Lone dissenter calls Texas Supreme Court transgender ruling ‘cruel, unconstitutional’

Matt Keeley, The New Civil Rights Movement
June 29, 2024

Texas Supreme Court (AFP)

The lone justice to dissent called the Texas Supreme Court ruling to uphold the ban on gender-affirming care for minors "cruel" and "unconstitutional" Friday.

The Texas Supreme Court, currently made up of all Republican justices, decided 8-1 to uphold a ban on providing gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, to transgender people under the age of 18. The Court said that it did "not attempt to identify the most appropriate treatment for a child suffering from gender dysphoria," claiming it to be a "complicated question" for doctors and legislators.

The Court ruled that even though "fit parents have a fundamental interest in directing the care, custody, and control of their children free from government interference," that interest is bound by "the Legislature’s authority to regulate the practice of medicine."

READ MORE: Republican Gov. Mike DeWine Vetoes Anti-Trans Bill After Talking to Families With Trans Kids

"[W]e conclude the Legislature made a permissible, rational policy choice to limit the types of available medical procedures for children, particularly in light of the relative nascency of both gender dysphoria and its various modes of treatment and the Legislature’s express constitutional authority to regulate the practice of medicine," Justice Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle wrote.

Justice Debra Lehrmann, the only justice to dissent, was clear in her disagreement. She wrote that the decision means "the State can usurp parental authority to follow a physician’s advice regarding their own children’s medical needs." Lehrmann identified that gender-affirming care can be "lifesaving."

She also mocked the idea that the Court's ruling didn't "deprive children diagnosed with gender dysphoria of appropriate treatment." Lehrmann pointed out that by upholding the law, it "effectively forecloses all medical treatment options that are currently available to these children ... under the guise that depriving parents of access to these treatments is no different than prohibiting parents from allowing their children to get tattoos."

"The law is not only cruel—it is unconstitutional," she wrote, calling the ban a "hatchet, not a scalpel."

Lehrmann also put the lie to the claims by anti-LGBTQ activists that surgery is common for transgender minors.

"Indeed, the leading medical associations in this field do not recommend surgical intervention before adulthood. Without a doubt, the removal of a young child’s genitalia is something that neither the conventional medical community nor conscientious parents would condone," she wrote. "Moreover, medical experts do not recommend that any medical intervention ... be undertaken before the onset of puberty."

Lehrmann is correct. Prior to puberty, transgender care is basically limited to social changes. For example, wearing gender-affirming clothing and using appropriate pronouns, according to Advocates for Trans Equality.

Puberty blockers can be prescribed for those who are starting puberty. Puberty blockers are safe, according to Cedars-Sinai, and are not only used for transgender youth. A common purpose is to stop precocious puberty, which affects 1 in 5,000 children, including children as young as 6. For both transgender youth and kids going through precocious puberty, puberty blockers are known to improve patients' mental health, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Puberty blockers are also fully reversible. However, in terms of trans youth, a study published in The Lancet found that 98% of those on puberty blockers went on hormone replacement therapy upon turning 18. But even for those few teens who realize after being on puberty blockers that they aren't trans, all they have to do is stop taking them, and their puberty will progress as normal.

THE LANCET
Continuation of gender-affirming hormones in transgender people starting puberty suppression in adolescence: a cohort study in the Netherlands

Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD
Sabine Elisabeth Hannema, PhD
Daniel Tatting Klink, PhD
Prof Martin den Heijer, PhD
Chantal Maria Wiepjes, PhD

Published:October 20, 2022

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00254-1
VOLUME 6, ISSUE 12, P869-875, DECEMBER 2022

Summary

Background

In the Netherlands, treatment with puberty suppression is available to transgender adolescents younger than age 18 years. When gender dysphoria persists testosterone or oestradiol can be added as gender-affirming hormones in young people who go on to transition. We investigated the proportion of people who continued gender-affirming hormone treatment at follow-up after having started puberty suppression and gender-affirming hormone treatment in adolescence.

Methods

In this cohort study, we used data from the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender dysphoria (ACOG), which included people who visited the gender identity clinic of the Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Medisch Centrum, Netherlands, for gender dysphoria. People with disorders of sex development were not included in the ACOG. We included people who started medical treatment in adolescence with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) to suppress puberty before the age of 18 years and used GnRHa for a minimum duration of 3 months before addition of gender-affirming hormones. We linked this data to a nationwide prescription registry supplied by Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) to check for a prescription for gender-affirming hormones at follow-up. The main outcome of this study was a prescription for gender-affirming hormones at the end of data collection (Dec 31, 2018). Data were analysed using Cox regression to identify possible determinants associated with a higher risk of stopping gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Findings

720 people were included, of whom 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth. At the start of GnRHa treatment, the median age was 14·1 (IQR 13·0–16·3) years for people assigned male at birth and 16·0 (14·1–16·9) years for people assigned female at birth. Median age at end of data collection was 20·2 (17·9–24·8) years for people assigned male at birth and 19·2 (17·8–22·0) years for those assigned female at birth. 704 (98%) people who had started gender-affirming medical treatment in adolescence continued to use gender-affirming hormones at follow-up. Age at first visit, year of first visit, age and puberty stage at start of GnRHa treatment, age at start of gender-affirming hormone treatment, year of start of gender-affirming hormone treatment, and gonadectomy were not associated with discontinuing gender-affirming hormones.

Interpretation

Most participants who started gender-affirming hormones in adolescence continued this treatment into adulthood. The continuation of treatment is reassuring considering the worries that people who started treatment in adolescence might discontinue gender-affirming treatment.

Funding
None.

U.S. Supreme Court will rule on trans treatment bans, a decision expected to impact Florida law

The closely watched case is almost certain to affect similar laws in Florida and more than a dozen other states


By Dara Kam, News Service of Florida 

on Tue, Jun 25, 2024 

Photo by Matthew LehmanThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether a Tennessee law restricting puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender children is unconstitutional, in a closely watched case that is almost certain to affect similar laws in Florida and more than a dozen other states.

Justices will hear the case in the fall, with a decision likely coming in June or July 2025.

The Biden administration in November filed a petition asking the court to consider whether the Tennessee law, which blocks doctors from ordering puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors with gender dysphoria, violates equal-protection rights and is sex-based discrimination because the treatments are available for other purposes.

The “court’s intervention is urgently needed because Tennessee’s law is part of a wave of similar bans preventing transgender adolescents from obtaining medical care that they, their parents, and their doctors have all concluded is necessary,” U.S. Department of Justice lawyers wrote in the petition.

Monday’s decision to take up the case, known as United States v. Skrmetti, comes amid conflicting lower-court decisions over similar restrictions enacted in Republican-led states, including Florida.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle this month ruled that a 2023 Florida law and regulations prohibiting the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat children for gender dysphoria and making it harder for trans adults to access care are unconstitutionally discriminatory and were motivated by “animus” toward transgender people.

Hinkle permanently barred Florida health officials from enforcing the law, which also carried heavy sanctions and potential jail time for doctors who violated the restrictions.

In a 101-page ruling, the judge wrote that “gender identity is real” and likened opposition to transgender people to racism and misogyny.

“The state of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment — treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state’s full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient’s transgender identity,” Hinkle’s June 11 ruling said.

Lawyers for the state last week asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put a hold on Hinkle’s ruling while Florida’s appeal plays out. A June 18 notice of appeal, as is common, did not detail arguments the state will make at the Atlanta-based appeals court. But the motion for a stay raised a series of arguments, including that putting the ruling on hold would prevent “irreparable harm” to the state and be in the “public interest.”

The state’s motion also pointed to debate about transgender treatment for minors at appellate courts in other parts of the country.

“At the very least, all must agree that the legal issues aren’t clearcut,” the motion said.

Shannon Minter, an attorney who represents plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit, called the Supreme Court’s decision to rule on the issue a “huge victory.”

“They don’t take very many cases. It’s an indication of how important this issue is, and it should give hope to families across the country. Our nation’s highest court recognizes the significance of this issue. Now is our chance to let them hear from these families,” Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told The News Service of Florida in a phone interview.

The Florida lawsuit, filed last year by the parents of two transgender children and a transgender man, almost certainly will be put on hold until the Supreme Court decides the Tennessee case, Minter predicted.

The Tennessee law, which focuses only on children, prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, last year blocked the part of the Tennessee law that banned puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Richardson found that the ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection for people in similar situations, because it prohibits treatment for transgender adolescents that would be allowed for other adolescents.

But a split 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Richardson’s ruling and reinstated Tennessee’s law and a similar prohibition in Kentucky. Plaintiffs in both cases, which the appeals court consolidated, and the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

The Supreme Court’s review “will bring much-needed clarity to whether the Constitution contains special protections for gender identity,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a prepared statement.

"We fought hard to defend Tennessee's law protecting kids from irreversible gender treatments and secured a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion from the Sixth Circuit. I look forward to finishing the fight in the United States Supreme Court,” he said.

The court’s decision to consider the case immediately drew widespread attention. But the pending review also created divisions within the LGBTQ legal community, especially among people wary of the conservative-leaning court.

Alejandra Caraballo, a transgender attorney who teaches at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, posted on X, that she thinks asking the Supreme Court to take up the issue “will turn out to be a generationally bad strategic mistake akin to Bowers v Hardwick,” referring to a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that said sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right and allowed states to outlaw it.

But Minter, who also represents plaintiffs in Kentucky’s lawsuit, said the issue is urgent and needs to be settled.

“We can’t let these incredibly harmful laws stay on the books, so really there’s no choice about the timing,” Minter told the News Service. “These laws are so damaging, so extreme, we have to challenge them and we’re doing so all across the country, generally with a lot of success, and when those victories are reversed by these appellate courts, we have to seek review.”

Minter also pointed to a 2020 decision by the Supreme Court in a case known as Bostock v. Clayton County establishing that discrimination against LGBTQ workers is unconstitutional.

“I am extremely optimistic about our chances in the Supreme Court. Yes, it is a conservative court. They have done many alarming things. At the same time, this is essentially the same court that decided the Bostock case very recently, and Bostock recognized that discrimination because a person is transgender is sex discrimination, and that is the main issue in this case,” he said.

Bolivian president faces more accusations of staging ‘self-coup,’ including from rival Evo Morales

By — Megan Janetsky, Associated Press

Jun 30, 2024 

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — Former President Evo Morales on Sunday accused his political ally-turned-rival President Luis Arce of deceiving Bolivians by staging a “self-coup” last week to earn political points among the electorate, marking a sharp downturn in an already fraught relationship.

Morales was initially among the country’s most powerful voices to say the approximately 200 members of the military who marched on Bolivia’s government palace alongside armored vehicles Wednesday had attempted a “coup d’état.” He called for “all those involved in this riot to be arrested and tried.”

But on Sunday, Morales joined others who contend Arce himself orchestrated the incident in an attempt to win the sympathy of Bolivians at a time when his popularity is extremely low.

READ MORE: As his supporters rally, Bolivia’s president lambasts accusations of a self-coup as ‘lies’

Arce “disrespected the truth, deceived us, lied, not only to the Bolivian people but to the whole world,” Morales said in a local broadcast program Sunday. Morales also called for an independent investigation into the military action in a post on X.

Morales is throwing his support behind an accusation made by former Gen. Juan José Zuñiga, who allegedly led the coup attempt. Morales said that Zuñiga had informed colleagues and family of his plan before carrying it out and that while in custody he told authorities that Arce had “betrayed” him.

“The president told me: ‘The situation is very screwed up, very critical. It is necessary to prepare something to raise my popularity’,” Zúñiga quoted Arce as saying.

That theory was quickly adopted by Arce’s political enemies, who dubbed it a “self-coup.”

“At some point the truth will be known,” a handcuffed Zúñiga told reporters while being transferred to prison Saturday.

Presidential Minister María Nela Prada fired back at Morales over state television Sunday, warning him to not “become a puppet, a marionette and an instrument of imperialism that intends to plunder our country.” She said the “fascist right” wanted to “distort history.”

“What I condemn even more is that from people like Evo Morales, who claim to be leftists, there is ideological fluctuation around what are coups d’état and failed coups d’état in our country,” she said.

Morales still wields a great deal of influence in Bolivia, especially among coca growers and unions, while Arce has faced simmering discontent as the country reels from an economic crisis.

Morales, once Arce’s friend, resigned as president in 2019 amid unrest after he ran for an unconstitutional third term and fled into exile, an incident he insists was a coup.

The incident led to conservative Jeanine Áñez to briefly take over as interim president, a period plagued with controversy. Áñez is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence on accusations she illegally took over the presidency after Morales resigned.

In Bolivia’s 2020 election, Morales threw his support behind Arce to be the candidate for his Movement for Socialism, known by its Spanish acronym MAS.

But their relationship soured when Morales returned from self-exile and later announced he planned to run against Arce to be MAS’s candidate in the 2025 elections. Their fights have grown increasingly bitter as Morales’ allies have blocked much of Arce’s legislative agenda in Congress.

“We’ve been politically attacked,” Arce told The Associated Press in an interview Friday. But “we haven’t attacked” back.

The feud has angered many Bolivians, and Morales’ comments Sunday were not likely to help.

Morales said on the local radio program “Kausachun Coca” that he felt the incident damaged the image of Bolivia and its military. He also apologized for expressing solidarity with Arce.

Mexican Cartels Armed With US Weaponry: Tank Busters

By Eric Mack | Sunday, 30 June 2024 

Mexican drug cartels are reportedly arming up to show incoming President Claudia Sheinbaum they are loaded with weaponry, including tank-busting FGM 148 Javelin infrared-guided missile launchers made by U.S. defense contractors.

The timing of the revelation and training to use them raise the question of who are the real power holders and influencers in Mexico, a source told USA Today on Sunday.

"It's to show the government, perhaps this one or the incoming one, that they have the ability to launch attacks of this kind with the weaponry they have," security consultant David Saucedo told the paper. "It's their secret weapon, but they can use it if necessary. That's my impression."

Javelins are shoulder-held, close-combat/anti-armor missile launchers designed to bust tanks on the battlefield, but they can also be fired to destroy helicopters and drones.

Biden administration officials deny the cartels' claims to have them and the necessary training to use them, but reports also indicate Pentagon tracking of such weapons contain "holes," according to the report.

The reality is a Mexican secretary of security official told USA Today that multiple Javelins have been confiscated from cartels, including the Jalisco New Generation Cartel.

Also, there is forensic evidence the Javelins have been used to down helicopters of political figures, according to the report.

"Weapons like this present an extreme danger when they land in the hands of criminals," ATF Director Steven Dettelbach said last year.

"They're seeking a level of weaponry that outguns Mexican law enforcement."

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has vowed to use the U.S. military against Mexican drug cartels, but the new reported arming could make for a messy battle.

Cartels "would not think twice to use it against [U.S. forces], if they dare enter the country," a cartel source told USA Today. "That would create a terrible war.

"We don't let Mexican forces stop us, much less a foreign force."

UK

Local Labour members resign to campaign for Corbyn

1 day ago
By Iain Watson, Political Correspondent

PA Media
Mr Corbyn had the Labour party whip suspended in 2020 and it was never restored

Leading members of the Labour Party in Islington North, the seat represented by Jeremy Corbyn since 1983, have resigned or announced they are willing to be expelled to campaign for him.

Former Labour leader Mr Corbyn is standing as an independent after the party whip was suspended from him in 2020 - and was never restored - when he suggested the scale of antisemitism in the party was ‘dramatically overstated’ by opponents.

Labour declined to comment but said its rules were clear.

According to these, any member who supports a non-Labour candidate will be expelled if they haven’t already resigned.

The letter, addressed to "voters of Islington North" and signed by dozens of people, tells local Labour members were "denied the right to choose our own candidate" for the general election.

It adds the group had not taken its decision lightly, but had to "take a stand in the name of democracy and justice".

Signatories include chair Alison McGarry and two vice chairs who tendered their resignations in the past week, as well as an assistant secretary who expected to be expelled.

The letter was also signed by the constituency secretary who resigned when Jeremy Corbyn announced he’d stand as an independent, and by office bearers in local branches.

A recent poll in the north London constituency suggested Mr Corbyn was trailing behind the official Labour candidate.

His supporters will see the letter as a boost for his campaign.

The full list of general election candidates standing in the Islington North constituency is as follows:

Liberal Democrat, Vikas Aggarwal
Independent, Jeremy Corbyn
Conservative, Karen Harries
Independent, Paul Josling
Green, Sheridan Kates
Labour, Praful Nargund
Reform UK, Martyn Nelson

Revolt Against Keir Starmer’s Labour by Long-Time Backers Puts Top Team Stars at Risk

SIR KEIR STARMER'S RED TORIES

Isabella Ward, Ailbhe Rea and Olivia Konotey-Ahulu
Sat, 29 June 2024 

(Bloomberg) -- Birmingham resident Johur Uddin has always voted Labour. But with the UK opposition party on the cusp of a potentially record election victory next week, the 56-year-old consultant says he’ll break with the habit of a lifetime on July 4 and mark his ballot paper with an X next to an independent candidate.

A perception that Labour has drifted from its roots, coupled with party leader Keir Starmer’s support for Israel in its war with Hamas in Gaza have driven Uddin away. The sentiment was shared by four of the five men with him at the Legacy West Midlands charity’s office in the Birmingham Ladywood constituency, who are eying independent candidates — with one also weighing the Green Party.

“The values of Labour have completely changed,” said Uddin. “Before it was more for the working people and there was a lot of social justice” — a focus that’s been lost, he said.

The Birmingham men provide a flavor of how some traditionally Labour-backing groups — a mix of Muslims, environmentalists and the left wing — are searching for a new voice after the party tacked to the political center in its bid for power. In constituencies with a Muslim population of 20% or more, Labour support is eight points lower than in 2019, while the Green vote climbed eight points, Bloomberg analysis of YouGov polling data shows. Bloomberg reporting also anecdotally suggests a move toward independent candidates by Muslim voters in some seats.

There’s little prospect the trend will cost Labour the election — the opposition leads Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s governing Conservatives by more than 20 points in national polling and is projected to secure a record majority. But some of the party’s leading lights, including prospective justice secretary Shabana Mahmood and would-be culture secretary Thangam Debbonaire, could lose their seats, forcing Starmer into a reshuffle of his top team just as he gets his feet under the desk at 10 Downing Street.

Moreover, several Labour MPs, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they worry the change in Labour’s focus could store up problems for the future. Over a couple of election cycles, they said their safe urban seats could shift toward the Greens or independents without careful messaging in the constituency. The current strategy of appealing to voters switching from the Tories and those who backed Brexit isn’t geared toward urban, liberal electorates.

“The question is: is this going to be the sort of thing which hurts them for one election?” said Oxford University researcher Andrew Barclay. “Or is it actually a permanent chipping away at the emotional link between Muslim voters and the Labour party?”

The rumblings of discontent on Starmer’s left underscore the potential fragility of his political mandate, even if he wins big in Thursday’s election. Deep local fiscal problems and an increasingly uncertain global security environment means his would-be government could quickly face issues that exacerbates divisions in Labour.

Central to the shift in sentiment, especially among Muslims, is Starmer’s stance on the Israel-Hamas war. He’s been steadfast in his support of Israel’s right to self defense since the conflict erupted in October following Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel. In an early interview, he appeared to say Israel had the “right” to withhold power and water from Gaza — further damaging his standing with Muslims, as did the perception that he was slow to call for a cease-fire.

In a sign of how complicated the issue will be for Labour in power, Starmer on Saturday didn’t commit to publishing UK government legal advice on arms exports to Israel — something he has long called on Sunak’s administration to do.

“I haven’t seen it, I don’t know how up to date it is and therefore we’ll have to first win the election and then assess the situation,” he said in an interview. Starmer also said he accepts that publishing the full advice would be difficult, suggesting Labour could be willing to publish a summary instead.

Labour tensions have been exacerbated by Starmer’s refusal to allow his predecessor as party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to stand for reelection as a Labour candidate because of a row over antisemitism. Corbyn, a left-winger, was closely aligned to the Palestinian cause and in the past called Hamas his “friends.”

The fallout has seen Muslim councilors quit from Oxford to Manchester, Labour MPs stage a major parliamentary rebellion, and the party lose the Rochdale constituency to left-wing disrupter George Galloway in a by-election after suspending its candidate. Starmer’s popularity among ethnic minorities is the lowest recorded by any Labour leader since 1996, according to Ipsos.

Patrick Cunningham, a 26 year-old engineer, said Labour’s stance on Gaza has contributed to the decision by several of his friends to vote for Debbonaire’s opponent in Bristol Central, Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer, whose pledge to call for a Gaza cease-fire features large in her leaflets distributed around inner city shops.

But in the city in southwestern England — not known for its Muslim population — most residents who told Bloomberg they were moving to the Greens from Labour cited Starmer’s retreat on climate pledges in February, after he cut a pledge to spend £28 billion a year transitioning the UK to green energy by more than 80%.

That’s left Debbonaire fighting for her political life just as a government job beckons after serving 9 years in opposition. So-called MRP polls using seat-by-seat analysis by YouGov, Ipsos and We Think project she’ll lose, though others show her comfortably winning. Voters Bloomberg spoke to within her district were evenly split between the Greens and Labour.

One person familiar with the matter said Debbonaire has been privately thinking of her preparation for government as a “handover note” of her culture brief. Nevertheless Debbonaire — who beat Denyer by more than 28,000 votes in what was then Bristol West in 2019 and also beat the Greens into second place in 2015 — told Bloomberg last week that she’s confident of reelection.

Some 75 miles to the northeast, in Birmingham Ladywood, where almost half the population are Muslim, intention to vote Labour has plummeted by 29 percentage points since 2019, Bloomberg analysis shows. While none of the MRP polls suggest Labour will struggle there, party figures suggested Mahmood faces a tough battle against independent candidate and “Tiktok lawyer” Akhmed Yakoob — who won 20% of the vote in Birmingham in May’s West Midlands mayoralty election.

The progress made by independents is harder to gauge in MRP polls because the seat-by-seat projections often rely on data from previous elections, which may not capture them.

Mahmood declined to comment on her prospects, but previously told the BBC’s Political Thinking podcast that Labour needs to regain the trust of the Muslim community.

Muslim dissatisfaction is also a factor in Dewsbury and Batley, where Heather Iqbal, a one-time aide to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves, is standing. Former colleagues fret she could lose to independent candidate Iqbal Mohamed, whose posters adorn Batley’s lamp posts and shop windows.

In May’s council elections, independent candidates won 50% of the vote in the area, and some of the MRP polls suggest strong showings for the Greens, independents and Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK party. Despite all the MRP polls predicting Labour will win the seat, none of the dozens of voters Bloomberg spoke to said they would vote that way.

Health care worker Ayesha criticized Labour’s response to the Gaza conflict, saying they’ve lost her support.

“I want to vote for the person who is supporting Gaza,” said Shakir Husain, a 44-year-old civil engineer.

“There’s some trust to build back,” Iqbal — a Muslim herself — said, echoing Mahmood over a cup of tea in central Batley, where a billboard of her opponent looms over a row of derelict buildings.

Mohamed, for his part, says that while the Tories have let the area down nationally, Labour has done so locally. “We need people who are from the community to just hold these elite rich politicians to account,” the Durham-educated management consultant told Bloomberg.

To be sure, Muslims make up just 6.5% of the population of England and Wales, rising to more than a third of voters in only a handful of seats. “The Muslim vote is not going to affect who has the keys to Number 10,” said Parveen Akhtar, a political scientist at Aston University, noting that Muslims don’t vote as a bloc.

In all, about five Labour seats may be in danger due to the loss of traditional voters, a senior party official said. One seat where the party faces a challenge is Islington North, which Corbyn has represented since 1983 and where he’s now running as an independent. Another official said that in Scotland, some hoped-for gains from the Scottish National Party aren’t turning to Labour as strongly as expected, with many contests appearing on a knife-edge.

“We are working hard to deliver as many Labour MPs as possible in the general election and our campaigners are bringing our message of change to people across the country,” a Labour Party spokesperson said.

With all the main polls tipping Labour for a huge win, it would be tempting for the party to ignore setbacks in a handful of seats. But Anthony Wells, Director of YouGov’s political polling warned the party should watch closely the results in places like Bristol, Birmingham and Batley.

“When they’ve had the cost of governing and making hard decisions in quite a difficult economic background, they’re going to face far more difficulty in terms of hanging on to voters,” Wells said. “They probably want to keep an eye on now where those potential weaknesses are so they know which places they need to protect and be defensive about in four years’ time.”

--With assistance from Eamon Akil Farhat and Ellen Milligan.

(Updates with Starmer interview comment in 10th paragraph.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

Taliban delegation attends UN meeting in Qatar on Afghanistan, women excluded • FRANCE 24 English

Afghan women emphasize inclusion of “diverse voices” in decision-making: Amiri

• By Amu TV
• 
  

LkedInWhatsapPrintShare via Email

US special envoy Rina Amiri. File Photo.

DOHA, Qatar — Rina Amiri, the U.S. Special Envoy for Human Rights in Afghanistan, stated that she met with various Afghan human rights and women’s rights activists who underscored the necessity of including the “full diversity of Afghans,” particularly women, in future decision-making forums about Afghanistan.

Amiri noted that, over the past three weeks, she discussed concerns and recommendations with Afghan women and human rights networks both inside and outside Afghanistan.

She pledged to share the details of these discussions with envoys at the third round of the Doha meeting, which begins this evening.

Key points from her discussions include:

Human Rights Prioritization: The rights of women and girls must be prioritized.

Advocacy Spaces: Afghans, especially women, must be given opportunities to advocate for themselves.

International Pressure: The international community must continue to press the Taliban to reverse discriminatory edicts that restrict women and girls’ access to education, work, and movement, as well as other repressive policies.

Inclusive Framework: Ongoing consultations during and after Doha 3 are essential to support an inclusive framework for women and civil society participation.

Holistic Solutions: Afghanistan’s peace, security, and sustainability challenges cannot be resolved without the inclusion of diverse voices.

The exclusion of women and civil society members from the third Doha meeting has drawn strong criticism from human rights activists and women’s rights defenders

Statement on Canada’s attendance at UN meeting on Afghanistan

From: Global Affairs Canada

Statement

June 30, 2024 - Ottawa, Ontario - Global Affairs Canada

Global Affairs Canada today issued the following statement on the participation of David Sproule, Canada’s Special Representative for Afghanistan, in the third meeting of Special Envoys on Afghanistan (Doha III) hosted by the United Nations in Doha, Qatar, from June 30 to July 1, 2024:

“Canada is extremely disappointed that the UN organizers have excluded non-Taliban Afghan participants, including women's advocates, religious and ethnic minorities, and human rights groups from participating in the meeting’s main sessions.

“Canada has clearly expressed for weeks—both privately and in concert with other governments—its grave disappointment about the absence of civil society from Doha III.

“The full, equal and meaningful participation of Afghan women in the Doha meeting process is not only a core tenet of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, but fundamental to the achievement of a peaceful, stable and inclusive Afghanistan. None of the goals that Afghans are seeking to achieve are possible without the full participation of women.

“In the lead up to Doha III, Canada held consultations with Afghan civil society, human rights groups, and women to hear their concerns. Canada will use its platform at this meeting to amplify the messages of those who have courageously spoken out about the human rights abuses committed by the Taliban, but have not been invited to the main meetings.

“Since the fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021, and the subsequent closure of Canada’s embassy in Kabul, Canada has repeatedly urged the Taliban to honour Afghanistan’s international human rights obligations, lift restrictive measures on women and girls—including those measures touching on freedom of movement and rights of free speech and education—and restore women’s and girls’ meaningful participation in Afghan society.

“Canada will continue to call upon the UN to appoint, in a timely manner, a Special Envoy for Afghanistan with robust expertise on human rights and gender, who will spearhead the implementation of the roadmap as outlined in the UN Special Coordinator’s 2023 report and UN Security Council Resolution 2721.”

Activists to UN: Invitation of Taliban to Doha meeting ignores will of people

• BY AMU TVPRINT

Share via Email

KABUL, Afghanistan — Dozens of activists and members of Afghanistan’s civil society have issued an open letter to the United Nations, asserting that the Taliban’s invitation to the Doha meeting disregards the will of the Afghan people.

“The Taliban is a terrorist group, it is criminal, and lacks any legal legitimacy. Over the past three decades, it has seized political power through military violence, spreading fear and terror,” the letter stated.

The activists argue that the Taliban does not represent the true fabric of Afghan society and lacks legitimacy within the country.

The letter calls on the international community to shift its focus from negotiating with the Taliban to engaging directly with the people of Afghanistan.

Signed by 20 civil institutions and organizations, as well as thousands of female protesters, independent human rights activists, academics, writers, artists, and Afghan citizens worldwide, the letter will be sent to all international human rights institutions, countries, and prominent global figures.

The activists and civil rights organizations also urge recognition of “gender apartheid” in Afghanistan, accusing the Taliban of systematically pursuing genocide by denying and suppressing other religions and sects.

The letter recommends international sanctions against the Taliban, maintaining its leaders on terrorist watchlists, and criticizes the travel of Taliban leaders to various countries, warning that it could facilitate the expansion of global terrorism.

The UN is hosting a meeting of special envoys on Afghanistan today, with the Taliban delegation in attendance—a development that has sparked strong reactions among Afghan civil rights activists.

Three woman activists refuse to attend Doha meeting

• By Amu TV

hare via Email

DOHA, Qatar — Three prominent representatives of women’s rights and civil society in Afghanistan have declined to participate in the third round of the Doha meeting, citing the exclusion of women’s rights from the main agenda.

Habiba Sarabi, a member of the former government’s negotiating team; Nabila Musleh, former deputy minister of women’s affairs; and Zubaida Akbar, a human rights activist, announced they would not attend the meeting. They argued that the presence of women at the event is not meaningful and that human rights issues, particularly women’s rights, are not prioritized.

Five individuals representing women and civil society were invited to the Doha meeting. However, they have not been included in the primary discussions scheduled for the first two days. Instead, their meeting with the UN Under-Secretary-General and some special representatives of various countries will occur on the third day of the event.

This sidelining of civil society representatives has provoked strong reactions from women’s advocates. Sarabi criticized the decision, stating, “The meeting with civil society representatives has been moved to a sideline session, which contradicts the principle of full and meaningful participation of women in this process.”

Akbar echoed this sentiment, expressing her frustration: “I will not be attending the meeting because Afghan women deserve to be at the main meeting table in Doha, shaping the agenda and prioritizing women’s rights.”

Some women’s rights activists argue that the engagement of international envoys with the Taliban amounts to appeasement, disregarding women’s rights. They have called for a boycott of the Doha meeting, asserting that those who do attend cannot represent all Afghan women.

“The meeting with the Taliban is boycotted and incomplete for protesting women because we have no demands from terrorists, and it is clear to us that the Taliban are not flexible,” said one protestor.

The list of women representatives at the Doha meeting has not been made public. According to the plan, the UN Under-Secretary-General and special envoys from various countries will meet with representatives of women and civil society on the sidelines of the event.

Assange’s Freedom Is Also Ours: To Tell the Truth

by Robert Koehler Posted onJune 30, 2024

After 12 years – including five years of solitary confinement at Belmarsh Prison in London – Julian Assange is free. God bless America! He wasn’t extradited to the U.S. to stand trial, where he faced a sentence of 170 years in prison for violating the so-called Espionage Act.

Instead, he took a plea deal with the U.S. government, pleading guilty to one count of violating that act – you know, threatening America’s freedom – for which he had paid by his time already served. He was officially pronounced free at a U.S. federal court in Saipan, capital of the Northern Mariana Islands (a U.S. territory), after which he flew home to his wife and two children in Australia.

My emotional relief at his escape from the clutches of this government far outweighs my feelings about the broader implications of the guilty plea, which has justifiably stirred concern and controversy. The government got its little triumph: a “legal” acknowledgment of its right to keep monstrous secrets about what it does and punish any unauthorized spilling of the beans as “espionage.”

“He’s basically pleading guilty to things that journalists do all the time and need to do,” according to Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, quoted by the New York Times.

And Matt Taibbi said the decision “will remain a sword over the heads of anyone reporting on national security issues. Governments have no right to keep war crimes secret, but Assange’s 62-month stay in prison is starting to look like a template for Western prosecutions of such leaks.”

While such concerns are no doubt worrisome, I don’t think the legal system is a mechanism for seriously addressing them. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was hardly an equal in this hellish controversy. He was in the legal crosshairs of the most powerful country on the planet, which he had had the nerve to defy, by publishing an enormous amount of “classified” – that is to say hidden – data, given to him by government-employed whistleblowers.

This is called journalism, no matter that part of the U.S. case against Assange was that he doesn’t count as a real journalist. Mainstream, corporate journalists know how to behave themselves, I guess. They’re far more likely to “respect” the do-not-cross lines the government establishes.

As I wrote in 2010, at the beginning of the WikiLeaks controversy:

“In a time of endless war, when democracy is an orchestrated charade and citizen engagement is less welcome in the corridors of power than it has ever been, when the traditional checks and balances of government are in unchallenged collusion with one another, when the media act not as watchdogs of democracy but guard dogs of the interests and clichés of the status quo, we have WikiLeaks, disrupting the game of national security, ringing its bell, changing the rules.”

As long as “national security” includes the waging of war, honest – a.k.a., real – journalism will be a nuisance to those in charge, because it includes actual reportage, not simply press-releases and public-relations blather. In the real world, war equals murder. War is not an abstract game of strategy and tactics. War itself is a “war crime” – especially when it’s waged not to gain freedom from an oppressor but to maintain control over the oppressed.

WikiLeaks releases were outrageous acts of espionage – from a war-waging government’s point of view – because the data was raw, real and unsanitized. They included 90,000 classified documents on the US war in Afghanistan and nearly 400,000 secret files on the Iraq war, which… uh, bled beyond the official propaganda and, among other things, showed that civilian deaths in the two wars were, according to Al-Jazeera, “much higher than the numbers being reported.”

In addition, WikiLeaks released data that, as Al-Jazeera noted, “unearthed how the Geneva Conventions were being violated routinely in the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The documents, dating from 2002 to 2008 showed the abuse of 800 prisoners, some of them as young as 14.”

And then, of course, there was the infamous “collateral murder” video, which showed a U.S. helicopter firing at people on a street in Baghdad, killing seven of them, including a Reuters journalist, and wounding a number of others, including two children, who were sitting in a van that had pulled up to aid the wounded people in the street. And all this happened as helicopter crew members snickered about the deaths. This was the United States in full view, waging its “war on terror” by unleashing terror at the level only a superpower could commit.

Showing snippets of truth about the war on terror is Julian Assange’s crime: his act of espionage. And I get the government’s point of view. Assange put war itself into the forefront of collective human awareness – as a hideous reality, not a political abstraction. What he did bears striking similarity to what Emmett Till’s mother did. She exposed the raw horror of Southern racism by insisting that her son, a 14-year-old boy who was beaten and drowned by Mississippi racists for allegedly speaking to a white woman, have a public funeral with an open casket, so the whole world could see what had been done to him. This was in 1955. Not long afterward, the Civil Rights Movement was fully underway.

Human evolution isn’t a legal issue, decided by the courts. It involves humanity facing and transcending its own dark side, which can be a messy and chaotic process. This is the nature of truth.

Robert Koehler (koehlercw@gmail.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound, and his newly released album of recorded poetry and art work, Soul Fragments.

Julian Assange is finally free – but it is far from the end of the story

Nimo Omer

THE GUARDIAN
Tue, 25 June 2024 


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at a United States District Court in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, US.Photograph: Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters

After 12 years of confinement, seven in the Ecuadorian embassy and five in a high-security prison in south London, Julian Assange has been freed. The WikiLeaks founder, who faced 18 charges for helping and encouraging Chelsea Manning to leak military files, has pleaded guilty to one criminal count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified US national defence, as part of a plea deal struck with the US justice department. Assange was sentenced by Judge Ramona V Manglona to time served on the island of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands and is now on a flight back to Australia. The US ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy, said his return “brings this longstanding and difficult case to a close”. Assange’s wife said she is “elated” at the news of her husbands’ release.

It is the latest twist in the story of Assange, who spent years leaking documents that exposed government and military secrets, as well as less obvious targets like the actor Wesley Snipes, the Church of Scientology and the Church of the Latter-day Saints.

For today’s newsletter I spoke with writer and journalist Duncan Campbell about the final chapter of his legal drama.

In depth: ‘It’s good news for Assange … but not particularly good news for journalism’

Julian Assange, who was an expert hacker by the age of 16, has always had a bit of a rebel streak. In the late 80s he was accused of stealing half a million Australian dollars from Citibank.

But it was the website WikiLeaks that brought him to international attention. Major news outlets including the Guardian published leaks about Guantanamo Bay and classified Pentagon documents in collaboration with Assange. And in 2010 (when the picture above was taken) WikiLeaks published a video titled “Collateral Murder”, showing two US helicopter gunships in Iraq shooting Iraqi Reuters journalists. That devastating footage was followed by the publication of hundreds of thousands of documents, many in collaboration with numerous mainstream media outlets from the wars in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and Democratic party operatives in the run up to the 2016 election.

What followed were claims of dealings with Russian intelligence services, allegations of sexual assault in Sweden – which were ultimately dropped – and relentless calls for his imprisonment and even execution by US politicians. For years, prosecutors in America grappled with how to get a hold of Assange and prosecute him – the impulse to squash Assange became so strong that in 2017 senior CIA officials reportedly discussed plans to kidnap or assassinate him.

Journalists, human rights groups and press freedom organisations have been criticising the US for years, arguing that the pursuit of Assange represents a huge assault on freedom of expression. Amnesty International said prosecution could have a chilling effect on journalists who might self-censor for fear of punishment.

***

Years of pursuit

In 2010, the Swedish authorities put out an arrest warrant for Assange over separate allegations of rape and molestation – Assange has always denied the allegations. To avoid extradition, Assange requested political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012, stating his fear that he would be sent to the US through Sweden, where he could face a lifetime in prison or death. His claim was granted and specific diplomatic laws protected him from arrest in the UK, as long as he stayed inside the building, which is where he remained for seven years. During this time he was visited by a host of celebrities – Lady Gaga, John Cusack and Pamela Anderson among them. He was also visited by Nigel Farage, in secret, on a number of occasions.

In 2017, Sweden dropped its allegations stating that “at this point, all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted”. Eventually Ecuador rescinded its asylum offer, paving the way for Assange to be arrested and sent to Belmarsh prison where he has been held ever since.

***

Why has he been released?

After so long avoiding extradition, his supporters and loved ones will no doubt be relieved at the end to this saga. It makes sense that he accepted the deal, Campbell says, “given the appalling conditions that he’s been held in, the fact that he has been deprived of seeing his two small children and wife for five years, often left in a cell for 23 hours a day. I think it’s shocking that the United States have insisted on that when he has not breached the Espionage Act.” His family have also said that his physical and mental health were deteriorating for a number of years.

For the US, and Joe Biden’s administration, it makes sense to wrap things up. In April Biden said that he was “considering” dropping the charges and extradition attempt against Assange, avoiding the complications and potential loss of a court case in the UK that could drag on through the most crucial part of the election race. Pursuing the charges against Assange was becoming damaging for Biden when a big part of his platform this campaign has been about providing a guard-rail against Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy and freedom of speech.

The quiet but forceful diplomatic pressure from Australia has also played a significant role in securing the release of Assange. Australian politicians have long expressed their opposition to the extradition charge and lobbied for a plea deal.

***

Press freedom

As noted by Trevor Timm, a plea deal is less troubling than a conviction and appeals court ruling, which could have created an official precedent that potentially binds other courts to rule against journalists in future cases. But he adds that it is certainly not the best case scenario for press freedom.

Campbell echoes this sentiment. “It’s good news for Assange and his family, but it’s not particularly good news for journalism as a whole,” he says. “It still means that the US believes that if a journalist, who is not American or in the United States, publishes damaging information about them they can issue an extradition order and seek to have people from different countries stand trial in America.”

The criminalisation of Assange’s conduct through a guilty plea of the Espionage Act before a potential Trump presidency is particularly troubling given that Trump has repeatedly suggested that he would use the courts to retaliate against the media. In his opinion piece, Campbell notes that all over the world, journalists are facing unprecedented threats to their safety.

“From Haiti to Hong Kong, from Russia to Saudi Arabia, journalists are faced with pressures similar to those placed on Assange. That specious argument that Assange was ‘not really a journalist’, and thus not worthy of media support can surely now be finally buried.” Assange may be free, and Campbell understands why he has accepted the deal after so long behind bars, but “the situation for journalists is not great right now and the decision to release Assange doesn’t make it much better”.

Kamala Harris scores poll boost to replace Joe Biden

TEHRAN, Jun. 30 (MNA) – A new poll has found Vice President Kamala Harris is the top choice to replace President Joe Biden should he abandon his reelection campaign.

A new poll has found Vice President Kamala Harris is the top choice to replace President Joe Biden should he abandon his reelection campaign, News Week reported.

Biden's recent shaky debate performance has led some Democrats to consider whether he should be replaced on the ballot before November.

The Biden campaign has said the president is not dropping out. If he did, Harris, his vice president and running mate, would most likely join other top Democrats looking to replace him at the top of the ticket.

A Date for Progress flash poll, conducted on Friday, found Harris was the most popular choice to replace Biden. The poll surveyed 1,011 U.S. likely voters, including 387 Democratic likely voters, and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Asked who should be picked if the Democratic Party holds a convention among party members to choose a replacement for Biden, 39 percent of Democrat respondents chose Harris.

The Biden campaign has been contacted for comment. Seth Schuster, a Biden campaign spokesman, previously told Newsweek: "Joe Biden is not dropping out."

MNA

Kamala Harris Is Top Choice To Replace Joe Biden

NEWSWEEK
Published Jun 30, 2024
By Khaleda Rahman
National Correspondent

Anew poll has found Vice President Kamala Harris is the top choice to replace President Joe Biden should he abandon his reelection campaign.

Biden's recent shaky debate performance has led some Democrats to consider whether he should be replaced on the ballot before November.


The Biden campaign has said the president is not dropping out. If he did, Harris, his vice president and running mate, would most likely join other top Democrats looking to replace him at the top of the ticket.

A Data for Progress flash poll, conducted on Friday, found Harris was the most popular choice to replace Biden. The poll surveyed 1,011 U.S. likely voters, including 387 Democratic likely voters, and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.


Asked who should be picked if the Democratic Party holds a convention among party members to choose a replacement for Biden, 39 percent of Democrat respondents chose Harris.

The Biden campaign has been contacted for comment. Seth Schuster, a Biden campaign spokesman, previously told Newsweek: "Joe Biden is not dropping out."

NEWSLETTERThe Bulletin
Your Morning Starts Here
Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters.
I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek
By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.You may unsubscribe at any time.

Vice President Kamala Harris on June 24, 2024, in College Park, Maryland. A new flash poll found Harris is the most popular possible option to replace President Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic... More KEVIN DIETSCH/GETTY IMAGES

California Governor Gavin Newsom was the second most popular option, with 18 percent of Democrats picking him as their choice to replace the incumbent.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg got 10 percent of the vote, Senator Cory Booker received 7 percent and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer got 6 percent.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro each garnered only 2 percent.

Another 6 percent said their choice would be someone not on the list, while 9 percent said they were not sure.

"The real problem with swapping out Biden is that Democrats will be venturing into the great unknown," Thomas Gift, an associate professor of political science and director of the Centre on U.S. Politics at University College London, told Newsweek.

"Although there may be an alternative with a larger potential upside, a Biden replacement is just as easy to take a beating in his or her favorability after being vetted on the national scene."

The Data for Progress poll found that only around half (51 percent) of Democrats and 35 percent of all likely voters think Biden should remain the Democratic presidential candidate.

A Morning Consult poll conducted after Thursday's debate also found that 47 percent of Democratic voters and 59 percent of independent voters think Biden should be replaced as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Biden responded to critics at a rally in North Carolina on Friday.

"Folks, I don't walk as easy as I used to. I don't speak as smoothly as I used to. I don't debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know: I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job," he said. "I would not be running again if I didn't believe with all my heart and soul I can do this job."

Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, a Democratic National Committee member, and author of the book Primary Politics about the presidential nominating process, told Reuters that there are several scenarios regarding how Biden could be replaced as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Biden could decide to step aside before he is officially nominated at the convention in August, she said. He could also be challenged by others who try to win over the delegates he has accrued, or he could withdraw after the convention, leaving the DNC to elect someone to run against Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, in his place.