HOMOPHOBIA KILLS

Anti-trans laws fueled a spike in suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth

Kate Sosin, The 19th
September 28, 2024 

The rights of transgender people have become a cultural and political lightning rod in the United States(AFP)

The number of suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth in states that passed anti-transgender laws increased by as much as 72% over five years, according to a study released on Thursday.

“It’s hard to digest,” said Dr. Ronita Nath, vice president of research at The Trevor Project, the LGBTQ+ suicide prevention organization that conducted the study. “We know from previous research that transgender/nonbinary people, they’re not inherently prone to increased suicide risk of their identities, but rather, they’re placed at higher risk because of how they’re mistreated and stigmatized by others, including by the implementation of discriminatory policies like the ones examined in this study.”

The report, released Thursday in the journal Nature Human Behavior, surveyed 61,000 trans and nonbinary people aged 13 to 24 between 2018 and 2022. While other studies had already found that access to gender-affirming care alleviates depression and risk of suicide in transgender and nonbinary youth, this is believed to be the first one to draw a connection between suicide attempts and anti-transgender legislation, which has flooded state houses and become a major talking point in this year’s presidential campaign.

Researchers compared rates of suicide attempts among young people in states that passed anti-transgender laws with those that didn’t. They found that states that had passed at least one anti-trans law saw increases in suicide attempts ranging from 7% to 72% over the course of a single year. Across the full sample of surveyed youth, researchers saw a rise in suicide attempts between 38-44%.

“It is without question that anti-transgender policies, and the dangerous rhetoric surrounding them, take a measurable toll on the health and safety of transgender and nonbinary young people all across the country,” Jaymes Black, CEO at the Trevor Project, said in a statement.

Those most at risk were the youngest in the study. Kids ages 13-17 reported 33-49% higher rates of at least one suicide attempt over the course of a year, compared to young people over 18. According to the researchers, this is most likely because those young people have been denied gender-affirming medical care due to bans targeting minors. Young people over the age of 18 are also more likely to have access to LGBTQ+ community and resources, Nath said.

Youth of color also reported higher rates of suicide attempts, which Nath attributes to grappling with the stress of transphobia and racism, with laws targeting their gender identity and race-based bullying.

From 2018 to 2022, states passed 48 anti-transgender bills, limiting access for trans and nonbinary people to gender-affirming health care, restrooms, equal participation in sports, accurate identity documents and anti-discrimination protections.

Researchers noted that they found minimal evidence suggesting that COVID-19 increased suicide attempts among the youth surveyed, even though two of the years surveyed happened during the height of the pandemic.

But in the two years following the research, anti-trans policies only flourished, leading researchers to believe that trans youth mental health has further degraded. In 2023 and 2024, statehouses weighed 1,197 anti-transgender bills. Of those, 129 became law.

The study found that the mere introduction of anti-trans legislation did not have a noticeable impact on suicide attempts in states, though. It was the passage of those bills into laws that fueled attempts.

“For [transgender and nonbinary] young people, anti-transgender laws may signal a broader societal rejection of their identities, communicating that their identities and bodies are neither valid nor worthy of protection,” the report states.

Harris rejects 'false choice' between border security & humane immigration during Arizona border visit

Republican mayor of Douglas endorses Democratic presidential candidate, who vows fix to 'broken system'

Posted Sep 27, 2024,
Natalie Robbins
TucsonSentinel.com

Paul Ingram/TucsonSentinel.comVice President Kamala Harris addresses a crowd in Douglas, Ariz. on Sept. 27, 2024.

During a visit to an Arizona border town Friday, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris said she'll take tough steps on border security, restricting asylum claims and combating the flow of fentanyl, while pushing to "modernize" the U.S. immigration system.

“I reject the false choice that we must decide between securing our border and creating a system of immigration that is safe, orderly, and humane. We can and we must do both,” Vice President Harris told a crowd at Cochise College’s Douglas Campus.

“As president, I will put politics aside to modernize our immigration system and find solutions to problems which have persisted for far too long,” she said.

Harris pledged to stop the flow of fentanyl at the border by boosting drug-enforcement staff at the border and increasing screening technology at ports of entry.

The vice president also told the crowd she would double the Justice Department’s budget for prosecuting transnational gangs and cartels.

As California attorney general, Harris said she “saw the violence and chaos that transnational criminal organizations cause, and the heartbreak and loss from the spread of their illicit drugs.”

Harris said she would keep in place the restrictions on asylum claims ordered by President Joe Biden this year, and would propose even more limits.

"If someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses our border unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum," the vice president said.

That would require a change to U.S. law, which lays out the legal process for asylum claims.

"While we understand that many people are desperate to migrate to the United States, our system must be orderly and secure, and that is my goal," Harris said.

The vice president spoke for about 30 minutes to an audience of around 315. For her first visit to the U.S.-Mexico border since becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris met with Douglas Mayor Donald Huish, Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels and Cochise County Supervisor Ann English, along with U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.

While visiting Douglas, Harris spoke with John Modlin, chief patrol agent for the Tucson sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, and Blaine Bennett, the BP agent in charge of the Douglas station, the Los Angeles Times reported.

During her speech, Harris touted last year's increase in overtime pay for Border Patrol agents.

She blasted Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for tanking a border security bill in Congress earlier this year.

The former president urged Republicans to vote against the Border Act of 2024, which would have increased border enforcement. The measure had bipartisan support — it was negotiated by U.S. Sen. Krysten Sinema of Arizona, formerly a Democrat and now an independent, Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Sen. James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma.

The bill was unveiled in the Senate in February, though it did not pass. House Speaker Mike Johnson called it "dead on arrival."

Harris said Friday that the measure was “the strongest border security bill we have seen in decades.”

“It was endorsed by the Border Patrol union, and it should be in effect today, producing results in real time right now,” she said.

Harris said that even though Trump “tried to sabotage” the border security bill, as president, she would bring it back up and “proudly” sign it into law, amid cheers from the crowd.

Kelly, who introduced Harris at the rally, told the crowd that Trump’s interference with the bill was “the most hypocritical thing” that he has seen “in three-and-a-half years in Washington.”

“He didn't want it fixed because he needed it for the election. That's because he cares more about running for president than he does about communities like yours,” Kelly said.

The morning after the border legislation was introduced in February, Trump posted on his Truth Social Network that "Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill.”

The bill would have tightened border security by hiring more Border Patrol officers and deploying 100 fentanyl screening machines at the Arizona border, where 50 percent of the fentanyl seized in the United States enters the country.

The Democratic nominee had bipartisan support at the rally Friday; she was introduced by former San Joaquin County (Calif.) District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar, a Republican, and the Mayor of Douglas Donald Huish, also a Republican, who told attendees that he and many of his fellow border mayors are endorsing Harris because of her promises to fix the broken immigration system and secure the border.

“The vice president understands the need for a bipartisan solution to border issues, because she's worked on border issues for a long time,” Huish said.

Huish, elected mayor of the predominantly Democratic city — a blue spot in Republican Cochise County — in a three-way race in 2020, did not seek another term this year.

Huish, while publicly declaring his backing for the Democratic candidate, has also signed on to support U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani, the freshman Republican in nearby Congressional District 6.

Ciscomani, whose Southeastern Arizona district doesn't cover Douglas (which is represented by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat) but does include a small rural slice of the border, said the visit by Harris "smells of nothing more than a photo opportunity to try to score political points."

Harris and Trump, whose campaign stopped in Sierra Vista last month, have been polling neck-and-neck in Arizona for the majority of the race. An average of polls compiled by RealClearPolitics showed Trump leading by two points Friday afternoon.

Trump won Arizona in 2016 with 49 percent of the vote against Hillary Clinton's 45 percent, but lost to Joe Biden in 2020 by less than a percentage point, or 10,457 votes.

Immigration and border security continue to be one of the most contentious issues for the two candidates — at a rally in Tucson earlier this month, Trump vowed to begin "the largest mass deportation mission in the history of our country" in his second term as president.

At a campaign stop in Sierra Vista, the Republican nominee told a crowd that he had given Harris "the strongest and most secure border in American history" when he left office in 2021.

At the event Friday, Harris condemned Trump’s response to the crisis at the border.

“Trump did nothing to fix our broken immigration system as president,” she said. “He did not solve the shortage of border agents or address our outdated asylum system. What did he do instead? He separated families, ripped toddlers out of their mothers’ arms, and put children in cages. That is not the work of a leader. That is an abdication of leadership. We cannot accept Donald Trump’s failure to lead.”

Harris advocated for “clear legal pathways” for migrants looking to enter the country and long term residents, like Dreamers, who Harris said are "American in every way."

Among the attendees were Pima County Supervisors Rex Scott and Sylvia Lee, former U.S. Rep. Ron Barber, Cochise County Supervisor Ann English, and former Arizona Rep. Daniel Hernandez Jr. Not at the event was Democratic congressional candidate Kirsten Engel, who is seeking to unseat first-termer Ciscomani in CD6. Engel narrowly lost the 2022 race to the GOP freshman. Grijalva, still recovering from cancer treatments earlier this year, is not yet making public appearances.

Expert highlights danger of tech companies' power over society

Author Marietje Schaake tells ABC News about governments' responsibility.

ByABC NEWS
September 28, 2024


How a ‘tech coup’ would create power imbalances and impact democracy
ABC News’ Trevor Ault spoke with Marietje Schaake, former European member of parliament

Marietje Schaake is a Dutch politician who served as Member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands between 2009 and 2019. She's also the international policy director at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center.

ABC News’ Trevor Ault sat down with Schaake to talk about her new book "The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley." She discusses Big Tech's influence on politics and government's responsibility in keeping these companies from harming society.

ABC NEWS: Some experts claim we're currently living in a tech takeover with social media, artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency all increasingly prevalent. How does tech impact our daily lives and, furthermore, our democracy?

The former member of the European Parliament and international policy director at the Cyber Policy Center, Marietje Schaake, is out with a new book. It's called "The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley." Marietje, thanks so much for being here today.

SCHAAKE: Great to be here.

ABC NEWS: So I think everyone is aware about tech in their daily lives or how it might impact the information that they learn. OK, I get my news from Facebook or YouTube. Democracy is this big, grand thing. So how exactly does Big Tech directly influence democracy at large?

SCHAAKE: Right. So you mentioned social media, but there's also more invisible places in our societies, in our world, where tech companies play an increasingly powerful role in building infrastructure, securing infrastructure, taking key decisions about war and peace, about election outcomes, about whether we can trust information or not, whether people get discriminated against or not.

So they are, there are really companies sitting at critical points in our society, and that is beginning to hurt democracy because the democratically elected and accountable leaders are no longer calling the shots.


Marietje Schaake, international policy director at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center, speaks dur...Show more
Tolga Akmen/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE

ABC NEWS: And one thing that you make a large note of is the fact that a lot of these decisions made by big tech companies have been made with not a lot of regulation behind them, that they've kind of been unchecked. And those decisions then have a massive impact. I mean, how big of a role is that lack of regulation?

SCHAAKE: It's a, it's a big role because these companies are basically taking the space that they've been given. Leaders from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the United States have trusted that just leaving these companies to their own devices would lead to the best results. And we now see that that's not true. That there are real harms for real people, and we need to stop that.

ABC NEWS: I know that beyond just your background in government serving in the European Parliament, you talk to a lot of different people for the book, human rights activists, people that work in Silicon Valley, policy makers as well. What were some of those big takeaways or anything that surprised you from these conversations?

SCHAAKE: Well, just where in many, many different places this plays a role. We see parents that are very worried about their kids spending too much time online and not knowing what's really happening there. But it also plays a role in questions of human rights defense, you know activists around the world that are trying to fight the powers that be, but that are subject to being hacked, for example, with commercial spyware, their phones being taken over, their pictures being taken out, their context being read.

And so it's close to home, far away from home, but systematically a problem for human rights, democracy when it comes to the growing role that tech companies now play, who are, of course, in it for the profits. We shouldn't be surprised about that. But society needs something different. The public interest needs careful balancing between different interests. And we just see that those interests -- between what Silicon Valley needs and what we as people need -- are clashing.


Marietje Schaake of Stanford University moderates a session on "Countering the Misuse of Technology...Show more
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images, FILE

ABC NEWS: How do we keep that in check?

SCHAAKE: Well, there's elections in this country in November, so hopefully there will be room for a more ambitious policy agenda when it comes to reining in the outsize power of tech companies. But it's also about investments and about governments that are huge purchasers of software.

Using that as leverage toward greater transparency, greater cybersecurity, more public values that can be baked into the contracts that they already have for hundreds of millions of dollars.

ABC NEWS: What about on a small scale, individual level, the parents that are concerned about their children? Is there anything that they can do on a daily basis to maybe keep Big Tech at an arm's length or at least to regulate it in their own lives?

SCHAAKE: Sure, they can remove the mobile phones from the hands of their children or create more settings that are privacy friendly and that really allow for the choices that you can make to refrain from all the data being scooped up, for example, or prevent the targeting of very young children with ads. That's something that people have in their own hands.

But ultimately, us as individual internet users are just not powerful enough to stand up to these multibillion-dollar companies. We need larger scale interventions through policy, different investments and different kind of procurement by the government.

ABC NEWS: Right. Those large scale changes in the interim invoke the democracy of your own house with your own children . . .

SCHAAKE: That's right.

ABC NEWS: . . . in deciding to make those changes. The book is called "The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley." Marietje Schaake, thank you so much for being here.

SCHAAKE: You're welcome.

GENDER APARTHEID

Taliban have erased women from public life, Australian FM says

• by Amu TV
• September 28, 2024
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• edIn

atprintShare via Email

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong condemned the Taliban for effectively erasing women from Afghanistan’s public life, describing the regime’s actions as “imprisoning half their society’s population.”

Speaking at the 79th United Nations General Assembly, Wong underscored the international community’s growing concern over the Taliban’s systemic violations of women’s rights since retaking control of Afghanistan in August 2021.

Wong emphasized that Australia, along with Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, had invoked Afghanistan’s responsibility under international law for its treatment of women and girls. “Earlier this week, with Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, Australia invoked Afghanistan’s responsibility under international law for the violations of the rights of women and girls,” she said. “The Taliban have erased women from Afghanistan’s self-portrait, effectively imprisoning half their population. This not only halves the potential of their country but depletes the soul and prospects of a nation.”

Wong stressed that no country can fully develop without the full participation of its entire population, urging global attention to the plight of Afghan women.

Since seizing power, the Taliban has imposed increasingly oppressive restrictions on women, including banning them from education, employment, and freedom of movement and expression. The regime’s policies have drawn widespread condemnation from the international community, which continues to call for the protection of women’s rights in Afghanistan.

Defending the right to abortion shouldn’t be a dangerous job

©Amnesty International.

News
September 28, 2024
Fernanda Doz Costa, Director of Gender, Racial Justice, Refugees and Migrants Rights Program at Amnesty International.

Hate emails, stigmatization, death threats, stalking, burglaries, attacks, harassment at work and at home. Killings. This is what life is like for many who provide life-saving reproductive care, including abortions.

Facilitating safe access to abortions has become an increasingly dangerous undertaking in most corners of the world, despite huge progress to expand access to healthcare.

From the United States to Ethiopia, Colombia and Poland, those who defend the right to abortion, including health professionals such as midwives, nurses and doctors, have been facing a relentless backlash.

In the USA, the National Abortion Federation recorded 11 murders, 26 attempted murders and 531 cases of assault, among many other types of attacks against people who facilitated abortions between 1977 and 2022. Since a devastating Supreme Court ruling two years ago greatly limited access to abortion services and created an environment of fear, there has been an increase in incidents like arsons, burglaries and death threats.


From the United States to Ethiopia, Colombia and Poland, those who defend the right to abortion, including health professionals such as midwives, nurses and doctors, have been facing a relentless backlash.Fernanda Doz Costa, Director of Gender, Racial Justice, Refugees and Migrants Rights Program, Amnesty International

In Sudan, abortion providers routinely face physical violence and public shaming.

“A provider was shot by the spouse of a woman who sought an abortion,” one gynecologist recently told us. “There have been a few instances where service providers have been beaten by members of the public, even when just educating about contraception, or intervening in child marriage cases, especially in rural communities. So, providers are scared.”

In other countries, such as Italy, anti-abortion activists organize online harassment campaigns against health professionals, which can have a deep impact offline. Attacks include barrages of insults, threats and trolling, and their profiles being reported to social media companies, in an attempt to get them banned from social media platforms.

Another form of intimidation that is common across the world are aggressive anti-abortion protests and pickets outside health clinics, a strategy to terrorize both people seeking medical care, particularly those relying on public services, and the professionals trying to provide it.

Not all is bad news. Over the last few decades, there has been a tremendous positive global trend towards advancing abortion rights around the world — in the past 30 years alone, more than 60 countries have liberalized their abortion laws. But, partly as a response to this, anti-rights initiatives continue to impede millions of people from accessing essential and vital health care. This happens even in countries where abortion services are legal on paper but challenging to access in practice.

Individuals and organizations advocating for limits to basic human rights have promoted an agenda that violently targets and stigmatizes anyone working to protect those in need of medical attention.

As a gynecologist from Nigeria told us: “I face harassment and stigmatization for the work I do. The stigma is among fellow professional colleagues who make remarks that are demeaning to me. On the basis of religion, they preach to me about the sins committed for supporting abortion care, the killing of ‘the unborn children’ and the ‘hellfire that awaits all murderers.’”

Similarly, Dr. Laura Gil, a doctor from Colombia, described the harassment and violence her and other colleagues who perform abortions face, even from colleagues: “They slashed one of my friend’s car tires. They glued shut a different colleague’s padlock so she couldn’t open her locker. When another friend who is a psychiatrist stood up for a patient who was asking to terminate her pregnancy because of a health risk, one of her colleagues hit her with a folder. All this mistreatment stems from the idea that people who do abortions are morally inferior.”

Why does this matter? You may ask.

When health professionals trying to care for their patients are prevented from doing their jobs, it is the most vulnerable who end up at high risk. It’s been long documented that limits to accessing abortion care particularly affect vulnerable populations who are unable to pay for the services in private – which is how many people access abortions in countries where the procedure is illegal.


When health professionals trying to care for their patients are prevented from doing their jobs, it is the most vulnerable who end up at high risk.Fernanda Doz Costa, Director of Gender, Racial Justice, Refugees and Migrants Rights Program, Amnesty International

These kinds of harassment campaign also have the pervasive effect of discouraging health professionals from pursuing certain specialities, which, in turn, greatly limits the availability of good quality accessible healthcare, as Dr. Gil told us.

It’s a silent and dangerous rollback on human rights that is placing many lives at risk.

Providing safe abortions should not be a risky job. In fact, in many countries it isn’t. There, doctors and nurses are able to care for their patients, provide information and advice about their options so they are able to make informed decisions about what is best for them and then access the services they need. Without harassment, hate campaigns and attacks, health professionals are able to do what they trained to do: save lives and support people to follow their lives plans as healthy and as free as possible.

Over the many years we have been working, side by side millions of brave activists and organizations from across the world, to ensure abortion services are a reality for all, we asked many health professionals working in challenging environments why they do it, despite all the risks.

Many told us of their unwavering commitment to dedicate their life to the service of humanity, to care for their patients, regardless of any considerations of creed, gender or any other factors.

On international safe abortion day, let’s all do our part to celebrate and protect them.

DRC recorded in 2023 its highest number of victims of sexual violence ever


01/10/24
Copyright © africanewsBrian Inganga/Copyright 2020 

The AP. All rights reserved.
By Rédaction Africanews and AP

Democratic Republic Of Congo

New data reveals that teams with Doctors Without Borders and the DRC's health ministry treated more than two victims and survivors of sexual violence every hour in the Democratic Republic of Congo last year.

To be precise, 25,166 victims of sexual violence sought care in 2023, the group said Monday (Sep. 30).

This figure is by far the highest number ever recorded by Doctors Without Borders also known as MSF in DRC.

It is based on data from 17 projects set up in five provinces with 4 located in the DRC's war torn east.

Victims who are mostly women and girls were treated in displacement camps near Goma, the capital of of the North Kivu province.

Residents of eastern DRC have suffered from armed violence for decades. More than 120 armed groups fight for power, land and mineral resources while others try to defend their communities.

Some armed groups have been accused of mass killings, rapes and other human rights violations. The violence has displaced some 6 million people in the east.

Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch said both Rwanda and Congo’s army have killed displacement camp residents, committed rapes and obstructed aid.

The frightening trend has continued, with teams having treated 69 per cent of the numbers across all of 2023 in just the first five months of 2024.

M23 rebel group generates approximately $300,000 a month from mining-UN

Copyright © africanewsMoses Sawasawa/Copyright 2021 The AP. All rights reserved.
By Rédaction Africanews and AP Last updated: 10 hours ago

Democratic Republic Of Congo

A rebel group in Congo generates around $300,000 a month in revenue through its control of a mining area in the east of the country, a U.N. official said.

In April, the M23 — a rebel group with alleged links to Rwanda — seized the Rubaya mining area in eastern Congo, which holds deposits of a key mineral used in the production of smartphones and computers. Over 15% of the world's supply of tantalum, a rare metal extracted from coltan, comes from Rubaya, Bintou Keita, head of the U.N. mission in Congo, told the Security Council on Monday.

“Unless international sanctions are imposed on those benefiting from this criminal trade, peace will remain elusive and civilians will continue to suffer,” Keita said.

Tantalum is among the minerals that were identified earlier this year in a letter from Congo’s government questioning Apple about the tech company’s knowledge of “blood minerals” being smuggled in its supply chain.

The decadeslong conflict in eastern Congo has produced one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, with more than 120 armed groups fighting for power, land and valuable mineral resources while others try to defend their communities. Some armed groups have been accused of mass killings, rapes and other human rights violations. The violence has displaced some 6 million people in the country's east.

M23, or the March 23 Movement, is a rebel military group mainly made up of ethnic Tutsis that broke away from the Congolese army just over a decade ago. They staged a large offensive in 2012 and took over the provincial capital of Goma near the border with Rwanda, the same city they are threatening again.

Congo alleges that Rwanda has been involved in war crimes in the east and U.S. and U.N. experts accuse it of giving military backing to M23. Rwanda denies the claim, but in February admitted that it has troops and missile systems in eastern Congo to safeguard its security, pointing to a buildup of Congolese forces near the border.

In July, U.N. experts estimated that between 3,000 and 4,000 Rwandan government forces are deployed in eastern Congo alongside M23, which has been making major advances.

Last week, a regional court in East Africa opened proceedings in a case filed by Congo against Rwanda, accusing it of violating Congo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by sending troops to help rebels in the country’s east.

Tunisia passes law to strip courts of power over election authority

By Rédaction Africanews

Last updated: 28/09 - 

2024 Tunisian presidential election

Tunisia’s parliament amended a law on Friday, stripping power from courts over decisions made by an embattled election authority whose members are appointed by President Kais Saied.

Nine days before the presidential election, a majority of members of parliament voted in favor of amending the young democracy’s first election law as the election authority remains in conflict with courts demanding that it returns three candidates to the ballot.

The move sparked anger from opposition and civil society groups, which say the election authority has acted in concert with Saied to ensure he faces little competition in winning a second term.

Demonstrators picketed in protest of the law outside of parliament throughout Friday.

Since becoming the first country to topple an authoritarian leader in last decade’s Arab Spring, Tunisia has had two presidential elections that observers have judged as democratic. However, the lead-up to this year’s vote has been tainted by quarreling in recent weeks, between the court and the Independent High Authority for Elections, or ISIE.

ISIE’s role came under scrutiny after it dismissed a judicial ruling ordering it to reinstate three potential challengers to Saied who it had left off the ballot, claiming the campaign filings each submitted were incomplete.

Its decision to leave Monther Zenaidi, Abdellatif Mekki and Imed Daimi off of the ballot is among several actions that civil society groups in Tunisia have protested during election season. Both before and afterward, other candidates have been arrested or barred from participation.

Before Friday’s vote, members of parliament accused the court that ordered the candidates to be reinstated of non-neutrality. Some said that its judges were puppets acting on behalf of unnamed foreign interests and parties, echoing the populist and conspiracy theory-laden rhetoric Saied has long employed against his opponents.

Zina Jiballah, an independent member of parliament, argued that “some parties get their orders from abroad,” alleging members of the court have a different agenda.

The North African country’s president has throughout his tenure accused civil society and opposition groups critical of his governance of having nefarious motives and being puppets of foreign countries.

“History will remember that we are not sellers of countries and that Tunisia was saved by honest men and women,” said Sonia Benmabrouk, of the Hope and Work Party during Friday’s debate.

Saied, a 66-year-old populist who won his first term in 2019, will ask voters next weekend to grant him five more years in office.

With the country’s most prominent opposition figures imprisoned, he faces two little known candidates — businessman Ayachi Zammel and Zouhair Maghzaoui, a member of parliament who had previously thrown his support behind the president.

Zammel is in prison on election fraud charges that have been leveled at several Saied opponents.

A decade later, Hong Kong’s massive democracy protests remain an enduring memory

ByCHAN LONG HEI Associated Press and KANIS LEUNG Associated Press
September 28, 2024, 


HONG KONG -- Scores of red Chinese flags now flap near the Hong Kong government headquarters in preparation for China’s national day as police patrolled the area thousands of demonstrators occupied a decade ago to protest Beijing’s restrictions on candidates running for the city’s top job.

In Sept. 2014, protesters fended off police’s pepper spray using their umbrellas in a 79-day face-off, and the largely peaceful Umbrella Movement saw more people join an encampment around the two nearby bridges.

The movement, also known as Occupy Central, catalyzed a profound political awakening among many young Hong Kongers and shaped the huge anti-government protests in 2019, the biggest challenge to Beijing since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Beijing, in return, imposed a sweeping national security law that critics say cracked down on freedoms and saw many activists jailed while others fled the territory.

Many leading activists have been prosecuted, including some former leaders of the 2014 movement. Legal scholar Benny Tai, dubbed Occupy co-founder, awaits sentencing over an unofficial primary in the city’s biggest national security case. The movement’s then-student leaders Joshua Wong and Lester Shum also remain in custody.

Nathan Law, another former student leader, was forced into self-exile and is among a group of overseas-based activists targeted by police bounties. Two other Occupy co-founders — scholar Chan Kin-man and Rev. Chu Yiu-ming — moved to Taiwan. Another former student leader Alex Chow is pursuing a doctoral degree in the United States.

Dozens of civil society groups were disbanded. Apple Daily and Stand News, news outlets known for their critical reports of the government, were forced to shut down after the arrests of their top management.

Activist Raphael Wong, who was jailed over his role during the 2014 protests told The Associated Press Saturday he misses his fellow political party member Leung Kwok-hung, Tai and other political activists who were prosecuted.

The protests 10 years ago, Wong said, held immense significance for him and Hong Kong.

“If I have to put it in the simplest terms, I’d say it enlightened many Hong Kong people about civil disobedience and inspired the later anti-extradition bill movement in 2019,” he said.

While large-scale public commemorations are unlikely to occur in the city, some overseas-based Hong Kongers organized events to remember the movement in Britain, Canada, Taiwan, Australia and the Netherlands this month. Others recounted their memories of the protests on social media.


China-endorsed Hong Kong Secretary for Security Chris Tang on Thursday rejected that the city’s freedoms have shrunk over the past decade, insisting that the city’s 2020 security law and a new security law enacted in March provide sufficient safeguard for human rights.

Censorship in the modern world

Today, truth and free expression often come at the cost of social sanctions

Written by

Balkan Diskurs


A close up of a dictionary with focus on word censorship. Photo by Mick Haupt via Unsplash. Used under the Unsplash License.

This article by Omar Zahirović was originally published on Balkan Diskurs, a project of the Post-Conflict Research Center (PCRC). An edited version has been republished by Global Voices under a content sharing agreement.

It was the English poet and civil servant John Milton who said of free speech: “For this is the freedom that most of all gives happiness or misery, or success or disappointment, or honor or shame.” This statement remains one of the most powerful on this topic, as it recognizes a fundamental truth about human nature: we, as a species, naturally aspire to freedom. Humans are beings who impose boundaries and frameworks. We are taught modes of behavior and we go through life alongside them. Freedom of speech is inherent within all freedoms. In the modern world, where fluent discourse is propagated, hidden forms of censorship often arise.

Throughout early history, laws on freedoms began to take shape, as those in power had control over speech, a situation that persisted largely unchanged until the Middle Ages. Immediately thereafter, public discourse was predominantly influenced by the church. The first discussions on freedoms emerged during the period of humanism and the Renaissance. Literature from this era illustrates a clearer and more open dialogue emerging. From the Renaissance to modern times, censorship has been shaped by feudal lords, rulers, and wealthy individuals. What is most alarming is that little has changed. Today, public discourse is still largely shaped by powerful individuals and the systems within which speakers operate.

To understand the phenomenon of modern censorship, we spoke with a communication researcher and a sociologist about this pressing issue.
Censorship in the contemporary world

Amina Vatreš is a teaching assistant and published researcher at the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Sarajevo. Understanding contemporary forms of censorship, according to Vatreš, requires analyzing the complex and multidimensional characteristics of the information space. This includes examining the role of technology, social media, political and economic pressures, as well as the (non)existence of individual and social responsibility among media professionals and other creators of media content.

“It [censorship] often acts entirely latently and implicitly, thereby posing new and more complex challenges to the preservation of freedom of expression, independence of media operations, and maintaining the media’s watchdog role,” said Vatreš.

Replacing conventional methods of censorship which involve explicitly blocking certain content from one or more centers, Vatreš explains that recent communication theorists refer to the new form of censorship as “censorship through noise.” This phenomenon is closely linked to information overload, a key feature of the recent information-communication ecosystem.


Amina Vatreš, a teaching assistant and published researcher at the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Sarajevo. Private archive via Balkan Diskurs, used with permission.

Vatreš states that censorship through noise blurs the distinction between fact-based reporting and completely fabricated information. This leads to a kind of suffocation of truth in a sea of lies and the emergence of numerous fragmented, decontextualized, and subjective truths. In this way, as she adds, the multitude of media creates the illusion of a plurality of opinions, which is particularly apparent in the realm of social media.

Vladimir Vasić, a sociologist, underlines the role of editorial boards in modern censorship.

“It is dangerous that certain media outlets, acting as a ‘window to the world,’ stifle freedom of speech due to their editorial policies instead of basing their work on ethical and scientific principles fundamental to their existence,” Vasić added.

“Freedom of speech ceases the moment a narrative attempting to fit into the framework of freedom of speech compromises the integrity of another person or other values,” he said.


Vladimir Vasić, a sociologist. Private archive via Balkan Diskurs, used with permission.

Censorship today is more devious, subtly different from the traditional, with its own hidden modes.

Nonetheless, Vasić adds on the role of herd mentality: “Individuals try to impose such a form of public activity within the framework of censorship — anyone who thinks differently from me is against me — which in science is clearly known by its name. In their case, censorship refers to the transparency of work and the way public funds are managed.”
Self-censorship in a culture of fear

Today, truth and free expression often come at the cost of social sanctions. In recent years, we have all witnessed how most people choose a quieter mode of defense. Many young people ignore or accept generational taboos that are contemporary to our time. Influenced by social media, they choose self-censorship.

According to Vatreš, self-censorship is a way of avoiding the negative repercussions that may result from the expression of ideas, views, and critical reflections on society. Within the online sphere, the issue of censorship takes on new dimensions.

Vatreš argues that this is a manifestation of a modern form of censorship that essentially achieves the same ultimate goals as traditional censorship.

“This is further complicated by the fact that in the abundance of information, partial information, and fake news, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction, while at the same time, we are not fully aware of the fundamental change in the way information is being controlled,” said Vatreš.

Referring to societal attitudes towards disagreements and conflict, sociologist Vasić says, “It’s fine as long as no one is shooting! This phrase masks their passivity and their incompetence. By ‘their,’ I mean all those who have led us to believe that the height of comfort is ‘it’s fine as long as no one is shooting’ — and not just that — they have created such living conditions for us. As long as we remain silent, things will get worse for us because, by staying silent, we prove we are not deserving of better.
‘As long as no one is shooting’

If people want to become active consumers of information, they must ask themselves whether we should filter what we see. Vasić responds affirmatively.

“I believe that filtering publicly available content is beneficial, but it is essential that we all have mental filters in our heads that operate on the principle of ‘I want, I don’t want!’ It is important to learn to read the news and receive information critically because not everything written in the newspapers or said on television is true,” said Vasić.

According to Vasić, censorship that undermines freedom and freedom that attacks another’s integrity are two siblings from the same parents — bad ones.

Through our conversation with Amina Vatreš and Vladimir Vasić, we have learned about the fundamental principles of modern censorship and its impact on the masses and individuals. It is time to learn how to transform the world of communication and information into a safe community that functions in a stimulating and safe manner.

Compare reactions to speech of terrorist Netanyahu

TEHRAN, Sep. 28 (MNA) – Let's compare two different reactions to the speech of the blood-stained prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, in the US Congress and United Nations General Assembly amid the Zionist regime's genocidal war against Gaza.

US legislators clapp for blood-stained Netanyahu in Congress

On July 2024, the Israeli regime's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is responsible for the deaths of over 42,000 Palestinians since the start of the Gaza war, delivered a speech to Congress, taking on protesters inside the House chamber and thousands gathered outside the Capitol.

It was his first address to US lawmakers in nearly a decade and the first since the start of the genocidal war of the Zionist regime after Hamas' Oct. 7 operation.

As US legislators clapped for Netanyahu inside the domed edifice, activists outside called for him to be tried for abuses linked to Israel’s war in Gaza. Many argued that Netanyahu is a war criminal who belongs in jail, not in the halls of Congress.

Delegates walk out of UN general assembly chamber as Benjamin Netanyahu takes podium

On September 27, scores of diplomats walked out of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations General Assembly, in protest against the devastating war on Gaza and the latest Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Several diplomats could be seen walking out in haste as Netanyahu entered the great hall to speak from the rostrum, with the presiding diplomat having to shout "order, please" as the Israeli leader took to the stage.

Despite Washinton's support for the criminal regime of Tel Aviv in killing innocent people of Gaza and Lebanon, many countries and international communities have realized the real identity of Israel. The measure of diplomats in leaving Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations General Assembly proves this fact.

The continuation of the Israeli regime's crimes will isolate the Zionist regime more and more both in the region and international arena.

MNَ/

Several delegations leave Netanyahu’s UN General Assembly speech

Delegates walked out as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was called to address the UN General Assembly's 79th session yesterday. Tel Aviv has continued what UN experts have called a 'genocidal war' on Gaza for almost a year, killing over 41,500 Palestinians, and this week launched its biggest bombing campaign on Lebanon in almost 20 years killing more than 700 people. UN calls for a ceasefire have failed to stop the US-backed attacks, which Netanyahu has vowed to continue.



September 28, 2024

A group of diplomats, including the Iranian delegation, interrupted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech on Friday before the United Nations (UN) as they walked out of the General Assembly headquarters in New York.

An Agence France-Presse (AFP) correspondent reported that diplomats left the hall upon Netanyahu’s arrival.

His speech began amid chants inside the General Assembly before he spoke and the departure of a number of delegations.

Netanyahu said in his speech: “Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace. Israel has made peace and will make peace again. Yet we face savage enemies who seek our annihilation, and we must defend ourselves against them. These savage murderers, our enemies, seek not only to destroy us, but they seek to destroy our common civilisation and return all of us to a dark age of tyranny and terror.”

Netanyahu made these comments as Israel continues to bomb targets belonging to the Iran-backed Hezbollah group in southern Lebanon amid fears that the attacks could spiral into a full-scale regional war.

In his speech, Netanyahu sought to pin the blame for the conflict on Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran, saying Israel was defending itself against Tehran on seven fronts, stressing: “We must all do everything in our power to ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons.”

READ: In UN speech, Netanyahu holds map showing West Bank, Gaza as part of Israel

“Yes, we’re defending ourselves, but we’re also defending you against a common enemy that, through violence and terror, seeks to destroy our way of life,” he said, adding: “I didn’t intend to come here this year. My country is at war, fighting for its life. But after I heard the lies and slanders levelled at my country by many of the speakers at this podium, I decided to come here and set the record straight.”

The Israeli prime minister added: “A normalisation deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel seemed closer than ever. But then came the curse of October 7th. We will not rest until the remaining hostages are brought home.”

Netanyahu also claimed that the Israeli army has killed or captured more than half of Hamas’s 40,000 fighters and destroyed 90 per cent of its rockets.

He expressed his concern that: “If Hamas stays in power, it will regroup, rearm and attack Israel again and again and again. We are ready to work with regional and other partners to support a local civilian administration in Gaza, committed to peaceful coexistence.”

He declared: “This war can come to an end now. All that has to happen is for Hamas to surrender, lay down its arms and release all the hostages.”

As for Hezbollah in Lebanon, he remarked: “Israel has been tolerating this intolerable situation for nearly a year. Well, I’ve come here today to say enough is enough. We won’t rest until our citizens can return safely to their homes. We will not accept a terror army perched on our northern border, able to perpetrate another October 7th-style massacre. As long as Hezbollah chooses the path of war, Israel has no choice.”

Regarding normalisation with Arab countries, Netanyahu indicated: “We must continue the path we paved with the Abraham Accords four years ago. Above all, this means achieving a historic peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

He added: “The ICC prosecutor’s rush to judgment, his refusal to treat Israel with its independent courts the way other democracies are treated, is hard to explain by anything other than pure antisemitism.”

Amid Lebanon strike, defiant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declares that Israel is ‘winning’

Netanyahu bulldozed his way through his visit, castigating Israel’s critics and the United Nations itself, offering no diplomatic concessions, and ordering an airstrike in Beirut that may have killed Israel’s long-hunted archnemesis, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah

Michael Crowley Published 28.09.24,

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel addresses the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York on Friday, Sept. 27, 2024. His speech comes after he offered mixed signals on efforts by the United States and other nations to broker a three-week pause in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.(Dave Sanders/The New York Times)

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel arrived in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly, he seemed to be entering a lion’s den.


Speaker after speaker at the annual gathering of world leaders had portrayed Israel as a global villain. Police arrested dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who called Netanyahu a war criminal. His public rebuttal of a Biden administration plan to pause the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah raised tensions between the two governments.

But Netanyahu bulldozed his way through his visit, castigating Israel’s critics and the United Nations itself, offering no diplomatic concessions, and ordering an airstrike in Beirut that may have killed Israel’s long-hunted archnemesis, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.


The strike landed even as Netanyahu delivered defiant remarks to a U.N. General Assembly hall — largely emptied after dozens of diplomats walked out in protest — in which he triumphantly declared of Israel’s multiple conflicts: “We are winning.”

It is an assessment some U.S. officials say could reflect short-term truth while skirting past the risk of a larger conflict that could be devastating for all involved.

Hours later, senior Israeli officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation, expressed remarkable confidence about their military and sabotage campaign against Hezbollah. Their blows against the group over the past two weeks and Nasrallah’s possible death could be a turning point, they said, in their ongoing struggle with Iran, which arms and funds Hezbollah, Hamas and other proxy forces in what the officials portrayed as a plan to destroy Israel.

“It seemed to me a prime minister who’s got the wind at his back,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, a think tank with close ties to Netanyahu’s conservative government.

Given Israel’s recent successes against Hezbollah, Makovsky said, Netanyahu “can feel like, for the first time, we’re really turning things around on the Iranians.”

“I think the Israelis have been surprised at how successful they’ve been versus Hezbollah,” Makovsky said. He added that Israel was also satisfied with the severe damage it has inflicted on Hamas in the Gaza Strip, despite its failure to win the release of the remaining Israeli hostages seized Oct. 7 and international condemnation of its military campaign.

Even as they insisted that Israel faced an existential threat from Iran’s proxy forces, Israeli officials downplayed the threat of Iranian retaliation for Friday’s airstrike in Lebanon. When Iran last mounted a direct attack on Israel, in mid-April, Israel and the United States successfully intercepted hundreds of Iranian projectiles. Some analysts said it was an embarrassment for Iran, one compounded a week later by an Israeli counterstrike on one of Iran’s premier air defense systems.

And amid tensions with Biden officials who believe that Israel has incurred too much risk in its attacks on Hezbollah, the Israelis warned that little would encourage their enemies more than even a hint of daylight between the two allies.

Projecting strength has become a signature for Netanyahu, whose speech to the U.N. made no apologies after what he called “lies and slanders leveled at my country by many of the speakers at this podium” during the course of the week. Despite calls for de-escalation, he warned Israel’s enemies, including Iran, “If you strike us, we will strike you.”

And he assailed the U.N. itself as a “swamp of antisemitic bile” that offers a forum for foreign leaders who “stand with evil against good” in support of Israel’s enemies.

Even Netanyahu’s very presence in New York was disruptive. Thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators swarmed Manhattan landmarks before his arrival Thursday, protesting Israel’s campaign against Hamas in Gaza at venues like the New York Public Library and Grand Central Station. Police reported dozens of arrests.

Netanyahu’s defiant posture in New York left his critics more exasperated than ever.

“The threats Israel faces are serious, but Netanyahu’s continued warmongering approach is only putting millions of Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese civilians at risk as the whole region is on the brink of an all-out war,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the liberal Israel advocacy group J Street, said in a statement after the Israeli leader’s speech.

U.S. officials avoided openly criticizing Israel’s strike but repeated calls to avoid further escalation of the conflict, even as some Israeli officials spoke of a potential Israeli ground offensive to clear out Hezbollah positions near its northern border.

“The question is not does Israel have a right to deal with existential threats to its security and enemies across its borders with the avowed intent to destroy Israel — of course it does,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken told reporters at a news conference Friday in New York City. “But the question is, what is the best way to achieve its objectives?”

Blinken said diplomacy was a better choice than force. But Netanyahu showed little interest in negotiated solutions during his visit. His U.N. address did not even mention a U.S.-led plan unveiled Wednesday that calls for an immediate 21-day cease-fire to pause months of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

Nor did Netanyahu meet with Blinken in New York.

The new cease-fire initiative, developed with French officials and supported by several other nations, was presented with fanfare Wednesday in the hope of pausing a grinding conflict that U.S. officials fear could lead to a wider war that draws in Iran and the United States.

But Netanyahu quickly appeared to reject the cease-fire plan upon his arrival in New York, vowing to keep attacking Hezbollah with “full force” and saying Israel would “not stop until we achieve all our goals.”

The remarks infuriated U.S. officials who said they believed Netanyahu had given them his support for the proposal.

Netanyahu’s office soon issued a statement to “clarify,” asserting that Israel shares the proposal’s goal of “enabling people along our northern border to return safely and securely to their homes.” How that might be achieved — through force or diplomacy — was not specified, however.

Fears of a cross-border assault like the one Hamas mounted Oct. 7 have driven some 60,000 Israelis from their homes since Hezbollah began firing rockets into Israel in solidarity with Hamas last fall, and analysts say Netanyahu enjoys strong public support for forceful efforts to reestablish security in the area. On Friday, Blinken called that “a legitimate and important objective.”

A senior Israeli official said that a genuine misunderstanding was to blame for the confusion around Israel’s position on the cease-fire plan. But it was just one of many instances where Netanyahu’s public remarks have seemed to undercut what U.S. officials insisted were private assurances about the Israeli leader’s commitment to diplomacy.

U.S. officials have tried for months to forge an agreement under which Hezbollah would withdraw the forces it has positioned along Lebanon’s southern border, in defiance of a United Nations resolution meant to create a buffer zone there.

U.S. officials also say a cease-fire halting the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza could quickly defuse the Lebanon crisis. Nasrallah has said that Hezbollah would halt its attacks on Israel when there is a cease-fire in Gaza.

But talks to resolve that conflict have been stalled for months, with each side blaming the other.

On Friday, Netanyahu blamed Hamas for the impasse, saying the Palestinian militant group should “surrender, lay down its arms, and release all the hostages.”

“But if they don’t, we will fight until we achieve victory — total victory,” he added. “There is no substitute for it.”

The New York Times News Service

FIRST-PERSON: Thinking biblically about immigration

By Tony Beam, posted September 27, 2024


Almost all the polling data monitoring people’s top concerns connected to the 2024 race for the White House lists three issues rising to the top in every poll. They are the economy (inflation), the border, and crime. In some polls, chaos at the border (including the steep rise in illegal crossings) tops the list. In other polls, the economy and inflation are the top priorities, with illegal immigration not far behind. Regardless of the order, Americans are worried that an unsecured border means higher crime rates and violence, a greater threat of terrorism, a rise in deaths from fentanyl, and many other consequences that are related to an open border.

How big is the problem? According to data released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 2023 was the worst year ever for illegal encounters at our southern border. Illegal encounters have risen 40 percent since 2021. Since 2021, there have been 7.5 million encounters nationwide, with 6.2 million of those encounters occurring at the southwest border.

People who would like to hurt us (terrorists, drug and human traffickers) are taking advantage of our lack of border security. In 2023, at least 169 individuals whose names appear on the terrorist watch list were stopped, attempting to cross the U.S./Mexico border between ports of entry. Nationwide, 35,433 illegal aliens with criminal convictions or outstanding warrants were arrested, including 598 known gang members — with 178 of those being members of MS-13.

When you combine these numbers with the estimated 1.7 million known “got aways” since 2021 — and the chaos that has been created in some of our largest cities that once bragged about being “sanctuary cities” but are now being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of illegal immigrants — we can certainly understand why so many Americans rate our open southern border as one of our country’s most urgent problems.

It is a problem that must be addressed politically and legally, but like any problem the solution can only be found when we think and act biblically. Many Americans are so frustrated by how long we have dealt with the problems associated with illegal immigration, they lash out in anger and speak harshly about people who are created in the image of God. As followers of Jesus Christ, we need to find a better way.

Solving our illegal immigration problem begins with a secure border and an orderly system of legal immigration that follows the rule of law. But while we are moving toward a solution, we need to remember the Bible speaks often about the sojourner or stranger who is in the land. Leviticus 19:33-34 says, “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

This command was given in the context of Israel as a nation set apart by God. While I realize it doesn’t apply directly to our broken immigration system, I believe it reveals how God would have us treat individuals who are caught up in that system.

God is a God of mercy and justice. We must begin upholding justice by securing the border. Our broken system can’t be fixed until the border is secure. When we think about the people who are caught up in a broken immigration system, we should be witnesses of His mercy and share with them the story of redemption and how salvation can be found in Jesus. We should also expect and encourage them to immigrate legally and follow our laws. Because we have refused to enforce our laws, we have created a tragic situation for many illegal immigrants and an unsustainable situation for our social systems that are overextended by the sheer number of those attempting to access them.

We should show compassion and encourage everyone who comes here to follow a legal path to immigrate. Those who come with evil intent, with criminal records, or refuse to enter legally should be detained, arrested and deported.

As Christians, we should advocate for just laws that are applied and enforced equally to everyone. As a nation, when we enforce those laws, we remember they are being applied to people whom God loved so much, He sent His Son that they might be saved.

This article originally appeared in the Baptist Courier.

Mehdi Hasan Asks Piers Morgan If He’s Asked His ‘Pal’ Trump to ‘Stop Quoting Hitler’

Kipp Jones

Sep 27th, 2024

MEDIAITE

Mehdi Hasan asked Piers Morgan if he would condemn former president Donald Trump for “speaking like Hitler” on Thursday’s edition of Piers Morgan Uncensored.

The pair were debating the dynamics of Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon when Hasan raised the topic of the former president – and Morgan’s relationship with him.

“On the rhetoric, I wish I didn’t have to compare Donald Trump to Hitler,” Hasan said of the language Trump had previously used to describe some immigrants. “But when he quotes the lines from Mein Kampf, as a journalist –.

The two sparred during the following exchange:

MORGAN: Come on.

HASAN: As a journalist, should I not point out?

MORGAN: You shouldn’t compare him to Hitler, because he’s not Hitler.

HASAN: Okay, so what should I do? So I’m a journalist, Donald Trump says immigrants are poisoning our blood, I go look in history, who’s the only person who said that? Hitler. Should I not tell my viewers on Piers Morgan Uncensored? Should I go [silent], can’t tell them that. So what should I say?

Morgan: You can say he shouldn’t use language like that. You can’t say he’s the new Hitler.

HASAN: I haven’t called him the new Hitler. I’ve never called him the new Hitler.

Morgan and Hasan each agreed that Trump was not comparable to the deceased German dictator as Hasan surrendered that Trump had not plotted to kill millions. However, Hasan said he would not disavow anyone who claimed Trump speaks like Hitler before he put Morgan’s friendship with Trump in the spotlight.


Hasan later asked Morgan, “Do you condemn him speaking like Hitler?”

Morgan fired back, “Yes.”

Hasan shot back, “Does that not outrage you?”

Morgan responded, “Of course.”

Hasan then asked, “He’s your pal. Why don’t you tell him to stop it? Have you ever told him to stop quoting Hitler?”

Morgan concluded, “Yes, probably.”

Trump said in December of last year he had not read Hitler’s manifesto and biography, Reuters reported.

That same month, Trump told a crowd in New Hampshire, “They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country.”


Trump added, “That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”

Watch above via Piers Morgan Uncensored.

 

Turkish involvement suspected in New York City’s corruption case

In an indictment returned by a grand jury on Tuesday and unsealed on Thursday, federal prosecutors said Turkish diplomats and businesspeople illegally funneled money to Adams’campaign and showered him with luxury travel perks, including rooms at opulent hotels and meals at high-end restaurants.

Saturday 28/09/2024

New York City Mayor Eric Adams and his lawyer Alex Spiro hold a press conference at the federal court after his arraignment on bribery and fraud charges on September 27, 2024 in New York City. AFP

NEW YORK

 

New York Mayor Eric Adams pleaded not guilty Friday to charges of  accepting bribes and illegal campaign contributions from Turkish nationals, as the Democrat resists mounting calls from within his own party to resign.

Adams, who appeared before a judge in a Manhattan federal court, is the first sitting New York mayor to be criminally indicted

Adams denied wrongdoing and said he would not resign.

“I will continue to do my job as mayor,” Adams said at a news conference on Thursday.

In an indictment returned by a grand jury on Tuesday and unsealed on Thursday, federal prosecutors said Turkish diplomats and businesspeople illegally funneled money to Adams’campaign and showered him with luxury travel perks, including rooms at opulent hotels and meals at high-end restaurants.

In exchange, Adams in 2021 pressured city officials to allow Turkey’s new 36-story consulate to open despite safety concerns, according to prosecutors.

The alleged scheme dates back to 2014, when Adams became Brooklyn borough president, prosecutors said. The illegal campaign contributions helped finance his 2021 campaign for mayor, prosecutors said.

The Democrat faces five criminal charges and could face decades in prison if found guilty.

Turkey’s foreign ministry, president’s office and Washington embassy did not respond to requests for comment.

Adams, a former police officer who rose to the rank of captain, is the first of the city’s 110 mayors to be charged with a federal crime while in office.

The United States’ largest city has been in a state of political upheaval for the past month as federal probes swirled around senior officials.

The police commissioner resigned on September 12 after FBI agents seized his phone. Days later, Adams’ top legal adviser stepped down.

Several prominent city officials and lawmakers, including US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have called on Adams to resign.

But two powerful Democratic lawmakers from Brooklyn, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, stopped short of doing so.

Adams could be removed from office by Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul, but the process is complicated, said Pace University Law School professor Bennett Gershman.

Hochul issued a statement on Thursday saying she would “review my options and obligations as the Governor of New York.” “I expect the Mayor to take the next few days to review the situation and find an appropriate path forward to ensure the people of New York City are being well-served by their leaders,” Hochul said.

According to the indictment, Adams accepted free travel from a Turkish airline worth tens of thousands of dollars while serving as Brooklyn borough president and paid $600 to stay two nights at a luxury suite in the St. Regis hotel in Istanbul, well below the actual cost of $7,000.

Prosecutors said Adams would fly on the Turkish airline even when it was inconvenient. “You know first stop is always Istanbul,” he wrote in a 2017 text message when his partner expressed surprise that they were flying from New York to Paris through Istanbul.

For his 2021 mayoral campaign, Adams disguised campaign contributions from Turkish sources by funneling it through US citizens, the indictment said. Those funds allowed Adams to qualify for an additional $10 million in public financing, according to the indictment. US law forbids foreign contributions to American political campaigns.

Prosecutors say Adams responded to Turkish concerns.

Acting on a request by a Turkish diplomat, Adams pressured city safety inspectors to allow the country’s new consulate to open in time for a September 2021 visit by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, even though it would have failed a fire inspection, the indictment said.

After repeated messages about the building from Adams, a senior Fire Department official allegedly told a subordinate he would lose his job if he did not allow the consulate to open, according to prosecutors.

Adams notified the diplomat when the Fire Department approved the building to open later in the day, the indictment said.

“You are a true friend of Turkey,” the diplomat allegedly responded.