Vampires, Viruses, and Verbalisation: Bram Stoker’s Dracula as a genealogical window into fin-de-siècle science
40 Pages
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Between old and new empires, Hong Kong’s fate exposes stakes in Covid-19 era
AFP/ FRANCE24 26/05/20200
Anti-government protesters march again Beijing's plans to impose national security legislation in Hong Kong, May 24, 2020. REUTERS - Tyrone Siu Text by:Leela JACINTO
China’s latest move to impose a new security law for Hong Kong has exposed Britain’s weakness on the international stage. But now all eyes are on the US response as the future of the semi-autonomous territory is once again caught in the geopolitical wrangling between the world’s dominant powers.
On December 21, 1984 – just days after she signed a historic treaty with China on Hong Kong’s future status – British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was asked how did she really “feel” about the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Thatcher was in Hong Kong, where the reactions to the agreement were less ebullient than in Beijing, where the British prime minister had toasted her Chinese counterpart at a champagne ceremony in the Great Hall of the People following the signing of the historic deal. Small, but symbolic protests had greeted Thatcher’s arrival on the British territory hugging China’s southern coast, with demonstrators denouncing the “sell-out” of the people of Hong Kong.
So when Thatcher was asked about the treaty setting the terms for China’s 1997 takeover, she was on the defensive. “I feel we have done a good job for the people of Hong Kong,” she told reporters. “Just consider what sort of questions you would be asking me now had there been no agreement and a totally unknown future.”
More than 35 years later, the international treaty, which was registered at the UN, establishing the “one country, two systems” principle, is back under the spotlight.
Last week, when China announced plans to impose a new national security law for Hong Kong that, critics say, breaches the territory’s autonomous status, the 1984 Joint Declaration was a talking point on the news agenda.
“One point that many, many Hong Kong people have been rather angry about is that the [British] Foreign Office, and the entire UK government, should be opposing more strongly the way China has been breaching the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. China has effectively declared that particular document null, void, it doesn’t serve any purpose anymore,” Claudia Mo, a member of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, told the BBC over the weekend.
It’s a view echoed by Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong who handed over the territory to China in 1997. “I think the Hong Kong people have been betrayed by China, which has proved once again that you can’t trust it,” said Patten in an interview with the British daily, The Times. “The British government should make it clear that what we are seeing is a complete destruction of the Joint Declaration.”
‘Death sentence for Hong Kong’s freedoms’
Patten has led a group of more than 230 prominent parliamentarians and policymakers in 25 countries – including former prime ministers and foreign ministers – who have signed a letter decrying “the unilateral introduction of national security legislation by Beijing in Hong Kong” and calling on governments to “unite to say that this flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot be tolerated.”
Responding to the initiative by Hong Kong’s last British governor, Dorian Malovic, Asia editor of French daily La Croix, and author of several books on China, conceded, “It’s better than nothing, but it sounds a little desperate. Chris Patten tried his best to push through a more democratic system as much as possible before 1997, but he failed,” noted Malovic in an interview with FRANCE 24.
Back in 1984, the news coverage of the Joint Declaration focused on Britain's failure to take more steps before the handover to secure democracy for Hong Kong’s citizens. These days, an agreement once regarded as a weak compromise is cited in world capitals as a demonstration of Beijing’s disregard for legally binding treaties and the international community’s failure to hold China accountable for its breaches.
Beijing maintains the new law – which bans treason, subversion and sedition – is necessary after months of often-violent pro-democracy protests last year. Chinese authorities portray the protests as a foreign-backed plot to destabilise the motherland and have warned that other nations have no right to interfere in how the international business hub is run.
Critics, however, say the new security measure contravenes the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution adopted under the terms of the Joint Declaration. Article 23 of the Basic Law, states that the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government”.
An earlier attempt to pass a national security act was dropped in 2003 when it became clear the bill would not pass Hong Kong’s Legislative Council – popularly dubbed “LegCo” – following massive protests.
Beijing has long wanted a security law that would curtail dissent and protests in Hong Kong. But this time, the process adopted by Chinese authorities, by submitting a draft bill on the opening session of the National People’s Congress in Beijing last week, caught everyone by surprise.
“It was a shock. It came directly from Beijing, a draft law before the National People’s Congress is basically rubber-stamping a communist party directive. What frightened lawyers and activists is that it’s a violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law that’s disregarding Hong Kong’s LegCo,” explained Malovic. “That’s a huge breach of the semi-autonomy of Hong Kong. It’s a death sentence for Hong Kong’s freedoms.”
Defying Covid-19 social distancing measures, protesters took to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday as law enforcement officials braced for further unrest as the security bill makes its way through an unprecedented legislative process. The National People’s Congress (NPC) is expected to approve the bill on Thursday after which it moves to the NPC’s Standing Committee for approval.
The timing of the move was also noteworthy. “This came as foreign countries are busy coping with the coronavirus and are not looking into the Hong Kong situation. Beijing is giving a signal, ‘we don’t care about anything coming from foreign countries’. China knows it’s strong enough to do what it wants with Hong Kong,” said Malovic.
Freedom, money, but no democracy
Asian and Western democracies have condemned China’s moves to implement the new security law. Following a muted initial reaction, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on Friday issued a joint statement with his Australian and Canadian counterparts that declared, “We are deeply concerned at proposals for introducing legislation related to national security in Hong Kong”.
The statement also noted that the “legally binding Joint Declaration, signed by China and the UK, sets out that Hong Kong will have a high degree of autonomy”. But it offered no details or warnings of action if China breached its legally binding agreement.
The response by Hong Kong’s former colonial power failed to impress pro-democracy activists and analysts. “The UK has done very, very little, even nothing concretely to support people in Hong Kong, to support democracy in Hong Kong,” said Malovic. “Britain is in a mess in the shadow of Brexit. The thinking in London has been, we need Chinese investments, we need deals with the US, we don’t need Europe. Hong Kong people are aware of the cowardice of Britain, they’re under no illusions.”
Hasty, ill-planned exits that set the stage for crises and conflicts for future post-colonial generations have been the legacy of British colonialism. But Malovic notes that the people of Hong Kong also share some responsibility for a long-feared scenario. “The British were very smart. Everybody was free in Hong Kong except there was no democracy – and people didn’t care. I was in Hong Kong a lot in those days and I used to tell my friends people selfishly only care about making money.”
Political consciousness emerged in Hong Kong after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, according to Malovic. But by then, the Joint Declaration underpinning Hong Kong’s handover and future administration was already signed, and Beijing proved to be an unyielding negotiating partner on democratic protections such as universal suffrage for Hong Kong’s residents.
British diplomats have acknowledged the negotiations over enshrining democratic principles that would secure Hong Kong were difficult since London was struggling to maintain close diplomatic and trade ties with Beijing.
"In a case like this in Hong Kong where there is such a disparity in strength between the two sides, between Britain and China, you go for the best you can get, and I take the simple view that half a loaf is better than no bread," Percy Cradock, the UK’s chief negotiator and a former British ambassador to China, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
A double-edged sword
The onus of international responsibility, as ever, falls on the US and with it, the criticisms of failing to respond or overreaction, as the case may be.
Washington’s reaction has been tougher than London’s, with the US forcefully “condemning” China’s move and urging “Beijing to reconsider its disastrous proposal”. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has threatened to respond “very strongly” if China follows through with the new law.
The US also has a new law, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which was passed by Congress in November amid last year’s pro-democracy protests. The law requires the US State Department to determine whether Hong Kong maintains a sufficient degree of autonomy to justify it retaining its special trade status.
“That would be a blow for Hong Kong if the US raised tariffs if it considers Hong Kong another Chinese city. But it’s a double-edged sword since US companies are also making billions in Hong Kong,” said Malovic.
Around 85,000 US citizens lived in Hong Kong in 2018, according to State Department figures, and more than 1,300 US companies operate there, including nearly every major US financial firm. The territory is also a major destination for US legal and accounting services.
Hot, tense summer
Beijing has warned that it would fight back if the US tries to oppose China on the issue, with foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian stating, “The issue of national security legislation for Hong Kong is an internal affair of China. Other nations cannot interfere.”
Zhao is considered an “alpha male” among Beijing’s aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats, named after a Chinese blockbuster about a commando who kills American baddies with his bare hands. He has also been on the frontline of a Washington-Beijing war of words that deepened since the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan spiralled into a global pandemic.
Read more about China’s ‘wolf warrior’ diplomats
Trump has turned China into a campaign issue ahead of the November US presidential election, but it’s a strategy, Malovic warned, that may not serve Hong Kong’s interests.
“It’s useful for Trump and Beijing, but Hong Kong will be the victim because it will be used as a cheap bargaining chip in the US-China war [of words],” said Malovic. “You have the world’s two biggest powers, with two different ideologies, but they are both acting in the same way. The Trump campaign is fed by the common enemy of China just as Beijing uses the US enemy. Trump is using the perfect enemy to ramp up patriotic, nationalist sentiments and Beijing is doing the same. It’s so childish, it would be funny if it was not so dangerous,” said Malovic.
The prospect of escalating unrest and tensions are high in the weeks and months to come. Beijing’s uncompromising positions on Hong Kong have hardened resolve in the pro-democracy camp, fueling a vicious circle of state crackdowns spurring hardliners within the protest movement. It’s a strategy long favoured by autocratic states looking to crush peaceful dissent. Beijing has not yielded on calls by pro-democracy leaders for an independent investigation into the violence during last year’s protests, while Chinese state media focuses on what it calls “terrorist” acts.
The Hong Kong political calendar, meanwhile, is packed with anniversaries and events that draw demonstrations, raising the prospect of a hot, tense summer. These include the June 4 Tiananmen massacre anniversary and the July 1 marches that mark the territory’s 1997 handover. Elections for the Hong Kong Legislative Council are scheduled for September, by which time, the US is expected to move into campaign high gear.
The Covid-19 crisis has already put China under the international spotlight with news headlines on the unmasking of Beijing’s “mask diplomacy,” the aggressive tactics of “wolf warrior” diplomats and exposés on China’s attempts to hijack UN institutions.
The Hong Kong crisis adds another impetus for democratic powers in America, Asia and Europe to act amid mounting public frustration in the Covid-19 era over economic inequalities and big business interests dominating political agendas. The price of inaction, Malovic warns, will be historic. “If nothing happens against China, if the world doesn’t react, the takeover of Hong Kong by China will be a turning point in contemporary history, like the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall. It would engrave in stone the fact that China can do anything it wants.”
China’s latest move to impose a new security law for Hong Kong has exposed Britain’s weakness on the international stage. But now all eyes are on the US response as the future of the semi-autonomous territory is once again caught in the geopolitical wrangling between the world’s dominant powers.
On December 21, 1984 – just days after she signed a historic treaty with China on Hong Kong’s future status – British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was asked how did she really “feel” about the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Thatcher was in Hong Kong, where the reactions to the agreement were less ebullient than in Beijing, where the British prime minister had toasted her Chinese counterpart at a champagne ceremony in the Great Hall of the People following the signing of the historic deal. Small, but symbolic protests had greeted Thatcher’s arrival on the British territory hugging China’s southern coast, with demonstrators denouncing the “sell-out” of the people of Hong Kong.
So when Thatcher was asked about the treaty setting the terms for China’s 1997 takeover, she was on the defensive. “I feel we have done a good job for the people of Hong Kong,” she told reporters. “Just consider what sort of questions you would be asking me now had there been no agreement and a totally unknown future.”
More than 35 years later, the international treaty, which was registered at the UN, establishing the “one country, two systems” principle, is back under the spotlight.
Last week, when China announced plans to impose a new national security law for Hong Kong that, critics say, breaches the territory’s autonomous status, the 1984 Joint Declaration was a talking point on the news agenda.
“One point that many, many Hong Kong people have been rather angry about is that the [British] Foreign Office, and the entire UK government, should be opposing more strongly the way China has been breaching the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. China has effectively declared that particular document null, void, it doesn’t serve any purpose anymore,” Claudia Mo, a member of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, told the BBC over the weekend.
It’s a view echoed by Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong who handed over the territory to China in 1997. “I think the Hong Kong people have been betrayed by China, which has proved once again that you can’t trust it,” said Patten in an interview with the British daily, The Times. “The British government should make it clear that what we are seeing is a complete destruction of the Joint Declaration.”
‘Death sentence for Hong Kong’s freedoms’
Patten has led a group of more than 230 prominent parliamentarians and policymakers in 25 countries – including former prime ministers and foreign ministers – who have signed a letter decrying “the unilateral introduction of national security legislation by Beijing in Hong Kong” and calling on governments to “unite to say that this flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot be tolerated.”
Responding to the initiative by Hong Kong’s last British governor, Dorian Malovic, Asia editor of French daily La Croix, and author of several books on China, conceded, “It’s better than nothing, but it sounds a little desperate. Chris Patten tried his best to push through a more democratic system as much as possible before 1997, but he failed,” noted Malovic in an interview with FRANCE 24.
Back in 1984, the news coverage of the Joint Declaration focused on Britain's failure to take more steps before the handover to secure democracy for Hong Kong’s citizens. These days, an agreement once regarded as a weak compromise is cited in world capitals as a demonstration of Beijing’s disregard for legally binding treaties and the international community’s failure to hold China accountable for its breaches.
Beijing maintains the new law – which bans treason, subversion and sedition – is necessary after months of often-violent pro-democracy protests last year. Chinese authorities portray the protests as a foreign-backed plot to destabilise the motherland and have warned that other nations have no right to interfere in how the international business hub is run.
Critics, however, say the new security measure contravenes the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution adopted under the terms of the Joint Declaration. Article 23 of the Basic Law, states that the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government”.
An earlier attempt to pass a national security act was dropped in 2003 when it became clear the bill would not pass Hong Kong’s Legislative Council – popularly dubbed “LegCo” – following massive protests.
Beijing has long wanted a security law that would curtail dissent and protests in Hong Kong. But this time, the process adopted by Chinese authorities, by submitting a draft bill on the opening session of the National People’s Congress in Beijing last week, caught everyone by surprise.
“It was a shock. It came directly from Beijing, a draft law before the National People’s Congress is basically rubber-stamping a communist party directive. What frightened lawyers and activists is that it’s a violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law that’s disregarding Hong Kong’s LegCo,” explained Malovic. “That’s a huge breach of the semi-autonomy of Hong Kong. It’s a death sentence for Hong Kong’s freedoms.”
Defying Covid-19 social distancing measures, protesters took to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday as law enforcement officials braced for further unrest as the security bill makes its way through an unprecedented legislative process. The National People’s Congress (NPC) is expected to approve the bill on Thursday after which it moves to the NPC’s Standing Committee for approval.
The timing of the move was also noteworthy. “This came as foreign countries are busy coping with the coronavirus and are not looking into the Hong Kong situation. Beijing is giving a signal, ‘we don’t care about anything coming from foreign countries’. China knows it’s strong enough to do what it wants with Hong Kong,” said Malovic.
Freedom, money, but no democracy
Asian and Western democracies have condemned China’s moves to implement the new security law. Following a muted initial reaction, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on Friday issued a joint statement with his Australian and Canadian counterparts that declared, “We are deeply concerned at proposals for introducing legislation related to national security in Hong Kong”.
The statement also noted that the “legally binding Joint Declaration, signed by China and the UK, sets out that Hong Kong will have a high degree of autonomy”. But it offered no details or warnings of action if China breached its legally binding agreement.
The response by Hong Kong’s former colonial power failed to impress pro-democracy activists and analysts. “The UK has done very, very little, even nothing concretely to support people in Hong Kong, to support democracy in Hong Kong,” said Malovic. “Britain is in a mess in the shadow of Brexit. The thinking in London has been, we need Chinese investments, we need deals with the US, we don’t need Europe. Hong Kong people are aware of the cowardice of Britain, they’re under no illusions.”
Hasty, ill-planned exits that set the stage for crises and conflicts for future post-colonial generations have been the legacy of British colonialism. But Malovic notes that the people of Hong Kong also share some responsibility for a long-feared scenario. “The British were very smart. Everybody was free in Hong Kong except there was no democracy – and people didn’t care. I was in Hong Kong a lot in those days and I used to tell my friends people selfishly only care about making money.”
Political consciousness emerged in Hong Kong after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, according to Malovic. But by then, the Joint Declaration underpinning Hong Kong’s handover and future administration was already signed, and Beijing proved to be an unyielding negotiating partner on democratic protections such as universal suffrage for Hong Kong’s residents.
British diplomats have acknowledged the negotiations over enshrining democratic principles that would secure Hong Kong were difficult since London was struggling to maintain close diplomatic and trade ties with Beijing.
"In a case like this in Hong Kong where there is such a disparity in strength between the two sides, between Britain and China, you go for the best you can get, and I take the simple view that half a loaf is better than no bread," Percy Cradock, the UK’s chief negotiator and a former British ambassador to China, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
A double-edged sword
The onus of international responsibility, as ever, falls on the US and with it, the criticisms of failing to respond or overreaction, as the case may be.
Washington’s reaction has been tougher than London’s, with the US forcefully “condemning” China’s move and urging “Beijing to reconsider its disastrous proposal”. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has threatened to respond “very strongly” if China follows through with the new law.
The US also has a new law, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which was passed by Congress in November amid last year’s pro-democracy protests. The law requires the US State Department to determine whether Hong Kong maintains a sufficient degree of autonomy to justify it retaining its special trade status.
“That would be a blow for Hong Kong if the US raised tariffs if it considers Hong Kong another Chinese city. But it’s a double-edged sword since US companies are also making billions in Hong Kong,” said Malovic.
Around 85,000 US citizens lived in Hong Kong in 2018, according to State Department figures, and more than 1,300 US companies operate there, including nearly every major US financial firm. The territory is also a major destination for US legal and accounting services.
Hot, tense summer
Beijing has warned that it would fight back if the US tries to oppose China on the issue, with foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian stating, “The issue of national security legislation for Hong Kong is an internal affair of China. Other nations cannot interfere.”
Zhao is considered an “alpha male” among Beijing’s aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats, named after a Chinese blockbuster about a commando who kills American baddies with his bare hands. He has also been on the frontline of a Washington-Beijing war of words that deepened since the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan spiralled into a global pandemic.
Read more about China’s ‘wolf warrior’ diplomats
Trump has turned China into a campaign issue ahead of the November US presidential election, but it’s a strategy, Malovic warned, that may not serve Hong Kong’s interests.
“It’s useful for Trump and Beijing, but Hong Kong will be the victim because it will be used as a cheap bargaining chip in the US-China war [of words],” said Malovic. “You have the world’s two biggest powers, with two different ideologies, but they are both acting in the same way. The Trump campaign is fed by the common enemy of China just as Beijing uses the US enemy. Trump is using the perfect enemy to ramp up patriotic, nationalist sentiments and Beijing is doing the same. It’s so childish, it would be funny if it was not so dangerous,” said Malovic.
The prospect of escalating unrest and tensions are high in the weeks and months to come. Beijing’s uncompromising positions on Hong Kong have hardened resolve in the pro-democracy camp, fueling a vicious circle of state crackdowns spurring hardliners within the protest movement. It’s a strategy long favoured by autocratic states looking to crush peaceful dissent. Beijing has not yielded on calls by pro-democracy leaders for an independent investigation into the violence during last year’s protests, while Chinese state media focuses on what it calls “terrorist” acts.
The Hong Kong political calendar, meanwhile, is packed with anniversaries and events that draw demonstrations, raising the prospect of a hot, tense summer. These include the June 4 Tiananmen massacre anniversary and the July 1 marches that mark the territory’s 1997 handover. Elections for the Hong Kong Legislative Council are scheduled for September, by which time, the US is expected to move into campaign high gear.
The Covid-19 crisis has already put China under the international spotlight with news headlines on the unmasking of Beijing’s “mask diplomacy,” the aggressive tactics of “wolf warrior” diplomats and exposés on China’s attempts to hijack UN institutions.
The Hong Kong crisis adds another impetus for democratic powers in America, Asia and Europe to act amid mounting public frustration in the Covid-19 era over economic inequalities and big business interests dominating political agendas. The price of inaction, Malovic warns, will be historic. “If nothing happens against China, if the world doesn’t react, the takeover of Hong Kong by China will be a turning point in contemporary history, like the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall. It would engrave in stone the fact that China can do anything it wants.”
Algeria court rejects detained journalist's bail plea
Algerian protesters carry journalist Khaled Drareni, who was arrested while covering an anti-government protest and was accused of "inciting an unarmed gathering and damaging national integrity," on their shoulders on March 6, 2020 in Algiers
RYAD KRAMDI AFP/File
Algiers (AFP) Issued on: 27/05/2020
A court in Algeria on Wednesday rejected a bail plea by a prominent journalist detained since late March, a prisoner support group said.
Khaled Drareni is the founder of the Casbah Tribune website and a correspondent for French-language channel TV5 Monde and press freedom group Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
He was arrested on March 7 while covering an anti-government protest and was accused of "inciting an unarmed gathering and damaging national integrity".
He was later released then re-arrested.
Prisoners' support group CNLD said Wednesday an Algiers court had "upheld the rejection of a request for the provisional release" of Drareni.
Weekly anti-government protests known as "Hirak" rocked the North African country for over a year and only came to a halt due to the novel coronavirus outbreak.
Last month, authorities blocked three news websites that had covered the protests.
Amnesty has called Drareni's prosecution "outrageous" and accused the government of "arbitrary prosecutions aimed at silencing... activists and journalists" linked to the Hirak protest movement.
It said last month that authorities were endangering detainees' health "given the risks of a COVID-19 outbreak in prisons and places of detention".
Algeria ranks 146 out of 180 countries on RSF's world press freedom index for 2020.
© 2020 AFP
Algiers (AFP) Issued on: 27/05/2020
A court in Algeria on Wednesday rejected a bail plea by a prominent journalist detained since late March, a prisoner support group said.
Khaled Drareni is the founder of the Casbah Tribune website and a correspondent for French-language channel TV5 Monde and press freedom group Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
He was arrested on March 7 while covering an anti-government protest and was accused of "inciting an unarmed gathering and damaging national integrity".
He was later released then re-arrested.
Prisoners' support group CNLD said Wednesday an Algiers court had "upheld the rejection of a request for the provisional release" of Drareni.
Weekly anti-government protests known as "Hirak" rocked the North African country for over a year and only came to a halt due to the novel coronavirus outbreak.
Last month, authorities blocked three news websites that had covered the protests.
Amnesty has called Drareni's prosecution "outrageous" and accused the government of "arbitrary prosecutions aimed at silencing... activists and journalists" linked to the Hirak protest movement.
It said last month that authorities were endangering detainees' health "given the risks of a COVID-19 outbreak in prisons and places of detention".
Algeria ranks 146 out of 180 countries on RSF's world press freedom index for 2020.
© 2020 AFP
India wilts under heatwave as temperature hits 50 degrees Celsius
COVID-19, A PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS AND NOW THIS
COVID-19, A PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS AND NOW THIS
SOMEONE'S GODS AIN'T DOING THEIR JOBS
Issued on: 27/05/2020
The shade of a giant tree provided an escape from the heat for some Delhi residents Money SHARMA AFP
New Delhi (AFP)
India is wilting under a heatwave, with the temperature in places reaching 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) and the capital enduring its hottest May day in nearly two decades.
The hot spell is projected to scorch northern India for several more days, the Meteorological Department said late Tuesday, "with severe heat wave conditions in isolated pockets".
As global temperatures rise, heatwaves are a regular menace in the country -- particularly in May and June. Last year dozens of people died.
Met officials said Churu in the northern state of Rajasthan was the hottest place on record on Tuesday, at 50 Celsius, while parts of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh sweltered in the high 40s.
Parts of the capital, New Delhi, recorded the hottest May day in 18 years with the mercury hitting 47.6 Celsius.
No deaths have been reported so far this year, but last year the government said the heat had killed 3,500 people since 2015. There have been fewer fatalities in recent years.
The country of 1.3 billion people suffers from severe water shortages with tens of millions lacking running water -- to say nothing of air conditioning.
Parts of Delhi and elsewhere regularly see scuffles when tankers arrive to deliver water. Last year Chennai made international headlines when the southern city ran out of water entirely.
The heatwave adds to problems the country already has dealing with the spread of coronavirus.
India now has the 10th highest number of coronavirus cases globally, climbing above 150,000 on Wednesday with almost 4,500 deaths.
Last week cyclone Amphan killed more than 100 people as it ravaged in eastern India and Bangladesh, flattening villages, destroying farms and leaving millions without power.
Huge swarms of desert locusts, meanwhile, have destroyed nearly 50,000 hectares (125,000 acres) of crops across western and central India, and may enter Delhi in coming days.
The north-eastern states of Assam and Meghalaya are also currently experiencing floods, with more heavy rainfall forecast in the coming days.
© 2020 AFP
Issued on: 27/05/2020
The shade of a giant tree provided an escape from the heat for some Delhi residents Money SHARMA AFP
New Delhi (AFP)
India is wilting under a heatwave, with the temperature in places reaching 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) and the capital enduring its hottest May day in nearly two decades.
The hot spell is projected to scorch northern India for several more days, the Meteorological Department said late Tuesday, "with severe heat wave conditions in isolated pockets".
As global temperatures rise, heatwaves are a regular menace in the country -- particularly in May and June. Last year dozens of people died.
Met officials said Churu in the northern state of Rajasthan was the hottest place on record on Tuesday, at 50 Celsius, while parts of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh sweltered in the high 40s.
Parts of the capital, New Delhi, recorded the hottest May day in 18 years with the mercury hitting 47.6 Celsius.
No deaths have been reported so far this year, but last year the government said the heat had killed 3,500 people since 2015. There have been fewer fatalities in recent years.
The country of 1.3 billion people suffers from severe water shortages with tens of millions lacking running water -- to say nothing of air conditioning.
Parts of Delhi and elsewhere regularly see scuffles when tankers arrive to deliver water. Last year Chennai made international headlines when the southern city ran out of water entirely.
The heatwave adds to problems the country already has dealing with the spread of coronavirus.
India now has the 10th highest number of coronavirus cases globally, climbing above 150,000 on Wednesday with almost 4,500 deaths.
Last week cyclone Amphan killed more than 100 people as it ravaged in eastern India and Bangladesh, flattening villages, destroying farms and leaving millions without power.
Huge swarms of desert locusts, meanwhile, have destroyed nearly 50,000 hectares (125,000 acres) of crops across western and central India, and may enter Delhi in coming days.
The north-eastern states of Assam and Meghalaya are also currently experiencing floods, with more heavy rainfall forecast in the coming days.
© 2020 AFP
Don't let patent rows hamper search for virus vaccine: UN agency
Issued on: 27/05/2020
Some countries are calling for any vaccine against the novel coronavirus to be patent-free BEN STANSALL AFP/File
Geneva (AFP)
The UN patent agency has hailed the push to create a coronavirus vaccine and make it globally available, but warned against allowing copyright rows to overshadow and delay the process.
"What we need in the first place here is innovation," Francis Gurry, the head of the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), told reporters in a virtual briefing.
World Health Organization member states last week adopted a resolution recognising that extensive immunisation against COVID-19 would be a "global public good", and pushing for any vaccine to be equitably and fairly distributed to all.
Some, including South Africa, are calling for any vaccine against the novel coronavirus to be patent-free.
But that idea has met with pushback from pharmaceutical companies and Washington, which opposes any challenge to international intellectual property rights.
Gurry pointed out that "there are provisions in international legal instruments and there are provisions in national legal instruments which allow access, or intellectual property rights to be overridden in certain circumstances."
The COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed over 350,000 people out of the more than 5.5 million infected worldwide, certainly represents such an emergency, he said.
"And I have no doubt that governments will use those provisions to ensure that we do have fair and equitable access to any vaccine that may be developed."
But Gurry stressed that for the time being, "we don't have a vaccine", warning against removing the incentives in place to promote innovation.
"We are in a situation where we are desperate for appropriate and good innovation," he said.
"I think we have to use the whole of the incentive structure that we have developed to encourage innovation that will give us the vaccine."
He acknowledged that going forward, "there are going to be extremely delicate questions that will arise on how to return some value to the innovator... while ensuring that we have affordable, accessible treatments and vaccines."
- Certify digital files -
His comments came as WIPO launched a new international service Wednesday aimed at reducing the risk of seeing new ideas and formulae stolen during collaborations online.
The service, called WIPO Proof, provides tamper-proof evidence of the existence at a point in time of any digital file.
It is meant to help protect ideas before they are fully-formed enough to enjoy intellectual property protection, and to mitigate the risk of future legal disputes.
"We think it is timely," Gurry said, pointing out that amid the current pandemic and lockdowns people are increasingly sharing ideas digitally.
Such a service already exists at the national level in a number of countries, but Gurry said there was a need for an international platform.
"Given the extent of (political) distrust that exists in the world today," he said, "we believe there is an opening for an impartial international authority" to certify digital files.
© 2020 AFP
Geneva (AFP)
The UN patent agency has hailed the push to create a coronavirus vaccine and make it globally available, but warned against allowing copyright rows to overshadow and delay the process.
"What we need in the first place here is innovation," Francis Gurry, the head of the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), told reporters in a virtual briefing.
World Health Organization member states last week adopted a resolution recognising that extensive immunisation against COVID-19 would be a "global public good", and pushing for any vaccine to be equitably and fairly distributed to all.
Some, including South Africa, are calling for any vaccine against the novel coronavirus to be patent-free.
But that idea has met with pushback from pharmaceutical companies and Washington, which opposes any challenge to international intellectual property rights.
Gurry pointed out that "there are provisions in international legal instruments and there are provisions in national legal instruments which allow access, or intellectual property rights to be overridden in certain circumstances."
The COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed over 350,000 people out of the more than 5.5 million infected worldwide, certainly represents such an emergency, he said.
"And I have no doubt that governments will use those provisions to ensure that we do have fair and equitable access to any vaccine that may be developed."
But Gurry stressed that for the time being, "we don't have a vaccine", warning against removing the incentives in place to promote innovation.
"We are in a situation where we are desperate for appropriate and good innovation," he said.
"I think we have to use the whole of the incentive structure that we have developed to encourage innovation that will give us the vaccine."
He acknowledged that going forward, "there are going to be extremely delicate questions that will arise on how to return some value to the innovator... while ensuring that we have affordable, accessible treatments and vaccines."
- Certify digital files -
His comments came as WIPO launched a new international service Wednesday aimed at reducing the risk of seeing new ideas and formulae stolen during collaborations online.
The service, called WIPO Proof, provides tamper-proof evidence of the existence at a point in time of any digital file.
It is meant to help protect ideas before they are fully-formed enough to enjoy intellectual property protection, and to mitigate the risk of future legal disputes.
"We think it is timely," Gurry said, pointing out that amid the current pandemic and lockdowns people are increasingly sharing ideas digitally.
Such a service already exists at the national level in a number of countries, but Gurry said there was a need for an international platform.
"Given the extent of (political) distrust that exists in the world today," he said, "we believe there is an opening for an impartial international authority" to certify digital files.
© 2020 AFP
SILENCE=DEATH
RIP Larry Kramer, playwright and AIDS activist, dies at 84
Kramer was known for his public fight to secure medical treatment, acceptance and civil rights for people with AIDS.
AIDS activist and author Larry Kramer posing for a portrait in his apartment in New York City, the United States [File: Lucas Jackson/Reuters]
Larry Kramer, the playwright whose angry voice and pen raised theatregoers' consciousness about AIDS and roused thousands to protest in the early years of the epidemic, has died at 84.
Bill Goldstein, a writer who was working on a biography of Kramer, confirmed the news to The Associated Press news agency. Kramer's husband, David Webster, told The New York Times that Kramer died of pneumonia on Wednesday.
Kramer, who wrote the play The Normal Heart and founded the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT UP, lost a partner to acquired immune deficiency syndrome in 1984 and was himself infected with the virus. He also suffered from hepatitis B and received a liver transplant in 2001 because the virus had caused liver failure.
He was nominated for an Academy Award for his screenplay Women in Love, the 1969 adaptation of DH Lawrence's novel. It starred Glenda Jackson, who won her first Oscar for her performance.
He wrote the 1972 screenplay Lost Horizon; a novel, Faggots; and plays including Sissies' Scrapbook, The Furniture of Home, Just Say No and The Destiny of Me, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1993.
For many years he was best known for his public fight to secure medical treatment, acceptance and civil rights for people with AIDS. He loudly told everyone that the gay community was grappling with a plague.
In 1981, when AIDS had not yet acquired its name and only a few dozen people had been diagnosed with it, Kramer and a group of his friends in New York City founded Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), one of the first groups in the country to address the epidemic.
He tried to rouse the gay community with speeches and articles such as 1,112 and Counting, published in gay newspapers in 1983.
"Our continued existence as gay men upon the face of this earth is at stake," he wrote. "Unless we fight for our lives, we shall die."
The late journalist Randy Shilts, in his best-selling account of the AIDS epidemic, And the Band Played On, called that article "inarguably one of the most influential works of advocacy journalism of the decade" and credited it with "crystallizing the epidemic into a political movement for the gay community."
Kramer lived to see gay marriage a reality and joined one such union himself in 2013, but never rested. "I'm married," he told The Associated Press. "But that's only part of where we are. AIDS is still decimating us, and we still don't have protection under the law."
Kramer split with GMHC in 1983 after other board members decided to concentrate on providing support services to people with AIDS. The non-profit organisation remains one of the largest AIDS-service groups in the country.
'Please know AIDS is a worldwide plague'
After leaving GMHC, Kramer gave voice to his grief and frustration by writing The Normal Heart, in which a furious young writer - not unlike Kramer himself - battles politicians, society, the media and other gay leaders to bring attention to the crisis.
Kramer often stood outside the theatre passing out fliers asking the world to take action against HIV/AIDS. "Please know that AIDS is a worldwide plague. Please know there is no cure," the fliers said.
In 1987, Kramer founded ACT UP, the group that became famous for staging civil disobedience at places like the US Food and Drug Administration, the New York Stock Exchange and Burroughs Wellcome Corp, the maker of the chief anti-AIDS drug, AZT.
ACT UP's protests helped persuade the FDA to speed the approval of new drugs and Burroughs Wellcome to lower its price for AZT.
Kramer soon relinquished a leadership role in ACT UP, and as support for AIDS research increased, he later found some common ground with health officials whom ACT UP had bitterly criticised. (At the Emmy Awards, Kramer wore an ACT UP baseball cap.)
"There are many people who feel that ACT UP hurt itself by so many of us going to work inside, with the very system that we were formed to protest against," Kramer told The New York Times in 1997. "There's good reason to believe that. On the other hand, when you are given the chance to be heard a little better, it's hard to turn down."
Kramer never softened the urgency of his demands. He found time in 2011 to help the American Foundation for Equal Rights mount their play - called 8 - on Broadway and bring attention to the legal battle over same-sex marriage in California.
One of his last projects was the massive two-volume The American People, which chronicled the history of gay people in the US. It took him decades to write.
"I just think it's so important that we know our history - the history of how badly we're treated and how hard we have to fight to get what we deserve, which is equality," he told the AP.
SOURCE: AP NEWS AGENCY
Larry Kramer, major gay rights and AIDS activist , dies at 84
Issued on: 27/05/2020
New York (AFP)
Larry Kramer, a prominent gay rights activist whose vociferous writings and actions took on a lagging government response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, has died. He was 84 years old.
"Rest in power to our fighter Larry Kramer. Your rage helped inspire a movement. We will keep honoring your name and spirit with action," tweeted Act Up -- the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power -- one of several groups he founded as the HIV virus ravaged the gay community in the late 20th century.
Citing Kramer's husband, The New York Times attributed his death to pneumonia. The octogenarian had suffered a number of afflictions in his storied life, including HIV and liver disease, for which he underwent a transplant in 2001.
In 1981 Kramer founded the Gay Men's Health Crisis, the first organization supporting HIV-positive people, leaving a year later following disputes with his fellow organizers.
He went on to found Act Up in 1987, leading protest marches and disruptions of government offices, Wall Street and Catholic leadership to shock US leaders into combatting AIDS.
Born on June 25, 1935 in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Kramer graduated from Yale in 1957 before doing a stint in the Army.
He then made a foray into film, working in London on "Dr. Strangelove" and "Lawrence of Arabia."
He was known as a provocative screenwriter, nabbing a 1971 Academy Award nomination for his adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's "Women in Love."
He later turned to themes of homesexuality, publishing in 1978 a lightning rod of a first novel -- "Faggots" -- which through its piercing satire explored promiscuity, drug use and sadomasochism in the gay community.
In the early 1980s Kramer was among the first activists to recognize AIDS as a fatal infection likely to spread and kill globally across lines of gender.
"Our continued existence depends on just how angry you can get.... Unless we fight for our lives we shall die," he wrote in a 1983 essay published in a gay-focused outlet, the New York Native.
Though his harsh rhetoric and often combative style alienated some, he channeled his furor over the government's perceived apathy on AIDS into urgent work that ultimately transformed American health care.
"In American medicine, there are two eras -- before Larry and after Larry," Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert now leading the US fight against the coronavirus pandemic, told The New Yorker in 2002.
Fauci, who became one of the nation's most prominent voices on federal AIDS research, developed a friendship with Kramer after the activist grabbed his attention after dubbing the doctor an "incompetent idiot" and killer in 1988.
Kramer's singular voice played a key role in pushing the federal government to improve testing and approval of drug regimes for HIV patients.
"Once you got past the rhetoric," Fauci told the NYT upon learning of the activist's death, "you found that Larry Kramer made a lot of sense, and that he had a heart of gold."
"Larry Kramer's death hits our community hard," tweeted GLAAD, a nonprofit centered on LGBTQ acceptance.
"He was a fighter who never stood down from what he believed was right, and he contributed so much to the fight against HIV/AIDS."
RIP Larry Kramer, playwright and AIDS activist, dies at 84
Kramer was known for his public fight to secure medical treatment, acceptance and civil rights for people with AIDS.
AIDS activist and author Larry Kramer posing for a portrait in his apartment in New York City, the United States [File: Lucas Jackson/Reuters]
Larry Kramer, the playwright whose angry voice and pen raised theatregoers' consciousness about AIDS and roused thousands to protest in the early years of the epidemic, has died at 84.
Bill Goldstein, a writer who was working on a biography of Kramer, confirmed the news to The Associated Press news agency. Kramer's husband, David Webster, told The New York Times that Kramer died of pneumonia on Wednesday.
Kramer, who wrote the play The Normal Heart and founded the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT UP, lost a partner to acquired immune deficiency syndrome in 1984 and was himself infected with the virus. He also suffered from hepatitis B and received a liver transplant in 2001 because the virus had caused liver failure.
He was nominated for an Academy Award for his screenplay Women in Love, the 1969 adaptation of DH Lawrence's novel. It starred Glenda Jackson, who won her first Oscar for her performance.
He wrote the 1972 screenplay Lost Horizon; a novel, Faggots; and plays including Sissies' Scrapbook, The Furniture of Home, Just Say No and The Destiny of Me, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1993.
For many years he was best known for his public fight to secure medical treatment, acceptance and civil rights for people with AIDS. He loudly told everyone that the gay community was grappling with a plague.
In 1981, when AIDS had not yet acquired its name and only a few dozen people had been diagnosed with it, Kramer and a group of his friends in New York City founded Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), one of the first groups in the country to address the epidemic.
He tried to rouse the gay community with speeches and articles such as 1,112 and Counting, published in gay newspapers in 1983.
"Our continued existence as gay men upon the face of this earth is at stake," he wrote. "Unless we fight for our lives, we shall die."
The late journalist Randy Shilts, in his best-selling account of the AIDS epidemic, And the Band Played On, called that article "inarguably one of the most influential works of advocacy journalism of the decade" and credited it with "crystallizing the epidemic into a political movement for the gay community."
Kramer lived to see gay marriage a reality and joined one such union himself in 2013, but never rested. "I'm married," he told The Associated Press. "But that's only part of where we are. AIDS is still decimating us, and we still don't have protection under the law."
Kramer split with GMHC in 1983 after other board members decided to concentrate on providing support services to people with AIDS. The non-profit organisation remains one of the largest AIDS-service groups in the country.
'Please know AIDS is a worldwide plague'
After leaving GMHC, Kramer gave voice to his grief and frustration by writing The Normal Heart, in which a furious young writer - not unlike Kramer himself - battles politicians, society, the media and other gay leaders to bring attention to the crisis.
Kramer often stood outside the theatre passing out fliers asking the world to take action against HIV/AIDS. "Please know that AIDS is a worldwide plague. Please know there is no cure," the fliers said.
In 1987, Kramer founded ACT UP, the group that became famous for staging civil disobedience at places like the US Food and Drug Administration, the New York Stock Exchange and Burroughs Wellcome Corp, the maker of the chief anti-AIDS drug, AZT.
ACT UP's protests helped persuade the FDA to speed the approval of new drugs and Burroughs Wellcome to lower its price for AZT.
Kramer soon relinquished a leadership role in ACT UP, and as support for AIDS research increased, he later found some common ground with health officials whom ACT UP had bitterly criticised. (At the Emmy Awards, Kramer wore an ACT UP baseball cap.)
"There are many people who feel that ACT UP hurt itself by so many of us going to work inside, with the very system that we were formed to protest against," Kramer told The New York Times in 1997. "There's good reason to believe that. On the other hand, when you are given the chance to be heard a little better, it's hard to turn down."
Kramer never softened the urgency of his demands. He found time in 2011 to help the American Foundation for Equal Rights mount their play - called 8 - on Broadway and bring attention to the legal battle over same-sex marriage in California.
One of his last projects was the massive two-volume The American People, which chronicled the history of gay people in the US. It took him decades to write.
"I just think it's so important that we know our history - the history of how badly we're treated and how hard we have to fight to get what we deserve, which is equality," he told the AP.
SOURCE: AP NEWS AGENCY
Larry Kramer, major gay rights and AIDS activist , dies at 84
Issued on: 27/05/2020
New York (AFP)
Larry Kramer, a prominent gay rights activist whose vociferous writings and actions took on a lagging government response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, has died. He was 84 years old.
"Rest in power to our fighter Larry Kramer. Your rage helped inspire a movement. We will keep honoring your name and spirit with action," tweeted Act Up -- the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power -- one of several groups he founded as the HIV virus ravaged the gay community in the late 20th century.
Citing Kramer's husband, The New York Times attributed his death to pneumonia. The octogenarian had suffered a number of afflictions in his storied life, including HIV and liver disease, for which he underwent a transplant in 2001.
In 1981 Kramer founded the Gay Men's Health Crisis, the first organization supporting HIV-positive people, leaving a year later following disputes with his fellow organizers.
He went on to found Act Up in 1987, leading protest marches and disruptions of government offices, Wall Street and Catholic leadership to shock US leaders into combatting AIDS.
Born on June 25, 1935 in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Kramer graduated from Yale in 1957 before doing a stint in the Army.
He then made a foray into film, working in London on "Dr. Strangelove" and "Lawrence of Arabia."
He was known as a provocative screenwriter, nabbing a 1971 Academy Award nomination for his adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's "Women in Love."
He later turned to themes of homesexuality, publishing in 1978 a lightning rod of a first novel -- "Faggots" -- which through its piercing satire explored promiscuity, drug use and sadomasochism in the gay community.
In the early 1980s Kramer was among the first activists to recognize AIDS as a fatal infection likely to spread and kill globally across lines of gender.
"Our continued existence depends on just how angry you can get.... Unless we fight for our lives we shall die," he wrote in a 1983 essay published in a gay-focused outlet, the New York Native.
Though his harsh rhetoric and often combative style alienated some, he channeled his furor over the government's perceived apathy on AIDS into urgent work that ultimately transformed American health care.
"In American medicine, there are two eras -- before Larry and after Larry," Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert now leading the US fight against the coronavirus pandemic, told The New Yorker in 2002.
Fauci, who became one of the nation's most prominent voices on federal AIDS research, developed a friendship with Kramer after the activist grabbed his attention after dubbing the doctor an "incompetent idiot" and killer in 1988.
Kramer's singular voice played a key role in pushing the federal government to improve testing and approval of drug regimes for HIV patients.
"Once you got past the rhetoric," Fauci told the NYT upon learning of the activist's death, "you found that Larry Kramer made a lot of sense, and that he had a heart of gold."
"Larry Kramer's death hits our community hard," tweeted GLAAD, a nonprofit centered on LGBTQ acceptance.
"He was a fighter who never stood down from what he believed was right, and he contributed so much to the fight against HIV/AIDS."
Costa Rica: First same-sex weddings held despite pandemic
Costa Rica has become the first Central American nation to make same-sex marriage legal. Dozens of couples are taking advantage of the new law, although ceremonies must abide by coronavirus social distancing rules.
The first same-sex weddings in Costa Rica went ahead early Tuesday after a landmark marriage equality ruling came into effect at midnight.
Ceremonies were small and largely performed in private, in line with coronavirus restrictions, although some were broadcast online or even on state television.
Daritza Araya and Alexandra Quiros were the first couple to tie the knot in the early hours of the morning. Almost 20,000 people watched their outdoor service live on Facebook, as a notary wearing a face mask pronounced them "wife and wife."
Activist Marco Castillo, who has campaigned for marriage equality for years, also wed his longtime partner in a ceremony watched by hundreds of viewers online.
"This is a step in social equality. The fact that Rodrigo and I are able to come marry each other in a court is progress,'' Castillo said. "This drives us to continue other fights for those who have a different sexual orientation.''
Read more: Ecuador approves same-sex marriage
Landmark verdict
The law change is the result of a Supreme Court ruling in August 2018, which found that Costa Rica’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The court gave lawmakers 18 months to change the provision, or it would automatically be annulled.
President Carlos Alvarado, who was elected in May 2018 after pledging to legalize same-sex marriage, said the change would "cause a significant social and cultural transformation of the country."
Read more: Why is homosexuality still taboo in many African countries?
Enrique Sanchez, Costa Rica's first openly gay congressman, paid tribute to activists who had spent years campaigning. "With their experience, their struggles ... they have helped build a society where there are no second-class families or second-rate people," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Gay marriage is already legal in a number of South American countries, including Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil, despite strong opposition from some religious groups. Predominantly Catholic Costa Rica is the first country in Central America to take the step.
nm/msh (AP, Reuters, dpa)
Costa Rica allows same-sex marriages in first for Central America
Costa Rica becomes the sixth country in Latin America and first in Central America to legalise same-sex marriage.
Costa Rica has become the first Central American nation to make same-sex marriage legal. Dozens of couples are taking advantage of the new law, although ceremonies must abide by coronavirus social distancing rules.
The first same-sex weddings in Costa Rica went ahead early Tuesday after a landmark marriage equality ruling came into effect at midnight.
Ceremonies were small and largely performed in private, in line with coronavirus restrictions, although some were broadcast online or even on state television.
Daritza Araya and Alexandra Quiros were the first couple to tie the knot in the early hours of the morning. Almost 20,000 people watched their outdoor service live on Facebook, as a notary wearing a face mask pronounced them "wife and wife."
Activist Marco Castillo, who has campaigned for marriage equality for years, also wed his longtime partner in a ceremony watched by hundreds of viewers online.
"This is a step in social equality. The fact that Rodrigo and I are able to come marry each other in a court is progress,'' Castillo said. "This drives us to continue other fights for those who have a different sexual orientation.''
Read more: Ecuador approves same-sex marriage
Landmark verdict
The law change is the result of a Supreme Court ruling in August 2018, which found that Costa Rica’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The court gave lawmakers 18 months to change the provision, or it would automatically be annulled.
President Carlos Alvarado, who was elected in May 2018 after pledging to legalize same-sex marriage, said the change would "cause a significant social and cultural transformation of the country."
Read more: Why is homosexuality still taboo in many African countries?
Enrique Sanchez, Costa Rica's first openly gay congressman, paid tribute to activists who had spent years campaigning. "With their experience, their struggles ... they have helped build a society where there are no second-class families or second-rate people," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Gay marriage is already legal in a number of South American countries, including Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil, despite strong opposition from some religious groups. Predominantly Catholic Costa Rica is the first country in Central America to take the step.
nm/msh (AP, Reuters, dpa)
Costa Rica allows same-sex marriages in first for Central America
Costa Rica becomes the sixth country in Latin America and first in Central America to legalise same-sex marriage.
LGBT community members and activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court of Justice to demand same-sex marriage, in San Jose, Costa Rica [File: Juan Carlos Ulate/Reuters]
MORE ON LGBT
Coronavirus heightens anxiety among LGBTQ Nigerians with HIV3 weeks ago
Coronavirus exacerbates LGBTQI refugees' isolation and traumalast month
'We don't want any more murderers': A fight for justice in Mexico2 months ago
Switzerland votes for law against homophobia3 months ago
Costa Rica gave the go-ahead to same-sex marriages on Tuesday, making it the first country in Central America to do so after a landmark court ruling came into effect at midnight.
The nation's constitutional court ruled in August 2018 that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and gave parliament 18 months to legislate or the provision would be automatically nullified.
More:
French National Assembly approves IVF for lesbians, single women
Charges in Mongolia LGBT attack hint at changing attitudes
Singapore court to hear cases seeking to decriminalise gay sex
Earlier this month, more than 20 legislators tried to delay the marriage ruling by 18 months but the measure failed and the ban was lifted at midnight - although couples will have to opt for online weddings due to the coronavirus pandemic.
"Costa Rica is celebrating today: marriage equality has become a reality in the country - the first one in Central America!" said the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) in a tweet.
"We rejoice with you: congratulations to all those who worked so hard to make it happen!"
Costa Rica becomes the sixth country in Latin America to allow gay marriage - after Ecuador legalised it last year - and the 28th United Nations member state to recognise same-sex marriage.
"An extraordinary moment of celebration and gratitude to the work of so many activists and of quiet reflection of the lives of those who lived without seeing this moment," tweeted Victor Madrigal-Borloz, an independent UN expert on sexual orientation and gender identity who is from Costa Rica.
In a few hours my country, #CostaRica, will recognise equal marriage. An extraordinary moment of celebration and gratitude to the work of so many activists, and of quiet reflection of the lives of those who lived without seeing this moment. #siaceptoCR #IESOGI pic.twitter.com/VFTdPTiV4J— Victor Madrigal-Borloz (@victor_madrigal) May 25, 2020
Despite considerable opposition from religious groups, gay marriage has become increasingly accepted in Latin America, with gay couples now allowed to marry in Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay and parts of Mexico.
Enrique Sanchez, Costa Rica's first openly gay congressman with the centre-left Citizens' Action Party, said this represented the culmination of a fight over many years by many people, some through activism and others anonymously.
"With their experience, their struggles ... they have helped build a society where there are no second-class families or second-rate people," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
In a region marked by religious conservatism and widespread violence towards LGBT people, Costa Rica's gay marriage ruling was welcomed by many local rights activists.
"This offers us peace of mind," said Margarita Salas, an LGBT rights campaigner in Costa Rica and president of the VAMOS political party. "This measure gives us the ability to protect and provide security to our family."
LGBT community members and activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court of Justice with a sign that reads 'when the family supports, society does not discriminate' [File: Juan Carlos Ulate/Reuters]
Legalising gay marriage was a major campaign promise by President Carlos Alvarado Quesada, who took office in May 2018.
"This change will cause a significant social and cultural transformation of the country," Alvarado Quesada said in a video posted on Twitter late on Monday.
"[Gay and lesbian people] will have the rights and the same rights as any other person, couple or family in this country."
MORE ON LGBT
Coronavirus heightens anxiety among LGBTQ Nigerians with HIV3 weeks ago
Coronavirus exacerbates LGBTQI refugees' isolation and traumalast month
'We don't want any more murderers': A fight for justice in Mexico2 months ago
Switzerland votes for law against homophobia3 months ago
Costa Rica gave the go-ahead to same-sex marriages on Tuesday, making it the first country in Central America to do so after a landmark court ruling came into effect at midnight.
The nation's constitutional court ruled in August 2018 that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and gave parliament 18 months to legislate or the provision would be automatically nullified.
More:
French National Assembly approves IVF for lesbians, single women
Charges in Mongolia LGBT attack hint at changing attitudes
Singapore court to hear cases seeking to decriminalise gay sex
Earlier this month, more than 20 legislators tried to delay the marriage ruling by 18 months but the measure failed and the ban was lifted at midnight - although couples will have to opt for online weddings due to the coronavirus pandemic.
"Costa Rica is celebrating today: marriage equality has become a reality in the country - the first one in Central America!" said the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) in a tweet.
"We rejoice with you: congratulations to all those who worked so hard to make it happen!"
Costa Rica becomes the sixth country in Latin America to allow gay marriage - after Ecuador legalised it last year - and the 28th United Nations member state to recognise same-sex marriage.
"An extraordinary moment of celebration and gratitude to the work of so many activists and of quiet reflection of the lives of those who lived without seeing this moment," tweeted Victor Madrigal-Borloz, an independent UN expert on sexual orientation and gender identity who is from Costa Rica.
In a few hours my country, #CostaRica, will recognise equal marriage. An extraordinary moment of celebration and gratitude to the work of so many activists, and of quiet reflection of the lives of those who lived without seeing this moment. #siaceptoCR #IESOGI pic.twitter.com/VFTdPTiV4J— Victor Madrigal-Borloz (@victor_madrigal) May 25, 2020
Despite considerable opposition from religious groups, gay marriage has become increasingly accepted in Latin America, with gay couples now allowed to marry in Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay and parts of Mexico.
Enrique Sanchez, Costa Rica's first openly gay congressman with the centre-left Citizens' Action Party, said this represented the culmination of a fight over many years by many people, some through activism and others anonymously.
"With their experience, their struggles ... they have helped build a society where there are no second-class families or second-rate people," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
In a region marked by religious conservatism and widespread violence towards LGBT people, Costa Rica's gay marriage ruling was welcomed by many local rights activists.
"This offers us peace of mind," said Margarita Salas, an LGBT rights campaigner in Costa Rica and president of the VAMOS political party. "This measure gives us the ability to protect and provide security to our family."
LGBT community members and activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court of Justice with a sign that reads 'when the family supports, society does not discriminate' [File: Juan Carlos Ulate/Reuters]
Legalising gay marriage was a major campaign promise by President Carlos Alvarado Quesada, who took office in May 2018.
"This change will cause a significant social and cultural transformation of the country," Alvarado Quesada said in a video posted on Twitter late on Monday.
"[Gay and lesbian people] will have the rights and the same rights as any other person, couple or family in this country."
CAPITALISM IN SPACE
Of course billionaires like Elon Musk love outer space. The Earth is too small for their egos
This week, Musk’s SpaceX will launch the first US astronauts into space in nine years. We’re meant to be inspired, but back on the ground the workers are struggling
Arwa Mahdawi THE GUARDIAN Wed 27 May 2020
Arwa Mahdawi THE GUARDIAN Wed 27 May 2020
Astronauts Douglas Hurley (left) and Robert Behnken, part of Nasa and SpaceX’s joint mission. Photograph: Nasa/Kim Shiflett/PA
Here is the bad news: Earth is a bit of a mess at the moment. Here is the good news: there is still an entire universe out there for humans to destroy. And thanks to the ingenuity of a few space-obsessed billionaires, we might be poised to destroy it sooner rather than later.
On Wednesday, Elon Musk’s SpaceX company will (unless bad weather delays things) launch astronauts into orbit from US soil; the first time that has happened in nine years. It’s one small step for man, but one giant leap for the commercial space industry. We are at the beginning of a new era of privatised, and mainly billionaire-backed, space exploration. Musk has SpaceX; Jeff Bezos has Blue Origin; Richard Branson has Virgin Orbit.
There are some people who find billionaires with big rockets very inspirational. Axios’s space reporter, for example, opined: “If SpaceX can pull it off, its first crewed flight … will mark a beacon of hope in an otherwise dark time for the world.” Hope for whom, I want to know? The World Bank estimates that between 40 and 60 million people will fall into extreme poverty (earning less than $1.90 a day) in 2020, thanks to Covid-19. What hope, exactly, does a rocket blasting into space provide when you can’t put food on your plate?
Of course, space exploration is not a zero-sum game. You can solve problems on Earth while also trying to expand humanity’s understanding of the universe. However, a lot of billionaires seem far more interested in colonising – and profiting from – space than they do in making life more bearable for their workers. Last year, for example, Bezos cut health benefits for 2,000 part-time workers at his grocery store Whole Foods, saving him a few million. He did that after boasting that he is so rich, “the only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is … space travel”.
Seriously, if you think that billionaires are exploring space for the good of humankind then I have a bridge on Mars I can sell you. They are doing it for their ego and the commercial opportunity. They are doing it because they think they, quite literally, are the masters of the universe.
Here is the bad news: Earth is a bit of a mess at the moment. Here is the good news: there is still an entire universe out there for humans to destroy. And thanks to the ingenuity of a few space-obsessed billionaires, we might be poised to destroy it sooner rather than later.
On Wednesday, Elon Musk’s SpaceX company will (unless bad weather delays things) launch astronauts into orbit from US soil; the first time that has happened in nine years. It’s one small step for man, but one giant leap for the commercial space industry. We are at the beginning of a new era of privatised, and mainly billionaire-backed, space exploration. Musk has SpaceX; Jeff Bezos has Blue Origin; Richard Branson has Virgin Orbit.
There are some people who find billionaires with big rockets very inspirational. Axios’s space reporter, for example, opined: “If SpaceX can pull it off, its first crewed flight … will mark a beacon of hope in an otherwise dark time for the world.” Hope for whom, I want to know? The World Bank estimates that between 40 and 60 million people will fall into extreme poverty (earning less than $1.90 a day) in 2020, thanks to Covid-19. What hope, exactly, does a rocket blasting into space provide when you can’t put food on your plate?
Of course, space exploration is not a zero-sum game. You can solve problems on Earth while also trying to expand humanity’s understanding of the universe. However, a lot of billionaires seem far more interested in colonising – and profiting from – space than they do in making life more bearable for their workers. Last year, for example, Bezos cut health benefits for 2,000 part-time workers at his grocery store Whole Foods, saving him a few million. He did that after boasting that he is so rich, “the only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is … space travel”.
Seriously, if you think that billionaires are exploring space for the good of humankind then I have a bridge on Mars I can sell you. They are doing it for their ego and the commercial opportunity. They are doing it because they think they, quite literally, are the masters of the universe.
British newborn first baby in world to join cannabis therapy trial
Norwich hospital in Europe-wide trial using plant ingredients to counter risk of seizures and brain injury
Ben Quinn THE GUARDIAN Wed 27 May 2020
Norwich hospital in Europe-wide trial using plant ingredients to counter risk of seizures and brain injury
Ben Quinn THE GUARDIAN Wed 27 May 2020
Chelsea Parodi with her baby, Oscar, and grandmother, Christine Bell, left, at Norwich university hospital. Oscar is getting cannabis-derived medicine in a clinical trial. Photograph: Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital/PA
A newborn boy who was delivered by emergency caesarean section in March at a Norwich hospital became the first baby in the world to join a cannabis-derived treatment trial.
The study is the first step in what researchers say could one day lead to a cannabis-derived medicine being used routinely in neonatal care to help babies at risk of seizures and brain injury.
The baby, Oscar Parodi, was delivered on 11 March at Norfolk and Norwich university hospital (NNUH). He was unexpectedly born in a poor condition and needed to be transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit, where he had cooling therapy for 72 hours.
His mother, Chelsea Parodi, from Watton, Norfolk, said: “I was approached after the birth about taking part in this study and I consulted my mum and my brother who is training to be a paramedic. It was hard but I wanted to do everything I could to help my baby boy. Oscar was in hospital for nine days and he was being monitored 24/7.” Parodi said her son was “doing fantastically well”.
The study is examining whether the medicine is safe and effective in lessening the degree of brain injury for babies with the condition neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE).
Prof Paul Clarke, a consultant neonatologist at NNUH, said there was a lot of excitement at the neonatal intensive care unit. “This is the first time a cannabis-derived medicine has been tested intravenously in human babies. It is hoped that it will be good for preventing seizures and protecting the brains of newborn babies with HIE.
“We have always had good support from families wanting to take part in research on our [unit] and they often do it from an altruistic point of view to help benefit future babies. One of the attractions of this trial for parents is the closer brain monitoring babies get as part of the study, because a more advanced brainwave monitor is used for the trial babies. This gives parents more reassurance that any seizures will be picked up.”
A second child, born in April at the hospital, is also part of the trial. Children in the trial receive standard hypothermia treatment for HIE, where the whole body is cooled down to 33.5C, as well as a single dose of the study drug or placebo, followed by some tests to measure levels of the drug in the blood.
The trial, in which the drug is administered intravenously and in which the first babies to take part only receive a 30th of the usual dose, involves other neonatal intensive care units in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and will take a year to complete.
Babies in the trial will be given a single dose of study medication, or a placebo, as soon as possible within 12 hours of birth.
The therapeutic ingredient of the medicine occurs naturally in the cannabis plant and is extracted under highly controlled conditions to ensure that the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) component which causes a “high” is minimal.
Clarke added: “As with any study of a new medicine there may be unexpected side effects and unknown risks. With this in mind the trial has been carefully designed to make it as safe as possible, and so we are only giving the babies a minuscule dose at the beginning, and we monitor them even more closely than usual.”
A newborn boy who was delivered by emergency caesarean section in March at a Norwich hospital became the first baby in the world to join a cannabis-derived treatment trial.
The study is the first step in what researchers say could one day lead to a cannabis-derived medicine being used routinely in neonatal care to help babies at risk of seizures and brain injury.
The baby, Oscar Parodi, was delivered on 11 March at Norfolk and Norwich university hospital (NNUH). He was unexpectedly born in a poor condition and needed to be transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit, where he had cooling therapy for 72 hours.
His mother, Chelsea Parodi, from Watton, Norfolk, said: “I was approached after the birth about taking part in this study and I consulted my mum and my brother who is training to be a paramedic. It was hard but I wanted to do everything I could to help my baby boy. Oscar was in hospital for nine days and he was being monitored 24/7.” Parodi said her son was “doing fantastically well”.
The study is examining whether the medicine is safe and effective in lessening the degree of brain injury for babies with the condition neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE).
Prof Paul Clarke, a consultant neonatologist at NNUH, said there was a lot of excitement at the neonatal intensive care unit. “This is the first time a cannabis-derived medicine has been tested intravenously in human babies. It is hoped that it will be good for preventing seizures and protecting the brains of newborn babies with HIE.
“We have always had good support from families wanting to take part in research on our [unit] and they often do it from an altruistic point of view to help benefit future babies. One of the attractions of this trial for parents is the closer brain monitoring babies get as part of the study, because a more advanced brainwave monitor is used for the trial babies. This gives parents more reassurance that any seizures will be picked up.”
A second child, born in April at the hospital, is also part of the trial. Children in the trial receive standard hypothermia treatment for HIE, where the whole body is cooled down to 33.5C, as well as a single dose of the study drug or placebo, followed by some tests to measure levels of the drug in the blood.
The trial, in which the drug is administered intravenously and in which the first babies to take part only receive a 30th of the usual dose, involves other neonatal intensive care units in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and will take a year to complete.
Babies in the trial will be given a single dose of study medication, or a placebo, as soon as possible within 12 hours of birth.
The therapeutic ingredient of the medicine occurs naturally in the cannabis plant and is extracted under highly controlled conditions to ensure that the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) component which causes a “high” is minimal.
Clarke added: “As with any study of a new medicine there may be unexpected side effects and unknown risks. With this in mind the trial has been carefully designed to make it as safe as possible, and so we are only giving the babies a minuscule dose at the beginning, and we monitor them even more closely than usual.”
Brazil media boycott Bolsonaro residence after abuse of reporters
Globo among those to suspend reporting owing to harassment by president’s supporters
Tom Phillips in Rio de Janeiro
Tue 26 May 2020
Globo among those to suspend reporting owing to harassment by president’s supporters
Tom Phillips in Rio de Janeiro
Tue 26 May 2020
Supporters of Jair Bolsonaro hurl abuse at journalists outside the Palácio da Alvorada in Brasília on Monday. Photograph: Eraldo Peres/AP
Some of Brazil’s top news organisations are to suspend reporting from outside the presidential residence in the latest sign of deteriorating press freedoms under the country’s media-bashing president, Jair Bolsonaro.
The decision – the equivalent of British outlets ceasing to report from outside No 10 – follows months of verbal attacks on reporters outside the Palácio da Alvorada in Brasília by hardcore supporters of the far-right president.
The harassment reached new heights on Monday as journalists were subjected to a vicious torrent of abuse from Bolsonaristas, with footage showing reporters being called scum, rats, extortionists, rogues, crooks and sons of bitches.
“Communist, sellout media. Bunch of crooks,” one man shouted.
Folha de S.Paulo(@folha)
Já à tarde, em frente ao Ministério da Defesa, manifestantes voltaram a xingar jornalistas após Bolsonaro deixar o local. Foi necessária intervenção da PM, conta @danielcarvalho_
"Lixo! Filhos da puta! Mentirosos! Vocês são mentirosos! Comunistas! Achacadores da República" pic.twitter.com/r7Pr4dnXR1May 25, 2020
The news organisations withdrawing journalists include the television broadcasters Globo and Band, the radio station CBN, the websites G1 and Metrópoles and a trio of leading newspapers – Valor Econômico, O Globo and Folha de São Paulo.
“The lack of security for its journalists outside the Palácio da Alvorada has led Grupo Globo to decide that its professionals will no longer work there,” Brazil’s largest media group said in a statement.
Verbal attacks on journalists have become a hallmark of Bolsonaro’s presidency, with Brazil’s Trump-admiring leader often egging on supporters outside his home.
Bolsonaro’s third son, Eduardo, who is the representative of Steve Bannon’s far-right The Movement in South America – regularly attacks what he calls the “extrema imprensa” (extreme press) .
On Monday, the president suggested Brazil’s overseas image was being damaged by a leftwing media conspiracy, after the British Daily Telegraph described him as “the man who broke Brazil” because of his handling of the Covid-19 crisis.
“Trump suffers a lot with this,” Bolsonaro said.
Politicians from across the political spectrum condemned the Bolsonarian attacks on the media.
Alessandro Molon, a member of the Brazilian Socialist party who is leader of the opposition in the chamber of deputies, told Folha de São Paulo: “This just shows the extent to which Bolsonaro remaining in the presidency threatens our democracy and our fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression. What we are witnessing is very serious. Either our institutions stop Bolsonaro or he will destroy the country.”
Manuela D’Ávila, from the Communist party of Brazil, tweeted: “It is absurd that [these organisations] … have to suspend their coverage outside the palace because the president disrespects, threatens and incites his followers to attack journalists.”
Vera Magalhães, a prominent political journalist, tweeted: “Brazil no longer enjoys full freedom of the press.”
Some of Brazil’s top news organisations are to suspend reporting from outside the presidential residence in the latest sign of deteriorating press freedoms under the country’s media-bashing president, Jair Bolsonaro.
The decision – the equivalent of British outlets ceasing to report from outside No 10 – follows months of verbal attacks on reporters outside the Palácio da Alvorada in Brasília by hardcore supporters of the far-right president.
The harassment reached new heights on Monday as journalists were subjected to a vicious torrent of abuse from Bolsonaristas, with footage showing reporters being called scum, rats, extortionists, rogues, crooks and sons of bitches.
“Communist, sellout media. Bunch of crooks,” one man shouted.
Folha de S.Paulo(@folha)
Já à tarde, em frente ao Ministério da Defesa, manifestantes voltaram a xingar jornalistas após Bolsonaro deixar o local. Foi necessária intervenção da PM, conta @danielcarvalho_
"Lixo! Filhos da puta! Mentirosos! Vocês são mentirosos! Comunistas! Achacadores da República" pic.twitter.com/r7Pr4dnXR1May 25, 2020
The news organisations withdrawing journalists include the television broadcasters Globo and Band, the radio station CBN, the websites G1 and Metrópoles and a trio of leading newspapers – Valor Econômico, O Globo and Folha de São Paulo.
“The lack of security for its journalists outside the Palácio da Alvorada has led Grupo Globo to decide that its professionals will no longer work there,” Brazil’s largest media group said in a statement.
Verbal attacks on journalists have become a hallmark of Bolsonaro’s presidency, with Brazil’s Trump-admiring leader often egging on supporters outside his home.
Bolsonaro’s third son, Eduardo, who is the representative of Steve Bannon’s far-right The Movement in South America – regularly attacks what he calls the “extrema imprensa” (extreme press) .
On Monday, the president suggested Brazil’s overseas image was being damaged by a leftwing media conspiracy, after the British Daily Telegraph described him as “the man who broke Brazil” because of his handling of the Covid-19 crisis.
“Trump suffers a lot with this,” Bolsonaro said.
Politicians from across the political spectrum condemned the Bolsonarian attacks on the media.
Alessandro Molon, a member of the Brazilian Socialist party who is leader of the opposition in the chamber of deputies, told Folha de São Paulo: “This just shows the extent to which Bolsonaro remaining in the presidency threatens our democracy and our fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression. What we are witnessing is very serious. Either our institutions stop Bolsonaro or he will destroy the country.”
Manuela D’Ávila, from the Communist party of Brazil, tweeted: “It is absurd that [these organisations] … have to suspend their coverage outside the palace because the president disrespects, threatens and incites his followers to attack journalists.”
Vera Magalhães, a prominent political journalist, tweeted: “Brazil no longer enjoys full freedom of the press.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)