South Africa asks World Court to order Israel's withdrawal from Rafah

Reuters
Updated Fri, May 10, 2024

Palestinians evacuate after Israeli forces launched a ground and air operation in the eastern part of Rafah


AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -South Africa has asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to order Israel to withdraw from Rafah as part of additional emergency measures over the war in Gaza, the U.N.'s top court said on Friday.

In the ongoing case brought by South Africa, which accuses Israel of acts of genocide against Palestinians, the World Court in January ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts against Palestinians.

Israel did not immediately respond to requests for comment. It has previously said it is acting in accordance with international law in Gaza, and has called South Africa's genocide case baseless and accused Pretoria of acting as "the legal arm of Hamas".


In filings published on Friday, South Africa is seeking additional emergency measures in light of the ongoing military action in Rafah, which it calls the "last refuge" for Palestinians in Gaza.

South Africa asked the court to order that Israel cease the Rafah offensive and allow unimpeded access to Gaza for U.N. officials, organisations providing humanitarian aid, and journalists and investigators.

According to South Africa, Israel's military operation is killing the Palestinians of Gaza while at the same time starving them by denying humanitarian aid to enter.

"Those who have survived so far are facing imminent death now, and an order from the Court is needed to ensure their survival," South Africa's filing said.

The war has killed nearly 35,000 people in Hamas-run Gaza, according to health authorities there. About 1,200 people were killed in Israel and 253 taken hostage on Oct. 7 when Hamas launched the attack that started the war, according Israeli tallies.

The ICJ, also known as the World Court, generally rules within a few weeks on requests for emergency measures. It will likely take years before the court will rule on the merits of the case. While the ICJ's rulings are binding and without appeal the court has no way to enforce them.

(Reporting by Bart Meijer and Stephanie van den Berg; Editing by Kirsten Donovan and Jonathan Oatis)

UK Government admits it could be breaking law if it ignores Strasbourg judges, Rwanda documents reveal

Charles Hymas
Sat, May 11, 2024 

Rishi Sunak's controversial Safety of Rwanda Act aims to facilitate the removal of many who have arrived on boats - Chris J Ratcliffe/REUTERS


The Government has admitted that removing asylum seekers to Rwanda could put the UK in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The admission that the UK could be in breach of international law has come in submissions in response to a legal challenge by the FDA union, which represents top civil servants.

Ministers have previously maintained that they would not be breaking international law if they were to ignore rule 39 orders issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), one of which blocked the first flight to Rwanda in June 2022.

This is because they have enshrined the power for ministers to ignore rule 39 orders in legislation through Rishi Sunak’s controversial Safety of Rwanda Act.

Civil servants have been instructed in guidance that they should obey ministers but the FDA is challenging this because it claims this would be a breach of the Civil Service code which requires officials to act in accordance with international law.

In a submission to the court, the Government has admitted that failure to comply with a rule 39 injunction could breach article 34 of the ECHR.

Rishi Sunak aims to get the first flights off to Rwanda as early as June 24 - TOBY MELVILLE/AFP

This allows individual applications to the ECtHR by people who allege there have been violations of their human rights.

Article 34 says that high contracting parties – which means states, including the United Kingdom – “undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right”.

Whether it is a potential breach of international law – and so places civil servants in breach of the civil service code – will be determined by the High Court at a hearing of the FDA’s challenge at the beginning of next month.

If the union is successful with its legal challenge, it could see the Government ordered to remove the conflict between civil servants’ duty under the Civil Service Code and the potential breach of international law.

This could require the Government to hold a parliamentary vote to either specify in law that the UK will ignore the injunctions – rather than simply giving ministers the power to do so – or to amend the Civil Service Code to remove officials’ obligations to comply with the law.
Fresh divisions

Such votes could open up fresh divisions between Tory moderates, who believe it would be a step too far to enshrine a requirement to breach international law legislation, and Right-wing MPs, who would back a strengthening of the legislation.

This could lead to further delays in Rishi Sunak’s ambition to get the first flights off to Rwanda as early as June 24. He has made clear that he will not allow a foreign court to block the Rwanda scheme.

The case is being heard by Mr Justice Martin Chamberlain who disclosed the Government’s admission after receiving a letter from the Government’s lawyers setting out ministers’ position.

The lawyers argued that the FDA claim was “hypothetical” on the basis that any migrants appealing their deportation would have to exhaust all avenues in UK domestic courts before submitting any claim to Strasbourg judges.
Reforms

Ministers believe that reforms of the rule 39 process after lobbying the court will make it harder for Strasbourg to injunct the flights for a second time. The threshold for an injunction to be granted has been raised.

However, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the Government lawyers had acknowledged the issue raised by the FDA would crystallise if an injunction was issued and “a ministerial decision is taken not to comply with that measure in circumstances where that constitutes a breach of article 34 of the ECHR”.

Legal experts say it is not clear whether the Government is accepting that all – or just some – decisions not to comply with interim measures would breach article 34.

In summing up the case, Mr Justice Chamberlain indicated that the prospect of a rule 39 order being issued was not hypothetical.
Rwanda removals

The Judge said: “It would not be right to say anything about the merits of the claim at this stage. However, it appears from the claim that some civil servants believe (or have been advised) that it would be contrary to their terms and conditions to comply with a ministerial decision to proceed with Rwanda removals in the face of a rule 39 measure.

“The prospect that they will be asked to act contrary to a rule 39 measure, whilst far from certain, is also not hypothetical, given the Government’s public statements on this subject.

“That being so, there is a powerful public interest in the determination of this claim in advance of the point when any rule 39 measure might be indicated.”

Is it 'high time' for Europe to recognise the human right to a healthy environment?

Rosie Frost
Fri, May 10, 2024 

Is it 'high time' for Europe to recognise the human right to a healthy environment?


Last month, Switzerland became the first country in the world to be sentenced by an international court over climate inaction.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) backed a group of older Swiss women concerned about the impact of climate change on their health. It ruled that the government’s lack of action had violated their fundamental human rights.

The landmark ruling could have major implications for international environmental law, sparking numerous questions about the intersection between climate change and human rights.

The ECHR’s climate decision is a warning to governments the world over


Former UN rights chief says ECHR decision shows that safe climate is a human right


And, in the wake of the unprecedented verdict, calls to enshrine the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment in the European Convention on Human Rights have once again been rekindled.
What is the right to a healthy environment?

The verdict in the Swiss women’s case does set a precedent for future climate litigation but, because the European human rights system doesn’t recognise the right to a healthy environment, it didn’t specifically address this.

Human rights come with legally enforceable obligations for states and enshrining them within international law provides legal avenues for holding governments accountable if they don’t uphold them.

Swiss members of Senior Women for Climate gather after the European Court of Human Rights' ruling. - AP Photo/Jean-Francois Badias

“The right to a healthy environment is crucial to preventing and remediating the impacts of the escalating triple planetary crisis (climate change, biodiversity loss, and pervasive pollution) which affects the lives and rights of individuals and communities worldwide,” says Nikki Reisch, Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

It provides comprehensive protection against a range of environmental harms, she explains. That includes ensuring every individual has the right to clean air and water, a safe climate, healthy ecosystems, healthy and sustainably produced food as well as non-toxic living, working and learning environments.

In addition, it guarantees some other procedural elements like access to environmental education and justice with effective remedies as well as public participation in decision-making.

Crucially it also reinforces protection for environmental defenders whose human rights are often “trampled” during their work.
Where is the right to a healthy environment already recognised?

After the UN Human Rights Council’s recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in 2021, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution in 2022 recognising that a safe and liveable environment is not just “sound policy” but a fundamental, universal human right.

Not every member state adopted this right into its domestic laws or constitution and the resolution is not legally binding.

The right to a healthy environment, however, is recognised in domestic law in 80 per cent of UN member states - 161 out of 193 nations. The UK and Russia are among some notable exceptions.

‘Historic’ European Court of Human Rights ruling backs Swiss women in climate change case


What does the ECHR’s landmark ruling mean for human rights and climate change?

“The implementation of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment has prompted stronger environmental legislation, enhanced public involvement in governance, greater transparency, and equitable access to justice,” says Reisch.

“These advancements have fostered better environmental outcomes, including cleaner air, safer drinking water, and reduced emissions.”

The Council of Europe remains the only regional human rights system that has not yet explicitly recognised the right to a healthy environment.

Outside of individual countries, internationally there are three regional systems for the protection of human rights: the African, the Inter-American and the European systems.

“The Council of Europe remains the only regional human rights system that has not yet explicitly recognised the right to a healthy environment,” Reisch explains.
Will the Council of Europe recognise the right to a healthy environment?

The Council of Europe has been facing demands to recognise the right to a healthy environment for more than 50 years.

Just this month, more than 400 civil society organisations from Amnesty International to Greenpeace, CIEL and Human Rights Watch came together to call for the right to a healthy environment to be put into law.

“The scale of the harms for people living in Europe, and the importance of coming to a unified approach in interpreting and implementing the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment makes it imperative for the Council of Europe to urgently take decisive steps toward the adoption of a binding legal framework that recognises and protects the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment,” they wrote in a letter to member states’ Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Permanent Representatives.

All Council of Europe states also voted in favour of the UN resolution recognising this right in 2022.

Activists protest against the use of fossil fuels and climate justice at COP28 in December. - AP Photo/Kamran Jebreili

A turning point came at the Reykjavik Summit of the Council of Europe in 2023. All member states present emphasised the need to strengthen their work on “human rights aspects of the environment based on the political recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a human right”.

Progress is now being made but, as former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights David Boyd noted, “it will take a unified effort from civil society and other actors to push the European States to adopt a new protocol recognising the right to a healthy environment.”

Action is overdue and the only obstacle is a lack of political will.

42 of the Council’s 46 member states already protect the right to a healthy environment through their national constitutions, legislation or as signatories to the Aarhus Convention. This international agreement guarantees the public three key rights on environmental issues: access to information, public participation and access to justice.

Reisch argues that recent significant climate cases show it is “high time” for the Council of Europe to “catch up” with other regional human rights institutions by putting the right to a healthy environment in law.

“Action is overdue and the only obstacle is a lack of political will,” she adds.
What would the right to a healthy environment mean for climate cases?

“Guaranteeing effective protection of the right to a healthy environment is critical to driving more rigorous environmental policies, more ambitious climate action, and more consistent legal enforcement across the continent,” Reisch explains.

Instilling this right could also help with future climate litigation. It has formed the basis for an increasingly large number of cases, particularly in Latin America and has also been used effectively in domestic and regional courts in Africa.

More than 30% of world’s electricity now comes from renewables, report reveals


Fossil fuels generated less than a quarter of the EU's electricity in April

“The historic recognition of this right by the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council is already informing legal precedents and advancing accountability around the globe.”

Several international courts are now being asked to address questions about a state’s international obligations in the face of the climate emergency - including the legal consequences of failing to fulfil these obligations. The right to a healthy environment is helping to answer those questions.

Beyond that, Reisch says more effective protection of the right and enforcement of corresponding obligations could help avoid the need for litigation in the first place.

CANADA
Court rules use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests were heavy handed, gov’t plans to appeal

Local Journalism Initiative
Fri, May 10, 2024 

OTTAWA — January 23, 2024 A federal judge has deemed the government's application of the Emergencies Act to disperse convoy protests in early 2022 as excessive, citing an infringement on protesters' Charter rights. Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley expressed that, while the protests revealed an unacceptable breakdown of public order, the government's use of the Emergencies Act lacked the qualities of reasonableness, such as justification, transparency, and intelligibility. Mosley emphasized that there was no national emergency justifying the act's invocation.

The case, argued by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and individuals with frozen bank accounts, contended that Ottawa did not meet the legal threshold for employing the unprecedented legislation. The government intends to appeal the decision.

The Emergencies Act was invoked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government on February 14, 2022, in response to prolonged protests in Ottawa and blockades at border points. The act granted law enforcement significant powers to remove and arrest protesters, freeze finances, and commandeer tow trucks. Mosley's ruling scrutinized the economic orders, stating they infringed on protesters' freedom of expression and violated Charter rights by allowing unreasonable search and seizure of financial information.

The judge acknowledged the potential for serious violence but asserted that it did not meet the Act's requirements, particularly as the situation at Coutts had been resolved without violence. The government argued that the measures were targeted, proportional, and temporary, emphasizing the threat to national security.

Holden Rhodes who owns the Killarney Mountain Lodge and Manitoulin Brewing Company donated $25,000 to the protest against the COVID-19 vaccine measures despite having received government subsidies for his businesses. He spoke with The Expositor about Justice Mosley’s decision saying: “I think Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley considered the evidence before him and provided a well reasoned decision concluding, among other items, that there was no national emergency and that the federal government's decision to declare one was unreasonable and a violation of the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act was renamed in 1988, replacing much of what was previously known as the War Measures Act. The Emergencies Act is an act of last resort and, prior to February 14, 2022, had not been invoked since its enactment in 1988. Before that, the War Measures Act was only invoked three times since its enactment in 1914 being; the First World War, the Second World War and the October 1970 FLQ crisis.’

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre swiftly criticized both the government and Prime Minister Trudeau personally, asserting, "He instigated the crisis by fostering division." Poilievre expressed on social media platform X, "He then violated Charter rights to suppress citizens illegally. As Prime Minister, I pledge to unify our country for the cause of freedom."

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh reluctantly acknowledged his party's support for the Emergencies Act's invocation, attributing the crisis to a direct failure of Justin Trudeau's leadership and the inaction of other levels of government. Speaking at a caucus meeting in Edmonton, Singh stated that his party will closely monitor the appeal proceedings.

Mr. Rhodes went on to say that he thinks “the seriousness of this legislation being one of absolute last resort; the rarity of the Emergencies Act being invoked (two world wars and then by a father (1970) and son (2022)); it was revoked by the federal government 9 days after it was invoked (Feb 14-23, 2022) as there wasn't support for it in the Senate; and the overwhelmingly peaceful behaviour of the protesters involved in an isolated geographic area where protests typically occur.”

Despite the government's claim of necessity, Mosley's decision sets a precedent, emphasizing that emergency powers should be used sparingly and carefully. The government's plan to appeal sets the stage for a potential legal battle, possibly reaching the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision contrasts with the Rouleau commission's findings, which concluded that the Emergencies Act was appropriately invoked, citing a failure in policing and federalism during the protests.

Jacqueline St. Pierre, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Manitoulin Expositor

Kristi Noem now banned from over 90 percent of tribal land in South Dakota after sixth tribe bars entry

Josh Marcus
Fri, May 10, 2024 



South Dakota governor Kristi Noem is now barred from entering six of the nine Native American reservations within the state, after a vote Friday by the Yankton Sioux Tribe.

Most of the tribes within the state have voted in recent months to bar the Republican leader from their territory, leaving her unable to access more than 90 per cent of the state’s tribal lands and more than 16 per cent of South Dakota’s total landmass.

The bans come in response to controversial recent comments from Ms Noem, accusing tribe members of being absentee parents and in cahoots with drug cartels.


“Their kids don’t have any hope,” the governor said at a town hall in March. “They don’t have parents who show up and help them. They have a tribal council or a president who focuses on a political agenda more than they care about actually helping somebody’s life look better.”

“We’ve got some tribal leaders that I believe are personally benefitting from the cartels being here, and that’s why they attack me every day,” she added.

Indigenous leaders condemned Ms Noem’s statements.

“As Tribal leaders, it is our duty to honor the voice of our people,” the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribal Council wrote in a statement earlier this week after a ban vote of its own. “Although, it is always a goal to engage in constructive dialogue with our political counterparts at the federal and state level. It is equally important we take actions that protect our values, ensuring a safe and inclusive environment, and preventing further marginalization of tribal nations.”

“Governor Kristi Noem’s wild and irresponsible attempt to connect tribal leaders and parents with Mexican drug cartels is a sad reflection of her fear-based politics that do nothing to bring people together to solve problems,” Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council Janet Alkire said in a statement earlier this year. “Rather than make uninformed and unsubstantiated claims, Noem should work with tribal leaders to increase funding and resources for tribal law enforcement and education.”

In addition to the Yankton and Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribes, the Oglala, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, and Rosebud Sioux tribes have all voted to bar the governor from their reservations in South Dakota.

“Banishing Governor Noem does nothing to solve the problem,” a Noem spokesperson said in response to a past vote. “She calls on all our tribal leaders to banish the cartels from tribal lands.”

The Friday vote is the latest complication for Ms Noem, whose seen her reputation as a national rising star severely damaged in the wake of controversy over her new memoir No Going Back, which features a highly dubioous (and now-removed) claim she met Kim Jong UN, and a story about shooting a misbehaving farm dog.

The Independent has contacted the governor’s office for comment.



Opinion: Dog-Killer Kristi Noem Realizes Her Big Problem: She Isn’t Trump

Matt Lewis
Thu, May 9, 2024 

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty


The first law of holes is that if you find yourself in one, stop digging. After nearly two weeks of public humiliation, Kristi Noem may have finally gotten the memo. At least, it appears she has finally taken her vice presidential aspirations out to behind the gravel pit, and put her ill-fated media tour out of its misery.

All that is left to do is to ponder how a once-promising rising star—the South Dakota governor was considered to be on Donald Trump’s “short list” as a potential running mate—could so quickly implode, based on a book that she ostensibly wrote.

When the controversy first erupted, the focus was on Noem having shot and killed the family dog, Cricket. That was bad, but there was another shoe about to drop: Noem also claimed that she had met (and stared down) North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a boast that appears to be erroneous. This gave the book controversy legs.

Farmer Boss on Noem’s Puppy-Killing Excuse: That’s Cow Dung!

Noem’s refusal to answer basic questions only compounded her problems. Regarding meeting Kim Jong Un, her incessantly repeated non-answer was some version of, “I’ve met with many, many world leaders. I’ve traveled around the world… I’m not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders.”

Rather than appearing chastened or humbled by this experience, Noem displayed a brazen, aggressive, and pugilistic posture, even as her claims continued to fall apart.

For example, Noem said that she asked her publisher, Center Street (disclosure: Noem and I share the same publisher) to remove the North Korean dictator’s name once she “became aware” of his inclusion in the book. The only problem? Noem recorded the audio version of her book long before the decision to excise mention of the dictator.

When asked about that, Noem refused to discuss this discrepancy.

Eventually, friendly outlets started turning against her. This created a permission structure where she became fair game, even for conservative hosts. A feeding frenzy ensued, leading Noem to pull the plug on subsequent interviews.

We can only speculate as to why Noem a) volunteered damaging information in her book to begin with, and why she b) so badly botched the subsequent crisis management.

As to the former, Noem likely believed that telling these tales would boost her chances with Trump. This would make her at least the second potential veep pick to blow up on the tarmac as a result of trying to be the person she thought Trump wanted her to be (the first example being Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, whose disastrous State of the Union response likely doomed her chances).

But what explains the failure to effectively manage the fallout, once it became clear she had made a mistake by publishing these accounts?

One plausible explanation is that trying to clean up this mess would be like polishing a turd. This is to say that there is no way to defend the indefensible.

Could a contrite and compassionate politician have wiped away tears while explaining that a lot of Americans just can’t relate to rugged life on a ranch or farm in South Dakota, where (depending on whom you ask) killing dogs is common?

With a high degree of difficulty, it’s possible. Bill Clinton, I suspect, could have pulled it off.

The Kim Jong Un story might be even trickier—assuming she made the whole thing up. But if she really met the dictator, she should say so. And if a ghostwriter accidentally got the facts wrong, she should say that.

A big clue to Noem’s thinking can be found in the title of her book, No Going Back.

During the Trump era, there is a sense that one can lie with impunity, so long as you never let them see you sweat, and never back down. Being a MAGA Republican, in other words, means never having to say you’re sorry.

One problem with this philosophy is that while bluster and belligerence can sometimes work, they are merely one tool in the communicator’s toolbox.

Sometimes, the public can be persuaded by a good explanation. Sometimes, the public is willing to accept a heartfelt apology. But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The even bigger problem is that Trump’s Teflon magic isn’t transferable to mere mortals.

By his example, Donald Trump has trained a generation of Republicans that acting like a bully always works, and that if you're explaining you're losing. While that is often true, what’s also true is that if you're not explaining… you’re not explaining.

Trump’s “always-on-offense” style might work for him, but his example should come with a warning label for the Kristi Noems of the world: “Do NOT, under any circumstances, attempt this at home.”

After almost two weeks’ of shoveling Trumpian B.S., Noem, it seems, has finally stopped digging.

Beyond Cricket: More Bonkers Stories From Kristi Noem’s Memoir

Justin Rohrlich
Thu, May 9, 2024 

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters


Ultra-MAGA South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has become quasi-infamous for admitting to having cold-bloodedly assassinated a puppy and a goat, but in her newly released memoir, the right-wing true believer recounts an “inspirational” episode by which her own negligence nearly killed or seriously maimed untold numbers of innocent motorists.

In 2016, when Noem was a member of Congress, she flew from Washington, D.C. to Nashville, Tennessee to see her daughter Kass, who had driven there from South Dakota with a friend to deliver a load of custom fire pits Noem’s brother had built, according to the passage in No Going Back, which came out on Tuesday.

But the friend wasn’t planning to make the return trip, so Noem would instead keep Kass company, she writes (or, more accurately, ghostwriter and “crazy guy” Mike Loomis, who did not respond on Thursday to a request for comment).

“We got to the truck and flatbed that I had someone else hook up and get ready for us to take off early in the morning,” the passage goes on. “I made the mistake of not checking the hitch, but just jumped into the truck at six a.m. and hit the interstate headed out of Nashville. About ten minutes into the drive, going seventy miles per hour in eight lanes of crowded traffic, we hit a bump, and the trailer came unhitched. The heavy hitch slammed onto the asphalt, sparks flew everywhere, and the back end of the truck fishtailed almost out of control!”

Noem says she “struggled to get the rig slowed down without slamming the trailer into the tailgate of the pickup and without breaking the safety chains holding the trailer to the pickup.” The chains, Noem continues, “were the only thing keeping that trailer from running across traffic and surely hurting dozens of people.” She managed to pull off to the side of the road, where she and Kass “just stood there as thousands of people rushed by in their vehicles, oblivious to the destruction we had all just avoided.”

“Gosh, Kass, we could have killed so many people,” Noem recalls saying as she shook her head “in disbelief.”

“I know,” Kass replied, according to Noem. “Thank God we didn’t.”

Anti-seatbelt vigilante

To be sure, safety does not appear to have been drilled into Noem’s method of operating by her childhood role models. In chapter eight, Noem introduces readers to her father, Ron Arnold, a rancher who died in 1994 after jumping into a grain bin on the family farm.

She remembers watching Ron out in the yard, and seeing him “take a knife to his brand-new pickup, fresh from the dealership.”

“He was cutting the seat belts out,” Noem writes.

“‘What are you doing?’ I asked, wide-eyed.”

“The government is trying to pass a law to say we’re required to wear seat belts,” Noem says her father replied. “No government is going to tell me I have to wear them. So I’m taking them out.”

As Noem tells readers, “the message was clear: the government telling us what to do was not right.”

Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota arrives at the Sturgis Buffalo Chip campground after riding in the Legends Ride for charity in 2021.
Scott Olson

Hiring the Hells Angels

The casual death, destruction, and risky behavior that seems to have been part-and-parcel of Noem’s life appears in full flower throughout her book.

When COVID-19 cut a deadly swath across the globe in the beginning of 2020, Noem was concerned not about the virus but that “the American population was at high risk for being controlled,” she writes.

“My staff and I watched the news as, one by one, states announced unthinkable lockdowns with unimaginable fear-mongering and threats,” Noem explains. “Spoiler alert, in case you missed it: South Dakota was the only state that stayed open.”

She describes the “crucial local support” at an Independence Day celebration that year which Noem insisted on having even though public health experts roundly warned the massive public gathering would likely become a “superspreader” event. Noem concedes that her decision to let it proceed was “controversial,” and that then-President Donald Trump would be in attendance, meaning security would be a “nightmare.”

“Hundreds if not thousands of Secret Service agents would be there, along with members of the South Dakota National Guard and law enforcement officers from every branch,” Noem writes. “Even with all these resources, we were concerned about several scenarios. In one of countless meetings, I said to my public safety secretary, ‘You know what? These motorcycle guys love Donald Trump. And we need help to make sure the roads aren’t blocked by protesters or troublemakers. There must be a way to engage their help, but the state can’t officially request it.’”

With a proverbial wink and nod, “[s]omeone in the room made it clear that they knew what to do, and that was the end of the discussion,” Noem says. “... Let’s put it this way: if someone wearing a Hell’s Angels vest makes it clear they don’t have time for any roadblocks, interruptions, or noise, potential disrupters will think twice.”

Throughout the book, Noem proudly touts her non-response to COVID, boasting that South Dakota leads the nation in “freedom.” In September 2020, Noem allowed the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally to proceed unabated, creating a so-called superspreader event with attached public health costs of some $12 billion. And by November 2020, the state had recorded the third-highest COVID mortality rate in the world.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem rejected COVID guidelines.
Tom Williams

Church, meet state

“Can I share one more thing I’m angry about?” Noem writes in chapter eight. “I’m tired of listening to many Christians tell me it’s the government’s job to take care of people. It’s actually our job as the church, and there are many ways we can do it.”

Noem says she has “spent countless hours after church services talking to people who have needs.”

“Sometimes it feels like I should bring a staffer with us to handle all the casework that’s brought to me,” she continues. “‘Governor, can you help me get my unemployment check?’ ‘Governor, can you help me get food stamps?’ I want to help people. I do. And I always do what I can to assist. But in most situations, what people need, they could handle themselves or in partnership with church staff and local leaders. That’s how life is supposed to work, in my view.”

Provision, according to Noem, “comes from God and not government. We’re designed to work faithfully so we have the means to help others who genuinely need it. I’m glad there are people praying for me and other leaders. Wow, I sure need it! But this world also needs people who step into the mess and become part of the solution. I enjoy yelling at my TV as much as anyone, but in reality it accomplishes zero. We can’t delegate our God-given responsibility to bureaucrats.”

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem speaks during the NRA conference in 2022.
Houston Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images

Taking aim, poorly

Noem tends to make a lot of noise about the Second Amendment and protecting gun rights, but admits to multiple firearms-related mishaps due to her own “poor shooting skills.” In October 2020, Noem posted what she “thought was a funny video about how we do social distancing in South Dakota—we go hunting,” she writes. “I was in a field and shot a pheasant… on the third attempt.”

“It was embarrassing that it took me three shots to kill that bird,” Noem continues. “But I had obviously spent too much time that year dealing with COVID, crises, decisions, press conferences, and running our state. That video horrified the legacy media but turned out to be one of the best ways to draw attention, and much-needed funds, to our campaign.”

One section in particular of Noem’s book has received significant blowback from people across the political spectrum, and especially from members of her own conference—including ex-president and de facto party boss Donald Trump. In it, Noem shares graphic, highly disturbing details of the day she fatally shot her own puppy and a billy goat from a herd she kept on her ranch.

The chapter, titled, “BAD DAY TO BE A GOAT,” begins with a recitation of the stressors Noem was facing during harvest season, likening it to “the Super Bowl of farming.” Running a hunting lodge at the same time, according to Noem, “is insane,” calling the combination “enough to break a family.”

Kristi Noem Blows Up at Fox Anchor Pressing Her on Puppy Murder

During one “particularly stressful year,” a group of longtime friends were at Noem’s ranch for their annual weeklong hunting trip, she writes. On their final day, after “strategically push[ing]” as many pheasants as possible to an 80-acre patch of land so her guests would “have an amazing amount of success” before heading home, Noem took “a few experienced dogs” along, as well as “one young dog named Cricket.”

“Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about fourteen months old, and she had come to us from a home that struggled with her aggressive personality,” Noem writes. “I was sure she’d learn a lot going out with our older dogs that day. I was wrong. Within an hour of walking the first field, Cricket had blown past the group, gotten too far ahead, and flushed up birds out of range. She was out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life. The only problem was there were no hunters nearby to shoot the birds she scared up.”

Cricket was slow to respond to Noem’s verbal commands, and ignored vibrations from a shock collar around her neck, the book says.

“We all watched helplessly as dozens and dozens of pheasants exploded from the grass and flew out of sight,” it goes on. “The hunt was ruined. I was livid.”

On the way home, Noem says she realized she was one kennel short and decided to let Cricket ride loose in the back of her pickup truck. After all, if she “was dumb enough to jump out, then good riddance. After what she had pulled that day, I didn’t care.”

After Cricket later killed a neighbor’s chickens—Noem unironically dubs the pup a “trained assassin”—Noem says she decided she was untrainable and needed to go. She was “less than worthless to us as a hunting dog,” Noem writes.

“This was my dog and my responsibility, and I would not ask someone else to clean up my mess,” the passage continues. “I stopped the truck in the middle of the yard, got my gun, grabbed Cricket’s leash and led her out into the pasture and down into the gravel pit. It was not a pleasant job—but it had to be done.” (Noem says her other daughter would later emerge from the school bus, asking, “Hey, where’s Cricket?”)

Once Cricket was no longer, Noem “realized another unpleasant job needed to be done,” she writes. A billy goat that had been living on the farm for years was too “nasty and mean” to tolerate, and smelled like urine, which is how males in rut attract females.

“It’s the most disgusting, musky, rancid smell you can imagine,” Noem writes. “Not only was this goat constantly covered in his own muck, but he also loved to chase the kids.”

So, she shot him. However, Noem admits, “My shot was off and I needed one more shell to finish the job. Problem was, I didn’t have one. Not wanting him to suffer, I hustled back across the pasture to the pickup, grabbed another shell, hurried back to the gravel pit, and put him down.”

While walking back across the pasture, Noem says she passed a group of construction workers building her family’s new home. The men had “looks of shocked amazement on their faces,” and seemed afraid of Noem, she writes.

“Later that evening, my uncle, who was the general contractor building our house, called me and said, ‘What got into you today?’ ‘Nothing,’ I responded. ‘Why?’” Noem goes on.

“‘Well, the guys said you came barreling into the yard with your truck, slammed the door, and took a gun and a dog over the hill, out of sight. They heard one shot and you came back without the dog. Then you grabbed the goat and headed back up over the hill. They heard another shot, you came back, slammed the pickup door, went back. Then they heard another shot and then you came back without the goat. They said they hurried back to work before you decided they were next!’”

Governor of South Dakota Kristi Noem and Donald Trump.
Drew Angerer

GOP bootlicker

Twice-impeached ex-President Donald Trump, now on trial for paying $130,000 in hush money to a porn star so she wouldn’t discuss their fling and deep-six his chances of victory in 2016, “broke politics,” Noem admiringly writes.

“Some people try to emulate President Trump without success,” she says. “They seem unaware of what authenticity looks like—the power of conviction, forged over many years of action. Instead, they take the low, thoughtless road of being verbal bomb throwers. There’s a world of difference. And those fakers are so obvious, it’s almost sad to watch them try to imitate his style without the substance to back it up.”

The pathologically self-absorbed Trump, according to Noem, “really doesn’t think he’s better than anyone else. He values everyone.”

Noem’s first choice for president was Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, she writes. But after Rubio dropped out, having become “Liddle Marco” to Trump, who mocked the size of Rubio’s genitalia in one particularly asinine debate, “supporting Trump was not a difficult decision.”

“Trump’s renegade spirit had always resonated with me,” Noem writes. “It reminded me of some members of my family. As a candidate, Donald Trump did everything that the consultants had told me not to do. He did what everyone in Washington was afraid to do. He did some things I would never do. But he was running, he was working, he was doing, and he was speaking clearly.”

Trump has made a cottage industry of relaying tales of “big, strong” men, including U.S. military generals, police officers, and the like, weeping and sobbing when they get near him, drawing derision and no shortage of disbelief from most rational observers. Yet, Noem floats a claim in her memoir about a close friend named Beth who she insists collapsed into tears during an audience with the 45th president.

Noem brought Beth to the White House one day, and was able to get her into the Oval Office, according to the book. Trump was seated at the Resolute Desk, “reviewing some papers.”

“Beth stopped in her tracks just inside the door when she realized where she was,” Noem writes. “Then she looked up, covered her face with her hands, and started to cry. She gave me the biggest hug ever and said ‘I can’t believe it. I can’t believe I’m here.’”

Although Noem describes her as “a friend,” she also seems to have little regard for former Republican National Committee chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, who Trump forced to drop the first half of her last name, due to his unhinged dislike for Mitt Romney, her uncle, then forced her out of the RNC altogether in favor of his adult son Eric’s wife, Lara Trump.

“The fact that our party did not achieve a majority in the US Senate was a failure by the Republican National Committee (RNC),” Noem writes. “Ronna McDaniel’s leadership was in the spotlight during the 2023 presidential debates and, I must say, rightfully so. Ronna is a friend, and I respect her, but no business executive gets to produce poor results and still keep the top job—unless you work for Disney.”

Further, Noem complains, after Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in 2020, the RNC didn’t immediately provide a team of lawyers “ready to look into every question of fishy voting.” (The few known fraudulent votes cast in 2020 were largely cast by Republicans, according to reports.)

“Weeks passed,” Noem writes. “Months passed. Nothing.”

Noem goes on to mention various politicians she does look up to, namechecking neo-fascists like Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán and Italian leader Giorgia Meloni as having achieved “encouraging victories.”

“Giorgia and I talked candidly about being ostracized for our beliefs and attacks from political enemies,” Noem writes. “I reassured her that we all face those challenges. ‘Other than the fact that these people want to destroy our very existence, what’s the downside?’ I joked.”

Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?

Tessa Stuart
Sat, May 11, 2024 



Holly Thompson Rehder was a sophomore when she dropped out of high school and married her 21-year-old boyfriend. Today, she’s a GOP state senator and the sponsor of a bill that would ban child marriage in Missouri — a bill that she has been surprised to see blocked by her Republican colleagues who argue there is nothing wrong with the practice.

“I know firsthand. I was married at 15. My sister was married at 16. My cousin was married at 16,” Rehder says. “I understand how a teenage girl being married off is harmful to her life, and sometimes that’s hard for others who haven’t seen that, up close and personal, to understand.”

Marriage is currently legal in Missouri at age of 16 with at least one parent’s consent. That’s a relatively recent development: Missouri lawmakers only banned marrying children who were 14 years old or younger in 2018. Fifty lawmakers — 38 Republicans and two Democrats — voted against that bill at the time. Before the 2018 legislation passed, Missouri had one of the laxest child marriage restrictions in the country, which, some argued, made the state a refuge for sex trafficking.


Rehder, along with state Sen. Lauren Arthur (D), introduced a bill that would outlaw marriage for anyone under the age of 18. The bill, which passed the GOP-controlled Senate 31-1 earlier this year, has stalled in House — the Government Efficiency and Downsizing committee, specifically — where half of the committee’s 14 members have opposed it.

Among the bill’s opponents is Rep. Hardy Billington (R), who told the Kansas City Star he believes that ending child marriage in Missouri would encourage abortion. “My opinion is that if someone [wants to] get married at 17, and they’re going to have a baby, and they cannot get married, then… chances of abortion are extremely high,” Billington said. (Missouri bans abortion at any stage, except when the life of the pregnant person is at stake.)

This argument — that child marriage must be preserved to prevent abortion — seems to be gaining currency with Republicans across the country as they consider laws to raise the marriage age.

The United States does not have a federal law setting the age of marriage. The marriage age is set by states, and only 12 of them have banned child marriage. (Those states: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.)

A 2021 study by the advocacy group Unchained at Last found that 300,000 minors were married between 2000 and 2018 in the United States. According to the group, 60,000 of those marriages involved an age difference that would have otherwise been considered a sex crime.

The vast majority of these minors were 16 or 17 years old, and most were girls wed to adult men who were four years older than they were, on average. There were five documented instances of children as young as 10 married in the U.S. in the period studied.

Several states legislatures have recently considered bills that would raise the marriage age recently — but they have run into opposition from Republican men who often cite abortion as the reason.

On the New Hampshire House floor last week, state Rep. Jess Edwards (R) argued against raising the marriage age from 16 to 18, by asking whether a law preventing people “of ripe, fertile age” from getting married would thus make “abortion a much more desirable alternative” than being pregnant out of wedlock. The bill, which had already passed the state Senate unanimously, narrowly made it through the House, with 192 votes in favor and 174 against. It now awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Chris Sununu.

Last year in West Virginia, a bill that would have raised the minimum age to obtain a marriage license passed the House of Delegates with overwhelming support, was defeated in the Senate Judiciary committee. Among the bill’s opponents was Republican state Sen. Mike Stuart, who shared that his mother married at age 16, and gave birth to him six months later. “I’m the luckiest guy in the world,” he said. The proposal, which raised the marriage age to 16 with parental consent, was ultimately resurrected and signed into law.

In Wyoming last year, when state lawmakers were considering a bill to raise the minimum marriage age to 16, the Republican Party sent out an email citing talking points from the religious group Capitol Watch for Wyoming Families that asserted: “Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children prior to the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children.” (The bill ultimately passed.)

Missouri’s Rehder, who became pregnant shortly after she was married at 15, doesn’t accept this argument. “I think there is no correlation” between child marriage and abortion, she says. “As a woman who was married at 15, who was pregnant at 15, you’re either pro-life or pro-choice. Your marriage status doesn’t have anything to do with either being pro-life or pro-choice.”

Another thing Rehder won’t accept? The possibility of her legislation dying in committee. While the bill that would raise the marriage age to 18 remains stalled with one week left in the legislative session, Rehder — who is currently running for lieutenant governor — has a plan to see it voted on next week.

“I’m tenacious, and I don’t give up until the last bell rings,” Rehder says. “I’ve got a bill that I’ve been working on [about] sex trafficking and foster children benefits. I’ve got it moving in the House, and I’m working to try to get this language for the marriage age added [as an amendment] to it.”

Rehder expects that bill, which has already passed out of committee, to come to the House floor on Monday, where she believes it might succeed. Proposing it as an amendment on the floor, she says, “will give us a larger pool of votes to pull from, and more women voting on it,” she says. “My hope is that we can still make this happen.”

Founder of Trump Defense Firm Indicted in Somali Fraud Case

William Bredderman
Fri, May 10, 2024 

The federal judge overseeing a pregnancy discrimination case against Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign approved a bid by the ex-president and his team to switch to new legal counsel—bringing in a Maryland law firm where a top partner stands accused of bilking millions belonging to the nation of Somalia.

Judge Katharine Parker signed off Wednesday on the replacement of the Trump camp’s old representation, LaRocca, Hornik, Greenberg, Kittredge, Carlin & McPartland, with a lawyer from the firm Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC. The previous defense team asked to abandon the ex-president and his former top advisers in the lawsuit earlier this month, citing an “irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship” in the suit, which GOP operative Arlene “A.J.” Delgado first brought in 2019, alleging that campaign leadership stripped her of responsibilities after married adviser Jason Miller impregnated her.

Parker initially rejected the law firm’s abdication, but ultimately allowed the campaign to swap in Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC, which did not respond to The Daily Beast’s requests for comment. But while the firm’s attorney Jeffrey Gavenman will be defending Trump, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, and Sean Spicer, one of the founding partners at his firm will be fighting to keep himself out of prison.

In late 2020, the Department of Justice charged Jeremy Schulman, half the eponymous team behind the firm, with using forged documents to gain access to $12.5 million in Somali state assets that the East African nation’s central bank had ordered frozen amid the country’s incessant civil war. The feds allege that, beginning in 2009, Schulman—then a shareholder in a different firm cooperating with prosecutors—and his co-conspirators used these falsified materials to persuade financial institutions and the New York State Comptroller that they could legally take possession of the nation’s sovereign investments as representatives for its transitional government. In the process, prosecutors say Schulman skimmed off $3.3 million in fees and expenses for his firm.

Today, Schulman Bhattacharya LLC’s webpage unabashedly touts Schulman’s work for, in, and around Somalia. And Gavenman, the new Trump campaign attorney, ferociously defended his colleague and his firm in a court filing from Delgado’s allusions to the partner’s legal problems in an objection to the substitution.

“Plaintiff attempts to smear, by association, an entire law firm and the undersigned. This insinuation, based on mere allegations against one member of Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC, is unprofessional and borders on incredulous,” Gavenman wrote in a letter to the judge. “Notwithstanding what may come of the allegations in the indictment, Mr. Schulman is presumed innocent, and his immaculate professional reputation and record show such presumption is not only mandatory but well-earned.”

Gavenman additionally highlighted Schulman’s latest bid to get the indictment dismissed based on claimed misconduct by prosecutors, who the partner alleges presented “false and misleading testimony” to the grand jury. Schulman has continued to practice law while under indictment.

Top Indian opposition leader released on bail ‘begs’ voters to fight ‘dictatorship’

NEWS WIRES
Sat, May 11, 2024 


A top opponent of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged his compatriots to resist "dictatorship" on Saturday, after the country's top court provisionally released him from jail to campaign in national elections.

Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of the capital Delhi and a key leader in an opposition alliance formed to compete against Modi in the polls, was granted bail on Friday after weeks in custody.

He is among several leaders of the bloc under criminal investigation, with his party describing his arrest as a "political conspiracy" orchestrated by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to sideline its opponents ahead of the vote.

In a defiant press conference the day after his release, Kejriwal said the outcome of the election would determine whether India remained a democracy.

"I have come to beg 1.4 billion people to save my country," he said. "Save my country from this dictatorship."

Kejriwal also personally accused the prime minister of targeting his opponents with criminal probes.

"Modi has started a very dangerous mission," he said. "Modi will send all opposition leaders to jail."

Kejriwal's government was accused of corruption when it liberalised the sale of liquor in 2021 and gave up a lucrative government stake in the sector.

More than 1,000 cheering supporters greeted him as he walked free from the capital's Tihar Jail on Friday night.

(AFP)

Indian Opposition Leader Hits Out at Modi After Release on Bail

Sidhartha Shukla
Sat, May 11, 2024 at 5:14 a.m. MDT·2 min read




(Bloomberg) -- Indian opposition leader Arvind Kejriwal said Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party is losing support in ongoing national elections and will struggle to form the next government, lashing out at his rival a day after he was released on interim bail.

Kejriwal said at a rally on Saturday that all opposition leaders risk being sent to jail should Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party return to power. The New Delhi chief minister was arrested in March on allegations of money laundering, and has been released for a few weeks to allow him to campaign.

“I talked to poll experts and people, BJP is not going to form govt after June 4,” Kejriwal said at the rally in the capital, adding that he believes his Aam Aadmi Party will be part of the central government.

Poor turnout is prompting concerns about voter disengagement in the world’s largest poll, though analysts say it doesn’t necessarily suggest an advantage for either side. Investors said the concerns are weighing on Indian markets, with the country’s main stock index suffering its biggest one-day drop in four months on Thursday over worries that low participation could hurt Modi’s re-election prospects.

Kejriwal, 55, is among several senior leaders of AAP who have been arrested on allegations that the party’s government in the national capital skewed the alcohol pricing in the region in exchange for bribes. AAP has consistently denied the allegations and often termed them as political witch-hunt by the BJP-led government that controls the federal investigative agencies.

Before Kejriwal, the chief minister of Jharkhand state, Hemant Soren, was also arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Read More: In Bid for Survival, India’s Opposition Tries to Work Together

While Modi, 73, is widely expected to win a third five-year term in elections that conclude next month, there has been public discussion on how many terms he will ultimately contest. At an interview recently when asked if he would contest in 2029, Modi said a country shouldn’t be run on the basis of one person alone.

Kejriwal said on Saturday that he believes Modi will retire next year and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, his long time confidant, will be next in line to become prime minister.

Bloomberg Businessweek

India's opposition jubilant as Modi critic Kejriwal gets bail to campaign in elections

Updated Sat, May 11, 2024 






India's opposition jubilant as Modi critic Kejriwal gets bail to campaign in elections
Delhi CM Kejriwal receives temporary bail in a liquor policy case in New Delhi

By Sakshi Dayal and YP Rajesh

NEW DELHI (Reuters) -India's top court gave temporary bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a graft case on Friday, allowing him to campaign in the ongoing general elections, boosting the opposition alliance of which he is a prominent figure.

The Supreme Court said Kejriwal - a fierce critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi - would be out on bail until June 1, the last day of the nationwide seven-phase vote, and would have to return to pre-trial detention on June 2.


India began voting on April 19 and elections for more than half of the 543 seats in parliament have now been completed following the third phase of the vote on May 7.

The two areas governed by Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) - the National Capital Territory that includes New Delhi, and the northern state of Punjab - go to the polls on May 25 and June 1 respectively.

Votes will be counted on June 4 and results are expected to be announced the same day.

"It feels good to be back among you," Kejriwal, dressed in a dark collarless T-shirt, told supporters through the sun-roof of a vehicle soon after being released from Delhi's Tihar jail.

Thousands of AAP supporters had gathered waving the party's yellow and blue flags, setting off firecrackers, shouting slogans and distributing sweets.

"I have only one request for you, we have to come together to save the country from dictatorship," Kejriwal said. "I am fighting with everything I have against this dictatorship. But 1.4 billion people will have to fight dictatorship," he said, referring to India's huge population.

The court had said last week that it may consider granting Kejriwal temporary bail "because of the elections" while it heard an appeal against his arrest, as that hearing could take a while to conclude.

Opposition parties have accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government of using investigative agencies to hurt its rivals, which the government denies.

Over the years Kejriwal has accused Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of damaging democracy, promoting corruption, throttling governance in Delhi, abusing their power and attacking the federal structure of the constitution among other things.

ARRESTED

BJP spokesperson Shazia Ilmi said the party has always respected the verdicts of the highest court.

"Kejriwal will not be able to play the victim card. He can't say that he is being discriminated against, that all the agencies and courts are against him," she told ANI news agency, in which Reuters has a minority stake.

"Secondly, and importantly, he has got interim bail, not freedom. He has to go back to jail on June 2," Ilmi added.

The Enforcement Directorate, India's financial crime-fighting agency, arrested Kejriwal on March 21 in connection with corruption allegations related to the capital territory's liquor policy.

Kejriwal's government and his AAP have denied the allegations. Modi and BJP say the investigating agencies are only doing their job and the government is not influencing them.

Kejriwal has been in pre-trial detention since April 1, and his wife Sunita has stepped in to campaign for his decade-old party which has been hobbled by the detention also of two other senior leaders in the same case.

Members of the INDIA alliance of more than two dozen opposition parties - Modi's main challenger which includes the AAP - said they were pleased that Kejriwal had received bail.

Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of the eastern state of West Bengal and a key INDIA member, said she was "very happy" Kejriwal got bail. "It will be very helpful in the context of the current elections," she posted on X.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kejriwal's lawyer, had argued that Kejriwal was arrested just before the vote to stop him from campaigning against Modi, who opinion polls suggest will win a comfortable majority and secure a rare third straight term.

ED lawyers argued that giving bail to a politician just to campaign risked sending the message that there were different standards for such figures compared with other citizens.

(Reporting by Sakshi Dayal and YP Rajesh; Additional reporting by Arpan Chaturvedi; Editing by Hugh Lawson)


Top Indian opposition leader released on bail by court enabling him to campaign in elections

ASHOK SHARMA
Updated Fri, May 10, 2024


India Politician Bail
 Arvind Kejriwal, leader of the Aam Admi Party, or Common Man's Party, left, leaves in a car after a court extended his custody for four more days, in New Delhi, India, March 28, 2024. India's top court on Friday gave interim bail to the top opposition leader who was arrested nearly seven weeks ago.

 (AP Photo/Dinesh Joshi, File)

NEW DELHI (AP) — A top Indian opposition leader was freed from jail on interim bail by the Supreme Court on Friday nearly seven weeks after his arrest in a bribery case that opposition parties called a political move by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government against one of his rivals during a national election.

Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, or Common Man’s Party, is the chief elected official in the city of New Delhi and one of the country’s most influential politicians of the past decade.

The court order enables him to campaign in the country's national election until the voting ends on June 1, Kejriwal's attorney said.

Opposition leaders hailed the court verdict. "It will be very helpful in the context of the current elections,” said Mamata Banerjee, the top elected official of West Bengal state.

However, Manjinder Singh Sirsa, a leader of the ruling party, said the court’s decision did not mean that Kejriwal has been exonerated in the bribery case. He will have to go back to jail on June 2 as pre-trial court proceedings are still taking place.

Supporters waving yellow and blue satin party flags greeted Kejriwal as his car came out of the prison gate hours after the court ruling. ``Long live Kejriwal,” they chanted.

``Long live revolution,” Kejriwal responded as he emerged from the roof of his car and briefly addressed them. His supporters lit firecrackers and danced.

`` I feel very happy to be amongst you. I told you that I would come early. I have one request to make. I seek your cooperation to save the country from dictatorship. That’s my fight,” he said in an attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government for arresting him.

Judges Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said in their order that the national election was an important event. They rejected the prosecutors' plea that their decision would put Kejriwal in a beneficial position compared with ordinary citizens.

They did, however, impose some conditions on Kejriwal for granting interim bail. He will not be allowed to visit his office and some decisions he makes as chief minister of New Delhi must be approved by the capital’s governor. Also, he cannot interact with any witnesses in the case, they said.

Kejriwal was arrested by the federal Enforcement Directorate, India’s main financial investigation agency, on March 21. The agency, controlled by Modi’s government, accused his party and ministers of accepting 1 billion rupees ($12 million) in bribes from liquor contractors nearly two years ago. The arrest triggered days of protests by party activists supported by other opposition parties.

Kejriwal, who has remained New Delhi's chief minister, has denied the accusations. His party is part of a broad alliance of opposition parties called INDIA, which is the main challenger to Modi’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party in India's six-week-long general election, which began last month.

Kejriwal's case was the first time that a chief minister in India was arrested while in office. His arrest, which occurred before the start of the election, dominated headlines for weeks.

His attorney, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, said he was a serving chief minister and not a “habitual offender” and deserved to be released to campaign. Kejriwal’s deputy, Manish Sisodia, was also arrested in the case earlier, weakening his party’s campaign in national elections.

The Enforcement Directorate opposed his bail, saying that releasing Kejriwal to campaign would indicate that there were different judicial standards for politicians and other citizens.

"The right to campaign for an election is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right and not even a legal right," it said, adding that Kejriwal is not a candidate in these elections.

Kejriwal's party is the main challenger to Modi’s governing BJP in the Indian capital New Delhi and Punjab state where voting will take place on May 25 and June 1 respectively.

The national elections that started on April 19 are due to conclude on June 1. Votes will be counted on June 4.

While the federal agency accused Kejriwal of being a key conspirator in the liquor bribery case, the opposition parties said the government was misusing federal investigation agencies to harass and weaken its political opponents. They pointed to a series of raids, arrests and corruption investigations of key opposition figures.

Kejriwal called his arrest a “political conspiracy” to prevent him from campaigning, and accused the Enforcement Directorate of “manipulating investigative agencies for political motives.”

Modi’s party denies using law enforcement agencies to target the opposition and says the agencies act independently.

Kejriwal, a former civil servant, launched the Aam Aadmi Party in 2012. He promised to rid the Indian political system and governance of corruption and inefficiency.

The party’s symbol — a broom — and its promise to sweep the administration of graft struck a chord with Delhi residents, fed up with runaway inflation and slow economic growth.

——

Woman found living in rooftop grocery store sign for nearly a year, Michigan cops say

Kate Linderman
Fri, May 10, 2024 




A 34-year-old woman made a home inside a grocery store’s rooftop sign for nearly a year, Michigan police said.

She had made the Family Fare market’s sign a home over the last year, adding flooring, a computer, printer and coffee maker to the enclosed sign, police in Midland told MLive.

She was discovered in April by contractors, who needed a ladder to reach the location, and was later asked to find a new place to live by police, the Detroit Free Press reported. According to police, there was no access door to the roof, WILX reported.

“They knocked on the door and she opened the door up and they essentially told her, ‘Hey, you can’t be here,’ and the interaction was rather brief. She fully understood,” Brennon Warren, a public information officer with the Midland Police Department, told the Detroit Free Press.

Police told WEYI the woman was offered housing resources, but she declined.

The store did not press criminal charges against the woman and plan to work with the woman to get her belongings back to her, police told WEYI.

Family Fare’s parent company, SpartanNash, said in a statement, “We are proud of our associates for responding to this situation with the utmost compassion and professionalism. Ensuring there is ample safe, affordable housing continues to be a widespread issue nationwide that our community needs to partner in solving. Out of respect for privacy for the individual involved, we will not be sharing further comment,” according to the Midland Daily News.

Midland is about a 130-mile drive northwest of Detroit.

Canada abstains on Palestine recognition at UN, open to statehood before peace

The Canadian Press
Fri, May 10, 2024 



OTTAWA — Canada abstained from another United Nations vote Friday aimed at formally recognizing Palestine, while opening the door to supporting statehood before the end of the current conflict.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said it's part of Canada's efforts to stop the Israeli government from blocking an eventual Palestinian state.

"Our long-standing position (was) that you could only recognize the State of Palestine as an outcome at the end of a process leading to a two-state solution," he told reporters in West Kelowna, B.C.

"We now recognize that it may happen sooner than at the end of the process, as a way of pushing toward that two-state solution."

The UN General Assembly voted by a wide margin Friday morning to grant the Palestinian delegation more procedural rights in UN forums, and ask the Security Council to reconsider blocking Palestine from full status as a member state.

Canada was among 25 countries to abstain, and Trudeau said this is a deliberate change from Canada's stance of voting against most motions that target Israel. Ottawa has previously deemed these to be one-sided motions that hinder peace talks.

"The Israeli government under Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu has unacceptably closed the door on any path toward a two-state solution and we disagree with that fundamentally," Trudeau said, in explaining his rationale.

He reiterated positions Canada has taken for months on the conflict, including the need for Hamas to surrender its hostages and stop fighting, and for Israel to stop limiting humanitarian aid due to "famine conditions that are quickly developing and the horrific loss of life."

In a statement, Global Affairs Canada wrote that it will recognize the State of Palestine "at the time most conducive to lasting peace," adding that this isn't necessarily after a final peace accord with Israel, and that peace talks "cannot delay the creation of a Palestinian state."

The Palestinian delegation in Ottawa wrote in a press release that the shift is "a positive step forward" but argued a full recognition would better reflect Canada's aspirations for peace in the region. Israel's ambassador in Ottawa argued that full UN membership for Palestine would reward Hamas.

Canada has also joined the European Union in condemning two arson attacks by Israeli settlers in the occupied area of eastern Jerusalem on the local building used by UNRWA, a UN agency supporting Palestinians.

Israel has accused UNRWA of links to terrorism, which led Western countries to suspend or freeze funding, though an independent probe found Israel had not provided evidence for its claims. The statement notes "the services UNRWA provides in Gaza and across the region are essential," and it calls on Israel to ensure the safety of UN staff and premises.

Despite that concern, Canada has yet to follow through on a promise three months ago to sanction violent West Bank settlers, a move taken by the U.S. and the U.K. months ago.

Instead, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly applied sanctions to four men in Iran whom Ottawa accused of providing military training and resources to help bolster Hamas. Those listed are members of the militant group, or of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 10, 2024.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press


Australia’s support for UN resolution on Palestinian membership ‘not recognition of statehood’

Daniel Hurst and Tory Shepherd
Fri, May 10, 2024

Australia's foreign minister Penny Wong addressing the UN general assembly in September 2023. Australia appears likely to back a vote on Palestine’s status after resolution was watered down.Photograph: Craig Ruttle/AP


Australia’s support of a UN vote on Palestinian membership is “the opposite of what Hamas wants”, and is not about recognising Palestine as a state, according to the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong.

The draft resolution was significantly watered down in last-minute negotiations and Australia was among 143 UN general assembly members to pass the resolution calling on the security council to reconsider granting full membership to Palestine.

On Saturday, Wong said the vote was about awarding “modest additional rights to participate in United Nations forums”, and that Australia would only recognise Palestine “when we think the time is right”.

She said Australia’s policy had changed to be open to recognition during a peace process, “not necessarily only at the end of the peace process”.

That small but significant shift in policy was revealed in April, and some interpreted it as a signal Australia could recognise Palestine in the near future, although Wong said there is no move to do that. Wong also emphasised there would be no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said the backing of the resolution was consistent with Australia’s support for a two-state solution.

He said the government continued to “unequivocally condemn” Hamas’s actions on 7 October and call for the release of the hostages. But he said Palestinians have a right to live in peace and security side-by-side with Israel.

In a statement explaining the vote, the Australian government said the resolution’s language expressed “unwavering support for the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognised borders”.

“Like many other countries, our vote for this resolution is not bilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood,” it said.

“Nevertheless, Australia no longer accepts that recognition can only come at the end of the peace process.

“We have been clear there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state.”

France, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand were among the countries that voted for the resolution at an emergency session of the general assembly in New York on Friday.

The US and Israel were among nine countries to oppose the resolution, while 25 others abstained.

Australia was leaning towards abstaining on the original resolution, in which the UN general assembly would have requested the 15-member security council to “favourably” reconsider Palestine’s application for full UN membership status.

Last month the US used its veto power to scuttle the proposal at a security council meeting, and full membership is impossible without that body’s consent.

In addition to the symbolic move of requesting a rethink by the security council, the general assembly was to consider granting Palestine rights and privileges “to ensure its full and effective participation … on equal footing with member states”, according to a draft version of the resolution circulating among diplomats last week.

An official with knowledge of the negotiations said the most recent version circulated by the United Arab Emirates was significantly watered down from earlier drafts and demonstrated “major concessions” by the Palestinians and the Arab Group.

The amended version enhanced the Palestinian mission to the UN with a range of new rights and privileges but made clear that these did not include voting rights.

After a week in which pro-Palestinian encampments were accused of antisemitism, Wong said she understood the Australian Jewish community were “feeling distressed and isolated”.

“You have a right to be safe … and antisemitism has no place anywhere. I stand against it, we all must stand against it.

“This resolution that we have supported is about long-term peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.”

The vote was the “opposite of what Hamas wants”, Wong said.

The Coalition’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Simon Birmingham, said the government had “proven overnight that they lack the courage to stand against pressure and by sound principles”.

Birmingham said the resolution sent “a shameful message that violence and terrorism get results ahead of negotiation and diplomacy”.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry had also urged Wong to vote against the resolution.

The ECAJ president, Daniel Aghion, said it was “grandstanding” that would “do nothing to free the Israeli hostages or break the grip of Hamas and alleviate the plight of Gazan civilians”.

“One can only conclude that Australia’s vote was driven by domestic political considerations, and not by principle, which makes it a sad and shameful day for all Australians,” he said.

“Australia should have joined the UK, Canada and the US in abstaining or voting against the resolution.”

Related: Why Anthony Albanese will face a tough call when the UN votes on full membership for Palestine

This was Australia’s most highly anticipated UN vote since December, when it supported an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and the unconditional release of hostages.

The Australian government continues to express alarm about the “devastating” consequences of an impending Israeli ground offensive into the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians have taken shelter.

The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said the UN vote was a “positive step” but wouldn’t be enough to stop “Netanyahu’s catastrophic invasion of Rafah”.

Australia was not inclined to oppose the UN resolution, after signals from Wong, about the need to kickstart progress towards a two-state solution to end the cycle of violence.

Palestinian diplomats at the UN represent the Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The Palestinian Authority is dominated by Fatah, a rival to Hamas.

The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network’s president, Nasser Mashni, said the UN had still “failed to recognise Palestinians’ basic, inherent right to participate in decision-making about issues that directly affect their lives and political aspirations”.

UN General Assembly set to back Palestine’s bid for membership

Shweta Sharma
Fri, May 10, 2024 

Scroll back up to restore default view.


The UN General Assembly will vote on Friday on a resolution to grant membership to Palestine, a longstanding pursuit for the Palestinians that has faced staunch resistance from Israel and its allies.

The draft resolution has been put forward by the UAE in its capacity as the Arab Group’s chair for the month, and includes a call for the Palestinians to be given new “rights and privileges” within the UN. Palestine has been a UN non-member observer state since 2012.

The final text of the draft has been reached after amendments were made to try and alleviate the concerns of key member states, including the US, Russia and China.

Nonetheless, the US said late on Thursday that the Biden administration opposes the draft resolution, which still requires the approval of the UN Security Council before a state of Palestine could be granted full General Assembly membership.

Under the UN Charter, prospective members must be deemed "peace-loving”. The draft resolution does not explicitly say that Palestine is a “peace-loving state” in the General Assembly’s judgement – instead, simply that the body “determines” that it qualifies for membership. It recommends that the Security Council reconsider its request “favourably”.

On 18 April, the US vetoed a widely-backed council resolution that would have made Palestine a full member. During the vote, Britain and Switzerland abstained, while the other 12 council members voted in favour.

Robert Wood, US deputy ambassador to the UN, suggested American opposition to the resolution was based on a question of due process.

"We’ve been very clear from the beginning there is a process for obtaining full membership in the United Nations, and this effort by some of the Arab countries and the Palestinians is to try to go around that," Mr Wood said. "We have said from the beginning the best way to ensure Palestinian full membership in the UN is to do that through negotiations with Israel. That remains our position."

But unlike the Security Council, there are no vetoes in the 193-member General Assembly and the resolution is expected to be approved by a large majority, three Western diplomats told the Associated Press.

The Palestinian UN mission in New York, in a letter to UN member states, said the adoption of the resolution would be a step towards a two-state solution in the Middle East.

It said it would "constitute a clear reaffirmation of support at this very critical moment for the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent state."

The renewed effort to secure full Palestinian membership in the UN comes amid a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, one that may only be compounded further by an expected Israeli ground offensive into the refugee city of Rafah.

The humanitarian crisis confronting Palestinians in Gaza, coupled with the reported death toll of over 34,000 individuals in the territory, has drawn widespread condemnation in numerous Security Council and General Assembly sessions.

According to diplomats, Russia and China, which have called on Israel to cease its action in Gaza, were concerned that granting the list of rights and privileges detailed in an annex to the resolution could set a precedent for other would-be UN members – with Russia concerned about Kosovo and China about Taiwan.

The first draft conferred on Palestine “the rights and privileges necessary to ensure its full and effective participation” in the assembly’s sessions and UN conferences “on equal footing with member states”.

The final text in the draft has dropped the language that called for putting Palestine “on equal footing with member states.”

And to address Chinese and Russian concerns, it would decide “on an exceptional basis and without setting a precedent” to adopt the rights and privileges in the annex.

The draft also adds a provision in the annex on the issue of voting, stating categorically: “The state of Palestine, in its capacity as an observer state, does not have the right to vote in the General Assembly or to put forward its candidature to United Nations organs.”

Additional reporting by agencies