Semenya taking case to European Court of Human Rights

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — Caster Semenya is going to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge “discriminatory” rules that prohibit her from competing in certain track events because of her high natural testosterone, her lawyers said Thursday.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The two-time Olympic champion in the 800 metres has already lost two legal appeals against World Athletics' regulations that force her to medically lower her natural testosterone level if she wants to run in women's races from 400 metres to one mile.

The South African's lawyers said there's been a “violation of her rights” and wants the human rights court to examine the rules.

Semenya has one of a number of conditions known as differences of sex development. Although she has never publicly released details of her condition, World Athletics has controversially referred to her as “biologically male” in previous legal proceedings, a description that angered Semenya.

Semenya has the typical male XY chromosome pattern and levels of testosterone that are much higher then the typical female range, World Athletics says. The track and field body says that gives her and other athletes like her an unfair advantage over other female runners.

The 30-year-old Semenya was legally identified as female at birth and has identified as female her whole life. She says her testosterone is merely a genetic gift.

The regulations have been fiercely criticized, mainly because of the “treatment” options World Athletics gives to allow affected athletes to compete. They have one of three options to lower their testosterone levels: Taking daily contraceptive pills, using hormone-blocking injections, or having surgery.

“The regulations require these women to undergo humiliating and invasive physical examinations followed by harmful and experimental medical procedures if they wish to compete internationally in women’s events between 400m and one mile, the exact range in which Ms. Semenya specializes,” Semenya's lawyers said.

World Athletics, which was then known as the IAAF, announced in 2018 it would introduce the rules. Semenya challenged them and lost at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2019. She also lost a second appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal last year. That second case will be central to her appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

“Caster asks the Court to find that Switzerland has failed in its positive obligations to protect her against the violation of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights," her lawyers said.

They said the track body's rules were “discriminatory attempts to restrict the ability of certain women to participate in female athletics competitions.”

Because of her refusal to lower her natural testosterone, Semenya has been barred from running in the 800 since 2019, when she was the dominant runner in the world over two laps. She is currently not allowed to run her favourite race — the race she has won two Olympic golds and three world titles in — at any major event.

Semenya is not the only athlete affected. Two other Olympic medallists from Africa, Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi and Margaret Wambui of Kenya, have said they are also bound by the rules. They also said they would refuse to undergo medical intervention to reduce their testosterone levels.

“I hope the European court will put an end to the longstanding human rights violations by World Athletics against women athletes," Semenya said in a statement. "All we ask is to be allowed to run free, for once and for all."

Semenya, Niyonsaba and Wambui finished 1-2-3 in the 800 metres at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics, strengthening World Athletics' argument that their medical conditions gave them an athletic advantage over other women.

It's unclear if the human rights court would be able to hear Semenya's case before the delayed Tokyo Olympics, which might be Semenya's last. The games are set to open on July 23. Previous sports cases that have gone to the European Court of Human Rights have taken years to be decided.

___

More AP sports: https://apnews.com/hub/apf-sports and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports

Gerald Imray, The Associated Press

Woman shot with rubber bullet at protest not surprised to see officer exonerated

LaToya Ratlieff, a Florida woman who was shot in the face by a police officer's rubber bullet during a Black Lives Matter protest, said her "heart dropped" when she learned the officer was exonerated but said she wasn't surprised.

Play Video
Florida city commissioner apologizes months after woman was injured by police

"It was expected," Ratlieff said at a news conference Friday. "We've seen this happen too many times ... when it comes to Black life."

"If nothing else, it's invigorating because it reaffirms why we were in the streets marching ... and why this doesn't end today," she added

.

© WPLG LaToya Ratlieff talks about being shot by police with rubber bullet at Black Lives Matter protest in May of 2020, during a press conference on Feb. 26, 2021, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

On May 31, 2020, Ratlieff was at a George Floyd protest in Fort Lauderdale that turned violent. She was heading to her car to go home when a rubber bullet struck her face, a half-inch above her right eye, shattering her eye socket.

\\

Video showed Ratlieff walking about 30 feet from a group of officers who were wearing riot gear and firing tear gas canisters and rubber bullets. The footage showed Ratlieff screaming and blood gushing from her wound. The injury nearly cost Ratlieff her eye.

© Lynne Sladky/AP, FILE LaToya Ratlieff looks at a photograph of herself, June 12, 2020, in Lauderhill, Fla.

© Lynne Sladky/AP, FILE LaToya Ratlieff poses for a photograph, June 12, 2020, in Lauderhill, Fla.

The officer who struck Ratlieff has been exonerated, Fort Lauderdale Police Interim Police Chief Patrick Lynn announced Thursday.

The officer "identified and targeted an individual who hurled a projectile at our officers with an intent to cause them harm" and it was not the officer's "intent" to hit Ratlieff, Lynn said at a news conference.

© Miami Herald/TNS via Getty Images, FILE LaToya Ratlieff talks about her experience, June 2, 2020

The department's office of internal affairs conducted an "extensive" review and an external review was conducted as well, Lynn said.

"The department has made every effort to learn from this incident," Lynn said.MORE: Florida official apologizes to woman months after police shot her with rubber bullet at Black Lives Matter protest

"On behalf of the men and women of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department, I want to express my sincerest apology," Lynn said to Ratlieff.

Ratlieff on Friday called Lynn's apology "disingenuous ... as if I had a bad dinner at a restaurant."

© WPLG LaToya Ratlieff talks about being shot by police with rubber bullet at Black Lives Matter protest in May of 2020, during a press conference on Feb. 26, 2021, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Ratlieff on Friday also advocated against legislation endorsed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, which she said would suppress Black Floridians and allies from protesting for civil rights.

DeSantis is "working to criminalize the first amendment rights of Black people and those who stand with us," she said.

The HB1 bill aims to combat riots with proposals including: prohibiting inciting or encouraging a riot; creating "affirmative defense to civil action where plaintiff participated in riot or unlawful assembly"; revising penalties for burglary or theft during a riot; revising the penalty for assault or battery committed in furtherance of a riot; and revising the minimum sentence for battery on an officer in furtherance of a riot.

"HB1 would criminalize the action of law-abiding citizens simply because strangers attending the same demonstrations might break the law," Ratlieff said. "If HB1 had been the law on May 31, the organizers of that event could have been criminally liable, and even myself as a victim could've been criminally liable."

"My message to the governor is this: You have to take your knees off of our necks. We are tired," Ratlieff said.

DeSantis' office did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

ABC News' Bill Hutchinson contributed to this report.

STOP MURDERING PREDATORS
Hunters and trappers blow past Wisconsin's wolf kill target

© Provided by The Canadian Press

MADISON, Wis. — Hunters and trappers blew past Wisconsin's wolf kill target in less than 72 hours, forcing a premature end to a hunt that initially wasn't supposed to happen for another nine months and raising the ire of animal rights activists.

The Department of Natural Resources closed the season Wednesday afternoon after hunters and trappers had killed 178 wolves, which was 59 more than the state's target of 119. Hunters and trappers exceeded their target in all six of the state's management zones.

The agency estimated that about 1,000 wolves roamed the state before the hunt began. The department's population goal is 350.

The season began Monday and had been scheduled to run through Sunday. DNR officials announced Tuesday that the hunt would end Wednesday afternoon because so many animals had been killed in the first two days.

The wolf season has been one of the most contentious outdoors issues that Wisconsin has grappled with in the last 20 years.

Animal rights advocates have argued that wolf populations are too small to support hunting and that the animals are too majestic to kill. Farmers and rural residents, though, say wolves are killing their livestock and pets.

FARMERS GRAZE THEIR ANIMALS ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR NO FEE, BUT BITCH WHEN THE WOLVES ON THOSE LANDS EXERT THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS

Wisconsin law hands wolf hunters and trappers significant advantages during the season. Unlike with deer hunting, wolf hunters and trappers can operate at night and use dogs to corner wolves. Snow cover also aids tracking.

Wayne Pacelle, president of animal rights group Animal Wellness Action, said in a statement Wednesday that killed Wisconsin wolves didn't stand a chance.

“Traps are set like landmines for unsuspecting animals and the hunters are deep into the woods and out of the range of communication, and they can easily claim they didn't get the ‘stop the hunt’ notice before they killed their wolf,” he said.

Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based non-profit that works to protect endangered species, issued a statement calling the Wisconsin hunt “a reckless slaughter.”

Hunters and trappers exceeded the state’s kill target during Wisconsin's 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons, which were held before the wolf was placed back on the federal endangered species list.

Wisconsin law requires the DNR to give 24-hour notice of wolf hunting zone closures, which means hunters and trappers can keep killing wolves for another day after a closure is announced. If they kill a wolf after the zone is closed, they would face a $330 fine.

The DNR announced on Tuesday that three zones would close at 10 a.m. Wednesday and the remaining three would close at 3 p.m.

The Trump administration removed federal protections for wolves in January, returning management to the states. Wisconsin law requires the DNR to hold an annual hunt between November and February. The department was preparing for a November hunt when Republican lawmakers demanded the season start before the end of February, saying they were worried the Biden administration might re-list wolves before November and deny Wisconsin hunters a season.

The DNR resisted, but hunter advocacy group Hunter Nation won a court order earlier this month that forced the immediate launch of a wolf hunting season.

The DNR still plans to hold a November wolf hunting season.

Keith Warnke, the department's fish, wildlife and parks administrator, told the agency's policy board during a meeting Wednesday that hunters had exceeded the limit.

None of the board members expressed any reaction to the news. The board's chairman, Fred Prehn, said the target was too low given the population goal of 350 wolves and that the November target should be set to get closer to that goal.

Warnke said he didn't know if that would be safe for the overall population, but that the department would use that 350-animal goal to inform its decisions. He said new population estimates are expected in April.

Lawmakers in neighbouring Minnesota have introduced dueling bills that would ban wolf hunting and establish a season.

___

Follow Todd Richmond on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trichmond1

Todd Richmond, The Associated Press

No consent, no exploration, FSIN tells North Sask. miner

A First Nation with some of the richest uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan wants an exploration company off its land.

Birch Narrows Dene Nation, with support from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN), told Baselode Energy Corp. "to cease and desist further resources exploration and vacate their lands," in a prepared statement on Tuesday.

The First Nation alleges it found the company's workers on its land without the band council's consent. While the company received a permit from the province, Birch Narrows Dene Nation Chief Jonathon Sylvestre said that doesn't "give them the green light to run roughshod over our Inherent and Treaty Rights.”

The First Nation has since removed a blockade it built to stop exploration, but continues to patrol the area. Sylvestre said he expects "meaningful and proper consultation prior to any resource development" on the First Nation's land.

"It’s been especially difficult to meet deadlines during COVID-19, while our efforts are keeping our communities safe — not on rubber stamping resource development activities in our territories," he said.

Baselode has paused work to consult with the community. In a prepared statement on Monday, the company said it "believes a near-term solution is achievable and (that it) will continue with its exploration activities in due course."

Baselode's survey was a low-impact environmental survey conducted by snowmobile and on foot, a Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment spokeswoman said in a statement. Following delays related to COVID-19, Baselode officials met with the community on Jan. 20 and Feb. 9 to answer questions, the spokeswoman said.

Exploration is expected to be followed by a sampling survey that requires a separate consultation process, she said, adding that the province extended the original process to give the community more time to share concerns.

The dispute over the community's consent drew support from First Nation leaders.

In a statement, Treaty 10 leadership urged the province to follow the course set federally by Bill C-15, which aims to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It commended Baselode for pausing work, but said it was "misleading, inaccurate and disingenuous" for the province to say that Birch Narrows had ample time to voice concerns.

Underfunded First Nations need more resources to meaningfully participate in the consultation process, said Meadow Lake Tribal Council Chief Richard Ben.

“Otherwise, many First Nations will be left out of the process. We can’t undertake studies at our own expense in order to be consulted on resource development within our territory," he said.

Treaty rights override the provincial permit process, FSIN Chief Bobby Cameron said. Without gaining consent or input from the First Nation, "stay off our lands," he added.

“These kinds of bad business practices won’t be tolerated anymore as our connections to the land, water, animals and environment is paramount,” FSIN Vice Chief Heather Bear said.

“Resource exploration and extraction within our territories presents our Treaty hunters and gatherers with real problems, especially when it impacts their ability to exercise their Inherent and Treaty rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather.”

Nick Pearce, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The StarPhoenix

Canadian Medical Association elects first Indigenous president

Richard Raycraft CBC


  

© Marni Kagan/CMA 

Dr. Alika Lafontaine practices anesthesia in Grande Prairie, AB and is of Anishinaabe, Cree, Metis and Pacific Islander ancestry.

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has elected its first Indigenous president.

Members selected Dr. Alika Lafontaine, an anesthesiologist in Grande Prairie, Alberta, as CMA president for 2022-23. He will serve as president-elect until August 2022, after which he will become the official CMA president, says a news release from the CMA.

Lafontaine is from Treaty 4 Territory in southern Saskatchewan, and is of Cree, Anishinaabe, Metis and Pacific Islander ancestry.

His nomination comes as the health care sector in Canada grapples with issues of inequity, including racism.

Earlier this year, the federal government committed to legislation that would aim to ensure Indigenous control over the development and delivery of Indigenous health services.

Lafontaine said he will focus on addressing issues of inequity during his tenure, and on establishing national licensing for physicians.

"Mobility, employability and collaboration should exist in a post-pandemic world, along with the decreased stress, burnout and improved wellness that will result," Lafontaine said in the media release.

"It's also time to eliminate racism, sexism, ableism, classism and all other '-isms' that permeate health system culture."

The nomination is waiting on confirmation by the CMA General Council in August 2021.

TORIES DISCOVER INDIGENOUS ISSUE

Address anti-Indigenous racism in health care before expanding MAID: advocates, MP

THEY CAN USE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE

OTTAWA — The federal government should not expand access to medical assistance in dying to those suffering solely from severe mental illness while Indigenous people live in conditions linked to higher rates of mental illness and suicide, says Tyler White of Siksika Health Services in Alberta.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

White, the organization's chief executive, joined Conservative MP Michael Cooper at a news conference to oppose proposed reforms to Canada's rules on medically assisted death. He argued it is unjust to offer access to medical assistance in dying to Indigenous people when basic care and compassion have not been provided.

"Vulnerable persons must be protected from being induced, in moments of weakness, to end their lives," he said.

He said such a move does not take into account the inequalities that Indigenous people face.

He described the Liberal government's consultation with Indigenous leaders on the new law as trivial, and said the government should know many Indigenous people do not feel safe getting health care due to stigma and racism.

Parliament is working on Bill C-7, which would expand access to medically assisted death.

It would extend access to assisted dying to intolerably suffering people who are not approaching the natural ends of their lives, bringing the law into compliance with a 2019 Quebec Superior Court ruling.

The House of Commons passed a version of the bill in December; the Senate has since amended it to widen access even further, including eventually to people whose only affliction is grievous, irremediable mental illness, and sent the revised text back to the Commons.

The Liberals have agreed with the Senate that certain people suffering solely from mental illnesses should be entitled to receive medical assistance in dying — but not for another two years, so the issue can be studied.

Cooper, the MP for St. Albert-Edmonton, said the government's acceptance of the Senate's amendment is "reckless."

"This radically expands Canada's medical assistance in dying regime and will with certainty put even more vulnerable Canadians at risk," he said.

He said the most important criterion for qualifying for medical assistance in dying, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, is that one must suffer from a grievous and irremediable condition.

"When we're talking about mental health, it's not possible to determine, it's not possible to predict, whether someone will get better, or will recover," he said.

Cooper said the government is moving ahead with the amendment despite a lack of consensus within the medical community and despite that there has been no formal study by Parliament of such a drastic change.

"This government is seeking to ram through Bill C-7 legislation that is now substantively different than the bill that was passed in the fall and sent to the Senate, in a cynical effort to avoid parliamentary scrutiny."

The Bloc Québécois has said it will support the minority Liberal government's response to the Senate's amendment, assuring it will pass.

Dr. John Maher, president of the Ontario Association for ACT & FACT, which promotes "assertive community treatment" for people with severe mental illnesses, said the Liberal government is pushing C-7 when Canadians are struggling with a pandemic that has worsened social disparity and pushed many to the depths of hopelessness.

"How can any human being in good conscience ignore the loud cries of hundreds of disability organizations, mental-health organizations, medical associations, Indigenous Peoples, religious organizations, the United Nations and our citizens who know the wounds inflicted by racism, ageism and ableism?" he said.

"Offering death to people who are impoverished, undertreated and suicidal is discriminatory."

Maher said medical assistance in dying should only be offered to people suffering terminal illness.

"(Medical assistance in dying) for non-terminal illness is suicide using a sanitized gun in a white coat," he said.

White said the new law threatens Indigenous Peoples' efforts to combat the youth suicide crisis in Indigenous communities.

"It sends a wrong message to those who are not coping, that the only way to improve their suffering is to choose death," he said.

"Our message to our youth is that suicide is not the answer."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 26, 2021.

———

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

Maan Alhmidi, The Canadian Press

B.C.'s Site C dam to cost $16 billion, delayed until 2025

VICTORIA — The cost of British Columbia's Site C hydroelectric dam has grown by $6 billion, bringing the price tag of the megaproject to $16 billion and stretching the completion date to 2025.  

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The provincial government says the skyrocketing expenses are due to construction setbacks, geotechnical issues, COVID-19 and other cost and schedule pressures.

Premier John Horgan's announcement comes weeks after a former deputy finance minister completed his report on the status of the northeastern B.C. dam and submitted the study for cabinet consideration.

The review was ordered last July after Crown-owned BC Hydro reported concerns about risks and delays, and the province says it has accepted all 17 of Peter Milburn's recommendations, including a strengthened project assurance board.

The government also released a review by two independent experts that found changes to the foundation to address geotechnical issues on the project's right bank will ensure Site C meets safety standards.

The province says terminating Site C now would mean an immediate writedown of about $10 billion, which would result in an average 26 per cent increase in BC Hydro rates over the next 10 years if covered by ratepayers.

It says continuing with the project means the costs will be recovered through rates over the 70-year lifespan of the dam.

Horgan also announced new leadership at BC Hydro as Doug Allen — who has held top positions at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and TransLink — replaces Ken Peterson as chairman of the board.

The premier said in December 2017 that the NDP government would reluctantly support completion of the dam across the Peace River just west of Fort St. John, but he would never have started the project commissioned by the previous B.C. Liberal government.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 26, 2021.

The Canadian Press

CANADA

Pandemic increased direct aid to fossil fuel producers, new study shows


OTTAWA — A new report suggests the economic impact of the pandemic led to a massive increase in federal aid to Canada's oilpatch.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

But the annual inventory of fossil fuel subsidies published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development also highlights that almost all of the direct aid was paid out in two programs to protect jobs and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

It raises further questions about how to define fossil fuel subsidies, an issue Canada has not solved despite promising to eliminate "inefficient" ones for more than a decade now.

"The problematic aspect is how do we make sure they're not supporting for future fossil fuel production," said Vanessa Corkal, a policy analyst at the IISD and author of the report.

The IISD report shows Canada spent at least $1.9 billion in direct aid to the traditional energy sector last year, up from $600 million in 2019.

More than three-quarters of that — $1.5 billion — was to help companies restore abandoned oil wells in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

These are wells that were left with no owner, often when a company went bankrupt, but which continue to leak emissions, mostly methane. It's estimated there are more than 125,000 of them in Canada.

Another $320 million was aid to Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil industry, which was hit hard last year by the pandemic and the oil price collapse in the spring.

Corkal said initially the oil recovery fund for the province was pitched in a way that would require it to show an environmental impact, but it's not clear that's happening. Most of that funding has yet to be committed.

Canada first promised to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies as part of a G20 commitment in 2009, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau more recently set a target date of 2025 to do it.

There is no set definition yet for what inefficient means. Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says that in his view, programs that are good for the environment don't count.

"Fossil fuel subsidies are those that are largely dedicated to either enhanced fossil fuel production or extraction," he said in an interview with The Canadian Press Thursday.

Wilkinson said he thinks most of the measures listed in the new report aren't subsidies, including the funds to properly decommission abandoned wells.

"That, in my mind, is not a fossil fuel subsidy," he said. "If you want to call it a fossil fuel subsidy then it's not an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy. Those are things that are about environmental remediation. They're about ensuring you're putting people back to work while doing good things for the environment."

Corkal said any kind of financial support to companies that produce fossil fuels could ultimately help those companies invest to produce more oil and gas. She said that just makes no sense when the government is trying to reduce that production by putting a price on the pollution they create when burned.

The report likened having subsidies and a carbon price to "trying to bail water out of a leaky boat."

The G20 fossil fuel subsidy promise has led to multiple countries partnering up to do peer reviews of each other's subsidies. The United States and China, Germany and Mexico, and Italy and Indonesia all completed their reports in 18 to 24 months.

Canada and Argentina agreed to a joint review in June 2018, but it's still not finished.

Wilkinson would not say when it might be done.

Corkal said it's impossible to phase out anything until there's a full picture of what exists.

Environment groups welcomed the orphaned oil well program last spring, believing it to be a better way to help the sector than subsidizing oil production. But Corkal said taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for cleaning up orphaned wells permanently.

"Even if a subsidy has clear emissions reductions benefits, it's ultimately still reducing the cost of business for fossil fuel producers," she said.

President Joe Biden made eliminating fossil fuel subsidies in the United States an immediate priority. On his first full day in office he directed all federal agencies to identify any direct federal spending on fossil fuels, and to eliminate any such spending from the budget next year.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 25, 2021.

Mia Rabson, The Canadian Press

Alberta judge rejects injunction to maintain last-resort opioid treatment program
Wallis Snowdon  CBC

© Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press The injunction application sought to maintain funding for the injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) program.

An emergency court injunction that would have maintained a last-resort treatment for Albertans suffering from the most severe forms of opioid addiction has been rejected.

The application for an injunction was filed by 11 Albertans struggling with severe substance abuse.

If granted, the injunction would have prevented all injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) patients from being denied the treatment until a lawsuit triggered by the provincial government's decision to discontinue funding for the program concludes.

"The impact on the plaintiffs of the province's planned changes to iOAT will be minor," reads a decision issued by Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench Justice Grant Dunlop on Thursday.

The lawsuit filed last year against the provincial government argues that discontinuing the program would be dangerous for clients who relied on the program.

The statement of claim, filed Sept. 30 in Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench, argues cancelling the treatment infringes on patients' charter rights by putting their lives and personal security in peril, and amounts to discrimination. None of the allegations has been proven in court.

Edmonton lawyer Avnish Nanda, who is representing the plaintiffs pro bono, argued that ending the program would force clients to once again resort to using street drugs, a supply which has become increasingly toxic since the pandemic began.

He said it may have been difficult for the judge to understand the life and death challenges of addiction.

"It's disappointing," Nanda said in interview Friday. "There is no doubt that people will die from this decision.

"My concern is that more patients will die while this takes four to five years to litigate."

He said his clients are worried about what the decision will mean for their treatment.

"These are real people ... and just the indifference of this government to their lives, and the lack of real remedies from the court, it just indicates to them, my clients, that their lives don't matter."

Nanda said the province has promised that treatment for his clients will remain largely unchanged but the details of that new medical service remain unclear. With iOAT clinics set to close next month, he's deeply concerned.

"The court said the alternative model is good enough, but that model is hypothetical. The is no funding in place," he said. "That's what raises real alarm bells for me; ... there are no specific details on what is going to happen."

Following a hearing on the injunction on Feb. 10, Dunlop had reserved his decision on the case. In his decision issued Thursday, Dunlop said Nanda fell short of effectively proving his case.

"I find that the planned changes and their effect on the plaintiffs are minor," Dunlop said in his written decision.

"While there is an argument to be made that those changes will breach one or more of the plaintiffs' charter rights, the plaintiffs have not established that they will suffer irreparable harm as a result of those changes."

Injectable opioid agonist treatment — which allows patients to inject hydromorphone, a medical-grade opioid three times daily under the supervision of a nurse — is offered only when all other treatments prove ineffective.

Clients enrolled in the program are also provided access to a variety of services including psychological, financial and housing supports.

Clinics in Edmonton and Calgary offering the treatment are set to close March 31 when their provincial funding runs out.

The clinics were set up under a two-year pilot program announced by the previous NDP government in late 2017. The Calgary clinic opened in October 2018. The Edmonton clinic opened in May 2019. Together, they once served more than 200 patients.

A $14-million grant for the program was set to expire in March 2020 but the United Conservative Party government, elected in April 2019, renewed it for another year to transition patients to other forms of treatment.

The province has said it expects that all patients will be transitioned out by the end of March and will still be provided access to injections at provincial clinics. Court heard that a funding application had not yet been made for the new treatment program.

The details of that treatment were revealed for the first time during the injunction hearing on Feb. 10.

Court was told that clients will still be supplied with injectable hydromorphone through Alberta Health Services at 10 opioid dependency program (ODP) clinics across the province.

Lawyers representing the province asked that the application for an injunction be dismissed, arguing that access to treatment for users of the program would remain largely unchanged.

"On the evidence before me, none of the plaintiffs will suffer any serious harm from the changes planned by the province," Dunlop wrote.

"The evidence does not establish a high probability that the changes will cause death or serious health consequences for any of the plaintiffs. At worst, some ... may postpone or miss some primary care because of the combination of the time required to receive opioid injections and other challenges they face connected to their opioid use disorder.

"In addition, there is a possibility of minor inconvenience, such as having to go further afield to access some medical services than they presently do at the iOAT clinics. In combination, the likelihood of the harms and the magnitude of the harms do not amount to irreparable harm."

The originating lawsuit details the lives of 11 addicts, each consumed by their own trauma.

Some experienced childhood abuse and homelessness, and have cycled in and out of foster homes, prison cells and treatment facilities. Some have overdosed numerous times.

One plaintiff, Taylor Anthony Maxey, 31, shares a similar cycle of addiction with that of his fellow plaintiffs.

Maxey had a traumatic childhood, enduring years of physical, mental and sexual abuse.

He went on to become a competitive swimmer in his youth but suffered a spinal injury and began using opioids to dull both his physical and mental pain.

At first, the drugs were prescribed, but as his addiction deepened, he turned to street drugs. He attempted suicide, was eventually disowned by his family, and spent 10 years living on the streets committing petty crimes to feed his habit.

Maxey began the program in October 2018, and was found to have an unusually high tolerance for opioids. He requires double the recommended daily dose to keep his withdrawal pains at bay.

"With the closure of iOAT, Maxey will be unable to manage his opioid use disorder," reads the statement of claim. "No other treatment is effective.

"Maxey would lose everything he has gained through iOAT: stable housing and relationships, improving mental health and hope for the future."

Iceberg size of Greater London breaks off Antarctica

Sarah Marsh THE GUARDIAN

An iceberg almost the size of Greater London has split off from Antarctica, near a British Antarctic Survey station.

© Photograph: Robert Taylor/AP The Brunt Ice Shelf in Antarctica in January 2020. The separation occurred just over 20km from Britain’s Halley research station.


Related: Researchers rethink life in a cold climate after Antarctic find

The separation occurred just over 20km from Britain’s Halley research station but there was no one in the base and so there was no risk to human life. The 1,270 sq km, 150-metre-thick chunk of frozen water separated from the Brunt Ice Shelf on Friday.

The British Antarctic Survey (BAS), which has been operating Halley in a reduced role since 2017 because of the concern an iceberg could imminently split off, captured footage of large cracks at Antarctica’s Brunt Ice Shelf earlier in the month.

Large cracks in the ice of this part of Antarctica were first discovered a decade ago and, since then, the BAS has been monitoring the area in case of just such an event. BAS has a range of GPS devices on the Brunt. These relay information about ice movements back to the agency’s headquarters in Cambridge.

Adrian Luckman, British glaciologist and professor of geology at Swansea University in Wales, has been examining images of the brunt in recent weeks and estimating when a large chunk of ice might break off from the glacier.

Related: 'Strange pale penguin': rare yellow and white bird discovered among king penguins in Atlantic

“Although the breaking off of large parts of Antarctic ice shelves is an entirely normal part of how they work, large calving events such as the one detected at the Brunt Ice Shelf on Friday remain quite rare and exciting,” the remote-sensing expert told the BBC. “With three long rifts actively developing on the Brunt Ice Shelf system over the last five years, we have all been anticipating that something spectacular was going to happen.

“Time will tell whether this calving will trigger more pieces to break off in the coming days and weeks. At Swansea University we study the development of ice shelf rifts because, while some lead to large calving events, others do not, and the reasons for this may explain why large ice shelves exist at all.”