even though we have seen little gains here and there, in some places, we can never, ever be complacent because we’re only ever really hanging on to these rights by the skin of our teeth." She further said that the Texas law was “really terrifying” because of the emboldening message it sent to other anti-choice governments and organisations. “This is all happening in the context of a rising, much more aggressive, much better organised, better funded and much more legitimised opposition movement than we’ve ever seen before,” Shaw said. Also read | Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law US President Joe Biden has openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights. "The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest." Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades. As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation.

In an opinion essay published in The Washington Post under the headline “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban,” the doctor, Alan Braid, who has been performing abortions for more than 40 years, said that he performed one Sept. 6 for a woman who, although still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit.

“I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” Braid wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

Braid’s disclosure was the latest — and perhaps most direct — salvo by supporters of abortion rights who have been fighting to stop the law, which prohibits most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant. The law makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Even before his disclosure, Braid, who has operated abortion clinics in Houston and San Antonio as well as in Oklahoma, was already challenging the law in court. His clinics were among the plaintiffs in a pending federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure.

On Sept. 1, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision prompted by the lawsuit, declined to immediately block Texas’ new law. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the law’s constitutionality and did not intend to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an order that would prevent Texas from enforcing the law, known as Senate Bill 8, which was passed with the strong support of the state’s Republican leaders.

The Justice Department argued in its emergency motion that the state adopted the law “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights,” reiterating an argument the department made last week when it sued Texas to prohibit enforcement of the contentious legislation.

At the centre of the legal debate over the law is a mechanism that essentially deputizes private citizens, rather than government officials, to enforce the new restrictions by suing anyone who either performs an abortion or “aids and abets” the procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or to the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win. Patients themselves cannot be sued.

“I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” Braid wrote.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is already representing Braid in his clinics’ pending lawsuit, said in a statement that he had “courageously stood up against this blatantly unconstitutional law.”

“We stand ready to defend him against the vigilante lawsuits that SB 8 threatens to unleash against those providing or supporting access to constitutionally protected abortion care,” she said in a statement.

A representative for Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed the measure into law, and Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that had been seeking tips on any doctors who might be violating the new law, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Saturday.

In an interview Saturday, Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. “I’m not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way,” he said.

He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law.

“I hope the law gets overturned,” he said, “and if this is what does it, that would be great.”

In his opinion essay, Braid noted that his career began with an obstetrics and gynaecology residency at a San Antonio hospital on July 1, 1972, just before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

“At the hospital that year, I saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions,” he wrote. “One I will never forget. When she came into the E.R., her vaginal cavity was packed with rags. She died a few days later from massive organ failure, caused by a septic infection.”

Roe v. Wade, he wrote, “enabled me to do the job I was trained to do.” Then, this month, “everything changed” with the Supreme Court decision not to block the Texas law.

“I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces,” Braid wrote. “I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.”

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation.

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation. In an opinion essay published in The Washington Post under the headline “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban,” the doctor, Alan Braid, who has been performing abortions for more than 40 years, said that he performed one Sept. 6 for a woman who, although still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. “I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” Braid wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.” Braid’s disclosure was the latest — and perhaps most direct — salvo by supporters of abortion rights who have been fighting to stop the law, which prohibits most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant. The law makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Even before his disclosure, Braid, who has operated abortion clinics in Houston and San Antonio as well as in Oklahoma, was already challenging the law in court. His clinics were among the plaintiffs in a pending federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure. On Sept. 1, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision prompted by the lawsuit, declined to immediately block Texas’ new law. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the law’s constitutionality and did not intend to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it. On Tuesday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an order that would prevent Texas from enforcing the law, known as Senate Bill 8, which was passed with the strong support of the state’s Republican leaders. The Justice Department argued in its emergency motion that the state adopted the law “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights,” reiterating an argument the department made last week when it sued Texas to prohibit enforcement of the contentious legislation. At the centre of the legal debate over the law is a mechanism that essentially deputizes private citizens, rather than government officials, to enforce the new restrictions by suing anyone who either performs an abortion or “aids and abets” the procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or to the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win. Patients themselves cannot be sued. “I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” Braid wrote. Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is already representing Braid in his clinics’ pending lawsuit, said in a statement that he had “courageously stood up against this blatantly unconstitutional law.” “We stand ready to defend him against the vigilante lawsuits that SB 8 threatens to unleash against those providing or supporting access to constitutionally protected abortion care,” she said in a statement. A representative for Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed the measure into law, and Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that had been seeking tips on any doctors who might be violating the new law, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Saturday. In an interview Saturday, Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. “I’m not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way,” he said. He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law. “I hope the law gets overturned,” he said, “and if this is what does it, that would be great.” In his opinion essay, Braid noted that his career began with an obstetrics and gynaecology residency at a San Antonio hospital on July 1, 1972, just before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. “At the hospital that year, I saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions,” he wrote. “One I will never forget. When she came into the E.R., her vaginal cavity was packed with rags. She died a few days later from massive organ failure, caused by a septic infection.” Roe v. Wade, he wrote, “enabled me to do the job I was trained to do.” Then, this month, “everything changed” with the Supreme Court decision not to block the Texas law. “I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces,” Braid wrote. “I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.”

Texas doctor says he performed an abortion in defiance of new state law

A high-profile&nbsp;cartoonist&nbsp;and a Sweden-based&nbsp;journalist&nbsp;were among seven men&nbsp;charged&nbsp;on Sunday&nbsp;under&nbsp;Bangladesh's&nbsp;internet&nbsp;law&nbsp;that critics say is being used against opposition figures.

A court in&nbsp;Bangladesh's capital Dhaka accepted formal charges laid out by police&nbsp;under&nbsp;the Digital Security Act against&nbsp;cartoonist&nbsp;Ahmed Kabir Kishore and rights activist and&nbsp;journalist&nbsp;Tasneem Khalil, prosecutor Nazrul Islam Shamim said.

The men were&nbsp;charged&nbsp;with publishing offensive and false information, defamation and intentionally publishing digital content that creates unrest or disorder.

They face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty.

"The court has also issued warrants of arrest against four of them who have been absconding,"&nbsp;Shamim told AFP.

Rights groups including Amnesty International say the&nbsp;law&nbsp;is being used to silence and intimidate critics of the government in the country of 169 million people.

Kishore, 45, said he was a "victim of injustice".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/people-in-madrid-protest-against-rise-in-homophobic-attacks-412579">Also read |&nbsp;People in Madrid protest against rise in homophobic attacks</a>

"Drawing cartoons isn't a crime," he told AFP via a phone call after the charges were announced.

Following street protests, Kishore was granted bail in March&nbsp;after he was detained in May last year on preliminary charges&nbsp;under&nbsp;the&nbsp;internet&nbsp;law.

Kishore said he was tortured before police detained him.

He filed a petition with a Dhaka court over the torture allegations, which police have denied. There has been no decision on the petition so far.&nbsp;

Kishore said his alleged torturers had asked questions about cartoons he drew mocking a powerful businessman close to the government as well as a series criticising the government's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Shamim did not detail the specific acts allegedly committed by the&nbsp;cartoonist.

Amnesty said in a July report that&nbsp;Bangladesh&nbsp;had at least 433 people detained&nbsp;under&nbsp;the&nbsp;internet&nbsp;law&nbsp;as of that month.&nbsp;

Most were being held on allegations of publishing false and offensive information&nbsp;online, the global rights group added.

A high-profile cartoonist and a Sweden-based journalist were among seven men charged on Sunday under Bangladesh's internet law that critics say is being used against opposition figures.

A high-profile cartoonist and a Sweden-based journalist were among seven men charged on Sunday under Bangladesh's internet law that critics say is being used against opposition figures. A court in Bangladesh's capital Dhaka accepted formal charges laid out by police under the Digital Security Act against cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore and rights activist and journalist Tasneem Khalil, prosecutor Nazrul Islam Shamim said. The men were charged with publishing offensive and false information, defamation and intentionally publishing digital content that creates unrest or disorder. They face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty. "The court has also issued warrants of arrest against four of them who have been absconding," Shamim told AFP. Rights groups including Amnesty International say the law is being used to silence and intimidate critics of the government in the country of 169 million people. Kishore, 45, said he was a "victim of injustice". Also read | People in Madrid protest against rise in homophobic attacks "Drawing cartoons isn't a crime," he told AFP via a phone call after the charges were announced. Following street protests, Kishore was granted bail in March after he was detained in May last year on preliminary charges under the internet law. Kishore said he was tortured before police detained him. He filed a petition with a Dhaka court over the torture allegations, which police have denied. There has been no decision on the petition so far. Kishore said his alleged torturers had asked questions about cartoons he drew mocking a powerful businessman close to the government as well as a series criticising the government's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Shamim did not detail the specific acts allegedly committed by the cartoonist. Amnesty said in a July report that Bangladesh had at least 433 people detained under the internet law as of that month. Most were being held on allegations of publishing false and offensive information online, the global rights group added.

Cartoonist, journalist charged under Bangladesh internet law

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