Japan’s largest fish market, Tsukiji, caught fire last week in a blaze that burned for 15 hours, destroying massive portions of the historic building that has housed the market for decades. No one was injured in the fire but the cause is still unknown. The fire will not shut down the market, which has been a popular tourist destination since it opened in 1935, but it has brought international attention to the market–which is facing a dramatic move that few of the tourists visiting its stalls and shops are aware of.

Concerns about the antiquated refrigeration systems in the market and the building’s vulnerability to earthquakes have been present for years but the fast approaching 2020 Olympics accelerated plans to move the market, as Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike looks to create space for athletic venues and housing during the games. The Tsukiji market was meant to be relocated last year to the man-made island of Toyosu, a location which was not convenient for fishmongers or tourists, but was purpose-built with modern appliances and resources. However, Toyosu was occupied by the Tokyo Gas Company from 1966 to 1988 and industrial chemicals had saturated the area, skyrocketing past legal levels.

Officials claimed that they had sanitized the land but Koike revealed in a press conference last fall that those measures had never in fact taken place–yet she still plans to move the fish market to Toyosu. The local government has invested millions in cleaning up the Toyosu site but it has not yet been declared safe–leaving both the fishmongers who work there and tourists who plan to visit wary. The original site of the Tsukiji market will be rebuilt as a culinary theme park while the traditional fish market will be moved to Toyosu in the summer of 2018. More than 70 percent of the fish wholesalers working in Tsukiji oppose the move but unfortunately the decision is not theirs to make–there is no union, no collective bargaining and even if there was, this is not the type of battle unions are usually designed to negotiate.

Hosting the Olympics is an intensive process for any city–the infrastructure fiasco at Sochi and the massive protests in Rio are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to exploring all that can go wrong when hosting the international event. Koike faces an almost impossible decision–leave the Tsukiji market where it is, a crumbling building vulnerable to fires and earthquakes, or move it to the new site, where contamination could destroy the health of everyone who sells and shops for fish there. The market can’t be shut down–not only is it a tourist destination, it is the largest fish supplier for the restaurants of Tokyo. In a nation where sushi is sold on every corner, the fish supply cannot be cut off overnight. The fate of the market rests now rests entirely on the shoulders of the clean-up team working to purify Toyosu. If the site is still contaminated next summer, Koike will be back to square one–with the clock ticking closer to the Olympics every day.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Tourism and Toxicity at the Tsukiji Fish Market appeared first on Law Street.

There is no such thing as a perfect immigration policy. Even ones that have received praise from leaders of other countries have their cracks. Australia recently took note of a flaw in its system when an automated computer program determined that an Irish vet’s oral English fluency was not up to the standards of Australia’s immigration department, putting her residency in the country at risk.

Louise Kennedy has been working as an horse veterinarian on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland for the past two years. She is a native English speaker and has two university degrees in history and politics–both obtained in English. As her skilled workers visa was coming to an end, Kennedy decided to apply for permanent residency on the grounds that there is a shortage of her profession in the country.

Part of the process of applying for an Australian residency visa is a mandatory English proficiency test–administered by Pearson–with both a written and spoken portion. Kennedy got through the writing and reading portions rather easily, but it was during the oral portion that her troubles began.

The test utilizes an automated question system that asks applicants a series of questions on a monitor and records their vocal responses. The recordings are then analyzed by a system and a score is generated. Despite the fact that Kennedy has been speaking English her whole life, she scored a 74 on the oral section when the Australian government requires a 79 or higher to pass. Needless to say, she was shocked.

“There’s obviously a flaw in their computer software, when a person with perfect oral fluency cannot get enough points,” she said to The Guardian.

Anyone who has had their frustrations using voice-operated “intelligent assistants”–like Siri, Cortana, or Alexa–knows that there are still limits to what voice-analyzing technologies can do, especially when someone’s accent differs from the majority of the population. However, Pearson representatives stood by their programs saying the real problem was that the immigration department set the bar very high for people seeking permanent residency, according to Sasha Hampton, head of English for Pearson Asia Pacific.

Even with the Pearson test being as supposedly good as it is, Kennedy was given the opportunity to retake the test because there appeared to be construction noises that were audible in the background of her recording. Unfortunately, time became a bit of an issue. Her current visa would have expired in the timeframe it would take for all of the paperwork to be completed, even if she was recognized as a fluent English speaker by the testing company. Kennedy now has to resort to applying for a more expensive spouse visa.

“Because I’m married to an Aussie I luckily have a back-up visa to go to but there is a $3,000 cost over the skilled immigrant visa which we weren’t banking on 12 weeks before having our first baby,” she told the Ireland Independent.

This comes within days of Donald Trump announcing a move toward re-hauling the current immigration system into a skills and merits-based one. Though Australia’s system has been criticized for its inability to accurately determine the country’s employment needs, and is getting revamped to meet the demands of far-right politicians who want to ban Muslims from entering the country, Trump Administration officials have offered nothing but praise for the model and hope to enact a similar version in the U.S.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Computer-Based Oral English Test Fails Irish Vet in Australia appeared first on Law Street.

During a vacation to Berlin, a pair of Chinese tourists stopped at the historic Reichstag building and took photos performing the infamous Nazi salute. The duo were promptly detained by the German police on the scene and held on a bail of 500 euros for violating a German law aimed at distancing the nation from its horrific mid-20th-century history.

Police guarding the building, which now houses part of the German Parliament, noticed the tourists taking turns posing and snapping pictures and promptly intervened, according to their statement. The pair, a 36-year-old and a 49-year-old participating in a European tour, were allowed to return to China with their group even though their crime could carry a three-year sentence, according to the Washington Post.

The Reichstag is a particularly sensitive location because of its role in the Nazi rise to power. When the Reichstag caught fire in 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party blamed the fire on Dutch Communists and used it as leverage to access more power. In 2011 a Canadian tourist was also arrested and fined for performing the salute in front of the building, according to the Washington Post.

The incident is yet another example of Germany, and other European nations, criminalizing and condemning Nazi history and its recent resurgence. In this case, the tourists violated provisions of the German criminal code instituted after World War II that ban the salute and many other Nazi symbols, signals, and materials.

Since the war ended, Germany has made strides to distance itself from its history and to educate the new generations on the mistakes made by previous generations. The German public school system has a comprehensive education program on the Holocaust that has only gained momentum in the past few decades, according to PBS.

Nazi flags and symbols are banned across nearly every major country in Europe including Austria, Hitler’s home nation. Earlier this month the Switzerland Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a man performing the salute and yelling “Heil Hitler” outside of a Jewish synagogue in Geneva, according to the New York Times.

Not only is Europe cracking down on the distasteful behavior, but the Chinese government is worried as well. The government is testing out new systems to persuade its people to respect local laws and customs when traveling abroad. One new system would keep track of troublesome tourists and rank them based on severity of their behavior while reminding them to behave properly when they land, according to the Washington Post.

So while the behavior may not surprise the Chinese government, it is certainly frustrating for European nations, and particularly Germany, to constantly deal with tourists making ill-advised Nazi references. As the world sees a resurgence in white nationalism and racial strife these instances are part of a larger global problem that likely has no end in sight. Countries across the globe must tackle issues of discrimination, racism, and their individual histories that are often filled with those same problems.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Tourists Arrested Over Nazi Salute at Reichstag appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is officially a suspect in two criminal cases, Israeli police officials said last week. Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud party, has been under investigation for months. His alleged crimes: accepting illegal gifts from wealthy friends, and floating a quid pro quo deal with a newspaper publisher in a bid for more favorable coverage.

Netanyahu’s fortunes appeared to turn last week, when his former chief of staff Ari Harrow agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. Harrow, according to police, revealed damaging information about his former boss, who is suspected of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The probes into the prime minister, known as “Case 1000” and “Case 2000,” deal with two separate instances. In “Case 1000,” Netanyahu is accused of accepting cigars and bottles of champagne from wealthy and powerful friends, including a Hollywood producer.

“Case 2000” concerns a phone call Netanyahu allegedly had with the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu reportedly asked Mozes for more favorable coverage. In exchange, Netanyahu would curtail the circulation of Israel Hayom, a competitor that is traditionally pro-Netanyahu. Israel Hayom is backed by an American casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson.

On Monday, Israel’s Supreme Court said Netanyahu must reveal the dates of his phone calls with Adelson and Amos Regev, the former editor-in-chief of Israel Hayom.

According to legal analysts in Israel, it is likely Netanyahu will face charges, potentially forcing him to end his fourth term as prime minister years before scheduled elections. An indictment, which could still be months off, does not necessarily mean Netanyahu will step down, according to analysts and those familiar with Israeli law. And though Israeli prime ministers have been taken down by corruption investigations, a sitting prime minister has never been indicted.

Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was released from prison last month after serving a 16-month sentence. Olmert was forced from power in 2008, leading to early elections in 2009, when Netanyahu was elected to the premiership.

For his part, Netanyahu has called the investigations as “background noise,” vehemently denying any wrongdoing. “We cannot go without a ‘weekly affair’, so I want to tell you, citizens of Israel, I’m not referring to the background noise, I’m continuing to work for you,” Netanyahu said in a video published on his Facebook page last Friday.

But according to a recent poll by Israeli broadcaster Channel 10, Netanyahu’s popularity might be dwindling. According to the poll, 66 percent of Israelis say Netanyahu should resign if he is charged.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Investigations into Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Prolonged border delays, expanded truck parking, and increased customs staffing could cost the U.K. 1 billion pounds per year after it leaves the European Union, according to a report by Oxera, an economic consultancy.

Andrew Meaney–head of transport at Oxera–wrote this analysis to see what effects Brexit will have on British ports. Using World Trade Organization statistics for trading across borders, Meaney estimated the related costs based on the assumption that Britain would try to create a new customs system that will be as close as possible to the current system. The most likely result would be a “low regulation, high enforcement” policy, he concluded.

“Enforcement is either undertaken at the ports, or on a random checks basis,” the report states. “However, the number of staff involved increases substantially, and many consignments are subject to lengthy checks.”

Meaney described the 10-figure annual cost as “extremely conservative” because it does not take into account the economic costs of uncertainty involved, extra staff, traffic congestion, and land on which to conduct the checks, which led him to conclude, “The full cost is likely to be much higher.”

Even if the billion-pound increase is something that diehard Brexit supporters want, news of the projected increase could not come at a more inconvenient time for the U.K., as the island nation scrambles to figure out how to replace funding from the European Union.

One example of this came up last week when the Local Government Association (LGA) called on Britain’s Treasury to help replace funds that would be used in smaller towns and regions near the coast–known as regeneration funds. Local authorities estimate that nearly 8.4 billion pounds were allocated through the European structural and investment funds between 2014-2020, which means that once Brexit happens, that total would fall on the British government.

“Since the referendum, one of the biggest concerns for councils has been the future of vital E.U. regeneration funding,” said Kevin Bentley, an executive member of the LGA. “Councils have used E.U. funds to help new businesses start up, create thousands of new jobs, roll out broadband, and build new roads and bridges.”

The Treasury’s commitment to these funds would likely mean an increase in domestic taxes for British citizens to maintain existing funding levels. This becomes a bit problematic when wealthier parts of the country–such as London, where a majority voted Remain–will be paying to support the regions inhabited by the people who voted Leave, and much of the tax-paying immigrant base might leave because of Brexit. In fact, Remain voters would be paying double for the government’s decisions–a National Audit Office report in 2016 found that British investments in infrastructure were not doing too well.

Ever since Britain elected to exit the European Union in June 2016, Brexit supporters have seen many troubling revelations about the withdrawal they voted for. From Prime Minister Theresa May confirming that the 350 million pounds a week promised to the NHS after the Brexit vote was a lie, to the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier, ruling earlier this month that the government’s hope of securing “frictionless” trade once outside the E.U. was not possible, Brexit proponents have had little to hang their hats on. A projected spike in border spending only adds to the problem.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Border Costs are Predicted to Surge After Brexit appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. imposed direct sanctions against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Monday, freezing his U.S. assets and barring Americans from conducting business with him. The sanctions came a day after a vote that expanded his powers, giving the international community fresh concerns that Venezuela is creeping from democracy to dictatorship.

“By sanctioning Maduro the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said during a press briefing at the White House on Monday. “As we continue to monitor this situation we will continue to review all of our options.”

U.S. officials reportedly considered enacting additional measures against Maduro, including banning imports of Venezuelan oil. But in the end, officials worried that halting imports of Venezuelan crude, which makes up about 10 percent of all U.S. oil imports, would unfairly punish regular Venezuelans. Maduro joins three other heads of state directly under U.S. sanctions: North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Robert Mugabe, the 93-year-old president of Zimbabwe.

On Sunday, Venezuelans voted in a referendum on whether or not to dissolve the country’s legislative body, the National Assembly, for a new, 545-member Constituent Assembly, entirely composed of Maduro loyalists. Maduro’s opponents–not to mention Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, and Panama–saw the vote as illegitimate. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, slammed the vote on Twitter:

Maduro’s sham election is another step toward dictatorship. We won’t accept an illegit govt. The Venezuelan ppl & democracy will prevail.

— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) July 30, 2017

Opposition leaders in Venezuela, and millions of citizens, fear that the Constituent Assembly will be a vehicle for Maduro to re-write the constitution, giving him broader, incontestable powers.

Those powers are already bearing fruit. Early Tuesday morning, two prominent Maduro critics, Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma, were reportedly taken from their homes by SEBIN, Venezuela’s intelligence service. The opposition leaders’ families posted on social media detailing their arrests.

Lopez’s wife, Lilian Tintori, tweeted early Tuesday: “They just took Leopoldo from the house. We do not know where he is or where he is being taken. Maduro is responsible if something happens to him.”

And in a video statement, Ledezma’s daughter said: “He was in pajamas. We don’t know where he was taken. A group of men came with their faces concealed and in camouflage and they took him. They have kidnapped him once again. We hold the regime responsible for his life and physical integrity.”

Lopez and Ledezma are among Maduro’s most vocal and influential critics. Lopez was detained in early 2014 for allegedly inciting anti-government protests. He was released from military prison to house arrest last month. Ledezma, the former mayor of Caracas, Venezuela’s capital and the center of political unrest in recent months, is also a leading opposition figure.

As Maduro looks to cement his power, Venezuelans are growing increasingly desperate, struggling to obtain basic necessities like food and water. Since protests ratcheted up in April, at least 125 people have died; 10 people were reportedly killed during protests on Sunday. Maduro seems unfazed by the mounting unrest, the plight of his people, and the condemnation of the international community.

“If the empire’s threats and sanctions don’t intimidate me, nothing scares me,” Maduro said on state television after Sunday’s vote. “Issue all the sanctions you want, but the Venezuelan people have decided to be free and I have decided to be the president of a free people.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Venezuelan President: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Catalonia, an autonomous region in Spain, will hold an independence referendum on October 1.

Tensions between Spain and its Catalan region can be traced back to the 18th century when Spain conquered the Catalan capital of Barcelona. With the adoption of a new constitution in 1978, Spain granted some autonomy to the country’s 17 communities, including Catalonia.

Pro-independence parties have built political momentum in recent years by gaining a majority of seats in the Catalan parliament in 2015. In a nonbinding 2014 referendum, Catalan officials reported that 80 percent of voters were in favor of independence, however, turnout only reached 40 percent.

Beyond its historical and cultural differences with the rest of the country, Catalonia’s case for independence relies largely on the economic disparity between it and the other Spanish communities. Proponents of independence see this referendum as a way to separate wealthy Catalonia from the remaining, poorer segment of Spain.

Catalan lawmakers voted 72-63 on July 26 to allow the region to declare independence within 48 hours if the upcoming referendum passes, according to the Associated Press. However, the referendum on October 1 will not be met without opposition. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy spoke out against the independence efforts during a press conference on July 28.

“There will be no referendum on October 1 because that is what the Constitutional Court has determined. […] The Spanish government is going to defend the law,” Rajoy said. Previous rulings from Spain’s Constitutional Court have said that attempts to secede would be unconstitutional.

Rajoy also tweeted: “After hearing the opinion of the Council of State, we filed an appeal to ensure compliance with the law and to protect civil servants.”

Some citizens are afraid to vote in the upcoming referendum because it could violate Spanish law and the directive of the country’s leaders. Polling stations must decide whether to even open and allow people to cast their votes. Across Spain, uncertainty remains in the months leading up to the referendum.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Catalonia Approaches Independence Vote Amidst Tensions With Spain appeared first on Law Street.

A 72-year-old British man was convicted on Monday of importing a child sex doll that was “anatomically detailed and correct,” according to Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA). Over the past year or so, British authorities have been dealing with an increasing number of such cases, which are difficult to prosecute under British law, as it’s not illegal to own a child sex doll. But importing one could amount to a criminal offense under the 1959 Obscene Publication Act.

Judge Simon James ruled on David Turner’s case at the Canterbury Crown Courthouse in Kent, a city southeast of London. Turner was found guilty of importing a 3-foot-11-inch doll from China. He also bought clothes for the doll, and owned others he used for sexual purposes.

At Turner’s home in Kent, police uncovered more than 34,000 images of children ages three to 16, along with two other child dolls, and 29 stories that “described sexual abuse of children,” according to the NCA. Turner was arrested last November, when customs officers at Stansted Airport seized a doll, which was mislabeled as a mannequin.

The importation of child sex dolls is an emerging trend in the UK. Since March 2016, the Border Force has seized 123 dolls. Those previously charged in similar cases pleaded guilty to importing obscene objects, but Turner asked the judge whether or not using the doll for sexual purposes was considered “indecent or obscene in law.” In a first, the judge ruled that it was. Turner’s sentencing is scheduled for September 8.

“Our front line officers and intelligence teams are vigilant to emerging criminal trends such as the importation of obscene dolls,” Dan Scully, deputy director of the Border Force’s Intelligence Operations said in a statement. “Through our work with law enforcement partners like the NCA, we are committed to preventing the smuggling of obscene articles and bringing those responsible to justice.”

Hazel Stewart, operations manager of the NCA’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection wing, said “Importers of such obscene items should expect to have law enforcement closing in on them.”

Some doubt that child sex dolls can be a therapeutic tool for would-be abusers. “There is no evidence to support the idea that the use of so-called child sex dolls helps prevent potential abusers from committing contact offenses against real children,” Jon Brown, head of development at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said in a statement. “And in fact there is a risk that those using these child sex dolls or realistic props could become desensitized and their behavior becomes normalized to them, so that they go on to harm children themselves.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 72-Year-Old British Man Convicted of Importing Child Sex Doll appeared first on Law Street.

Italian newspapers have been filled with tales from the “Mafia Capitale” trial this month, as Massimo Carminati, a right-wing extremist with a criminal history, was sentenced to 28 years in prison for diverting millions of euros that had been designated for public services into the bank accounts of politicians and businessmen.

Among those accused is the former right-wing mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, who was in office when the majority of the bribery and extortion took place. Although the label “mafia” was quickly applied to Carminati, his accomplice Salvatore Buzzi, and 45 others who faced trial for their involvement in the scandal, their lawyers have been quick to push back against using the word as a catch-all phrase.

Giosuè Naso, one of Carminati’s lawyers, stated that “if everything is mafia, nothing is mafia” and argued that using that label detracts from law enforcement efforts against crime syndicates. In Italy, trials involving the mafia come with a different set of punitive measures as “mafia association” itself can be considered a crime. Judge Rosanna Ianniello ultimately decided Carminati and Buzzi were guilty of corruption, not mafia association, even though the state made an argument that the operation was mafia-like and that certain members of the group had ties to the ‘Ndrangheta, Calabria’s powerful mafia. Gianni Alemanno has also been cleared of mafia association charges but is still awaiting trial for corruption and illegal funding of his political party.

The city of Rome is currently in dire economic straits, having pulled out of its bid for the 2024 Olympics  last year because it simply did not have the funds to continue. The financial woes of the city are directly linked to Carminati and Buzzi, whose bribery and extortion racket pulled public funds from a host of civic projects–including public housing for refugees–and shifted the funds into private coffers. Carminati and Buzzi have been in prison for over two years under Italy’s infamous 41-bis prison regime, designed specifically for mafia detainees, but going forward they will be granted more relaxed conditions in prison for their multi-decade sentences.

The two men and their accomplices may have been cleared of mafia charges but it will take years to track down and redistribute the funds they stole. Although law enforcement forces are confident they have removed the crime ring from city hall, there may still be members who escaped the crackdown and will return to their bribery practices once public scrutiny is relaxed. In the meantime, Rome is struggling, overflowing with garbage, struggling to house its population and maintain its public spaces. After a harsh drought this summer, Rome is now considering rationing drinking water for the 1.5 million residents of the city. The Eternal City desperately needs funding and responsible leaders to make sure public funds are spent effectively and responsibly. Mayor Virginia Raggi holds relatively high popularity with Roman voters and her M5S party has framed itself as the “outsider” party, separate from the corruption of the past–yet as the infrastructure and public services of Rome deteriorate, she may see difficulties.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Mafia Capitale: The Line Between Government Corruption and Organized Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

This is one of China’s most signifiant steps ever when it comes to protecting the legal rights of the LGBTQ community. The court awarded the plaintiff, “Mr. C,” the equivalent of $297. The decision states that workers cannot be discriminated against “based on their ethnicity, race, gender or religious beliefs,” according to the Washington Post.

“The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff without a legitimate reason” and “infringed on the plaintiff’s equal employment rights,” the ruling said.

The 29-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Mr. C” to protect his identity and his family, worked at Ciming Checkup, a health services firm, and was fired last year for his appearance as a man despite legally being considered a female. Mr. C claims he was mocked by some co-workers, and was told that he could damage the company’s reputation before he was fired.

LGBTQ activists praised the court’s decision. For one, the case was China’s first on transgender identity, and it resulted in a victory for the transgender individual. The outcome paves the way for China to institute future anti-discrimination laws in the workplace since workers currently are at the mercy of their employers.

“Personally, I think that in terms of employment discrimination, this judicial precedent goes beyond [current] legislation,” Wang Yongmei, the winning lawyer, said.

The victory marks a seminal moment for those pursuing LGBTQ acceptance in a country that restricts free speech, LGBTQ rights, and human rights more broadly.

The Chinese court’s decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent comments that workplace discrimination is perfectly legal. The DOJ released an amicus brief concerning a case between a company and a gay employee claiming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only covers sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite the court’s decision, the situation for the LGBTQ community in China is far from perfect. The gay and transgender communities in the country still feel silenced in public spaces. In the past year, Chinese police canceled an LGBTQ conference in the city of Xian, and a month after that internet regulators began to ban LGBTQ content online, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. C is proud that his lawsuit sets a precedent for future employees who may be wrongfully terminated, but also recognizes China–and the rest of the world–still has a long way to go.

“Although the case has ended, we still have a long way to go,” he said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever appeared first on Law Street.

To kick off a week-long trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address common security threats and increased economic and security funding. Lebanon is an important U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It also has taken in 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who now comprise about a quarter of its entire population.

But Lebanon is a land of contradictions, largely due to the outsized influence of Hezbollah–an Iranian-backed group that the U.S., the EU, and Israel all consider a terrorist organization–on its politics and security. President Michel Aoun is an ally of the militant group, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even while Lebanon absorbs scores of refugees displaced by Syria’s intractable civil war.

At a press conference on Tuesday, following a private meeting with Hariri, Trump seemed to fundamentally misunderstand Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon. He said: “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah.”

While the U.S. and its allies view the group as a terrorist outfit, Lebanon does not. In fact, Hezbollah, which is fighting ISIS in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, enjoys broad support in Lebanon. Its priorities certainly diverge from those of the U.S.–it is an Iranian proxy force and has vowed to destroy Israel. But Hezbollah (“Party of God”) is key to stabilizing the country, Hariri said in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Wednesday.

Hariri said he has numerous differences with Hezbollah, but “one thing we agree on is that the national interest of Lebanon is to have stability and to have a government that is functional.” And despite Trump’s apparent confusion over Hezbollah, the “administration understand very well the position of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering sanctions against Hezbollah, and any Lebanese banks that do business with it. Hariri has opposed any effort to sanction Hezbollah, because he says it would cripple the country’s entire banking system.

The U.S.-Lebanon partnership remains vital, however. In April, the State Department announced it would provide an additional $167 million to Lebanon to help support Syrian refugees. Hariri, during Wednesday’s event, said Trump had promised $140 million more in aid.

“Our approach supporting the humanitarian needs of displaced Syrian citizens as close to their home country as possible is the best way to help most people,” Trump said in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Aid for Syrian refugees in the U.S. will likely dry up soon. Earlier this month, the U.S. reached its 50,000-refugee limit for the year, a threshold Trump lowered from 100,000 as part of his travel ban that will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanese PM Saad Hariri and Donald Trump Discuss ISIS, Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoed two of three bills on Monday that would have broadened the government’s powers in shaping the Supreme Court. The three laws, proposed by the populist Law and Justice Party (PiS) and passed by parliament last week, ignited protests across the country. They also brought swift condemnation from the European Union and the U.S. State Department.

In a televised statement, Duda said the judicial reforms would “not strengthen the sense of justice” in Poland. Duda added that he supports reform, “but a wise reform.”

The vetoed legislation would have allowed the Justice Ministry to remake the Supreme Court. Current justices would have been pushed out, forced into early retirement, while new judges would have been selected by the justice minister. The third bill, which Duda approved, gives the justice minister the authority to select judges to fill Poland’s lower courts.

Despite Duda’s surprising decision to veto the controversial bills, PiS can still push through the reform measures with a three-fifths majority vote. PiS could not achieve that unilaterally however, and would need an assist from other parties. Given the bill’s unpopularity outside the right-wing PiS, a veto-proof majority is an unlikely scenario.

The effort by PiS, the ruling party, to reshape the courts prompted protests in at least 100 cities over the weekend. In Warsaw, thousands of people packed the streets to protest the legislation, waving EU and Polish flags, and carrying signs that read “constitution.” Some protests turned violent.

“People can demonstrate in the streets, can show their dissatisfaction, but not resort to violence,” Duda said in his address.

The EU and the U.S. also disapproved of the reforms. Last week, Donald Tusk, the European Council president and former leader of Poland, said the bills would “ruin the already tarnished public opinion about Polish democracy.” The EU also threatened to trigger Article 7 and impose sanctions on Poland, a rarely used diplomatic maneuver.

The State Department also chimed in, saying in a statement on Friday that the legislation “appears to undermine judicial independence and weaken the rule of law in Poland.”

“We urge all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Poland’s constitution or international legal obligations and respects the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers,” the statement from State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert continued.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Polish President Vetoes Controversial Judicial Reform Bills appeared first on Law Street.

A Saudi Arabian prince has been arrested after a series of videos emerged online that appear to show him abusing people. The short clips posted on YouTube and Twitter allegedly show the prince pointing a rifle toward a bleeding man who is pleading for his life.

One clip, that has been viewed over 760,000 times, shows 18 bottles of Johnnie Walker whiskey and a pile of cash. Consuming or selling alcohol is forbidden in the strictly Muslim country. Another clip shows the prince, Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Musaed bin Saud bin Abdulaziz, beating someone who is sitting in a chair.

After the videos went viral, King Salman ordered the arrest of the prince on Wednesday. He also ordered the arrests of any associates that could be seen in the footage. The king reportedly won’t allow the release of anyone involved in the case until a ruling is ready.

Royals Not Exempt From Punishment

Even though royals have a very special status in the country, they are not above the law. Last fall, a prince was executed after he was found guilty of killing another man. The beheading was carried out on the direct orders of King Salman.

WATCH: The moment when a Saudi prince was arrested.
More here: https://t.co/QAF4pRC1pA pic.twitter.com/ZA87JMsnks

— Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) July 20, 2017

The extended royal family is conservatively estimated to be some 6,000 members. King Salman has tried to make it clear that royal family members don’t get any special treatment. In an effort to rebuild its reputation on an international level, Saudi Arabia has hired U.S. lobbying firms to push its agenda. Impeding Iran’s influence in the Middle East and isolating Qatar have also been part of that same strategy.

Double Standards on Social Media?

While Saudi Arabia may have found support online for its handling of the prince’s videos, it was only a few days ago that social media was in an uproar over a girl being arrested for wearing a short skirt in the country.

The country is lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to human rights and women’s rights. Women are still prohibited from going outside or driving a car without the company of a male guardian, and the law even dictates what they can wear.

Last weekend, a Saudi social media personality was arrested and questioned by the religious police after she walked around a historic Saudi fort wearing a short skirt. The arrest sparked outrage from people in other countries, and she was later released without facing any charges.

“Saudi Arabia’s purported plans to reshape society and advance women’s rights will never succeed as long as authorities go after women for what they wear,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch in the Middle East.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saudi Prince Arrested After Videos Allegedly Show Him Abusing People appeared first on Law Street.

As Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro puts together plans to rework the country’s constitution, widespread protests have popped up across the South American nation. Most notably, a 24-hour general protest is planned for Thursday to show Maduro the national mood as it reaches a crucial crossroads. 

Maduro has never been particularly popular, but protest tactics have ramped up recently due to his plans to rewrite the 1999 constitution, removing some democratic principles. The first step is a July 30 vote for a “constituent assembly” that would modify the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

The overhaul would give Maduro new powers and potentially extend his term. Maduro’s term is set to end in 2019, but the assembly could vote to remove limits completely. After almost three years of conflict, many view this as Maduro’s final step in achieving a dictatorship.

According to an earlier survey, 85 percent of Venezuelans oppose changing the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier this week Maduro’s opposition organized a referendum as a sign of protest to show the government how they felt. The results were overwhelming: of the 7.6 million surveyed, 98 percent rejected the government’s plans and urged officials to uphold their democratic principles.

“People will be disappointed if they expect the government to react directly to the results [of the referendum] or change anything,” said Luis Vicente León, a political analyst and the director of the Datanalisis polling agency, told the Washington Post. “More than 7 million people participated actively in an act of civil disobedience and ignored the government’s allegations that it was an illegal one.” Officials from Maduro’s party–the Socialist Party–immediately dismissed those results as inflated due to some citizens allegedly voting twice, but never offered evidence to support that allegation. 

Anti-Maduro protesters have stuck by their values despite the consistent threat of violence against them. Just recently a gunmen fired outside a police station, killing one citizen while injuring four others, according to the Washington Post.  At least 92 people have been killed in three months of clashes between protesters, opposition, and police forces.

The distaste for Maduro’s regime began around 2014 when oil prices began to drop and the Venezuelan economy began to falter, according to the CIA Factbook. The economic crisis left millions of citizens impoverished and hungry. Many began to seek asylum; many of those who couldn’t leave became fierce opponents of Maduro.

Even President Donald Trump spoke out against Maduro. In the past Trump has praised dictatorial, powerful leaders like Vladamir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte, but he came down hard against Maduro. Trump warned of economic sanctions if Maduro’s aims are realized and added that the Venezuelan leader is “bad leader who dreams of being a dictator,” according to Al-Jazeera. 

Still, Maduro vows that he will not change his course of action. He implored his opponents to “sit down to start a new round of dialogue” with his representatives, according to Al-Jazeera.

The 24-hour strike was organized by the Democratic Unity coalition and leaders say that they hope to bring the country’s operations to a standstill by urging businesses, restaurants, and workers nationwide to cease working. Those leading the opposition view the strike as a last-ditch effort to save their country from a looming dictatorship. They believe if they don’t succeed that Venezuela will have its democratic principles discarded and replaced by a dictatorial leader. 

Maduro was handpicked to run the nation by Hugo Chávez in 2013 and then elected later that year in a vote that drew praise from “Chavistas” and sorrow from opposition. So, there is some dispute over whether or not his election was legitimate. 

The coming weeks will decide the course of action that Venezuela’s future takes and will also dictate possible international reactions or interference. So far the issues in Venezuela have been overshadowed by larger world events, but if Maduro succeeds with his power grab, it may be time for international attention.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massive Protests Planned Against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, the European Union Court of Human Rights upheld Belgium’s 2011 ban on wearing the full-face veil, also known as the niqab, in public places.

This decision comes after two Muslim women mounted a legal challenge to the ban, claiming that it violated their civil rights. Belgian national Samia Belcacemi and Moroccan national Yamina Oussar both say they voluntarily choose to wear the niqab and that in not being able to, their right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Oussar reportedly told the court that she decided to stay home after the ban was introduced in fear of legal repercussions. Belcacemi continued to wear the veil for a period, but stopped because of societal pressure and fear that she would be heavily fined.

Under the law, individuals who fail to comply with the law regarding full-face coverings face penalties ranging from a hefty fine to imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The European Court of Human Rights upholds a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public pic.twitter.com/S1unR1Y4Dq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) July 11, 2017

Siding with Belgium’s legislature in a unanimous vote, the seven-person panel said a statement that the ban is “necessary in a democratic society” and that the Belgian law is meant to ensure “public safety, equality between men and women and a certain concept of living together in a society.”

A hot-button issue in Europe

The topic of people’s freedom of religious expression in the public sphere has been at the forefront of European politics for several years now.

Belgium is not the first country to take a stance against the niqab or burqa. France banned full-face veils in 2010, and since then, at least 10 other European countries have placed limitations on Islamic dress. Just last month, Norwegian legislators proposed a ban on full-face veils in public schools and universities. The bans are largely seen as a response to the influx of refugees in the region. In Belgium, the 2016 terror attacks have also intensified the debate.

Federal Pensions Minister Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of Belgium’s Reformist Movement party, said on Twitter he was delighted at the court’s announcement, which he believes will strengthen Belgians’ ability to live together.

“To forbid the veil as a covering is to give them more freedom,” Baquelaine said back in 2010 before the law passed. “If we want to live together in a free society, we need to recognize each other.”

Since the E.U. court’s decision, human rights groups have expressed their discontent with the ruling.

“Fostering human relations is a laudable goal,” wrote Hillary Margolis, the Women’s Division Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But forcing women to choose between wearing what they want and being able to appear in public isn’t the way to do it.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EU Human Rights Court Upholds Belgian Ban on Full-Face Veil appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Amnesty International, the global human rights organization, said that patterns of attack conducted by forces on both sides of the battle between ISIS and the Iraqi-American coalition violated international law in Mosul.

The report was released a day after Iraqi Prime minister Haider al-Abadi declared victory for the Iraqi-led forces in the ISIS stronghold city of Mosul almost three years since the the terrorist group captured the city.

A long and bloody nine months of fighting between the forces led to not only thousands of innocent deaths, but caused hundreds of thousands to be displaced from the city.

Amnesty International’s report claims that many of those deaths were not simply casualties of war, rather they were the result of  seemingly indiscriminate and reckless attacks conducted by members from both sides of the conflict. Lynn Maalouf, Director of Research for the Middle East at Amnesty International, expressed the importance of justice for the citizens of Mosul:

The horrors that the people of Mosul have witnessed and the disregard for human life by all parties to this conflict must not go unpunished. Entire families have been wiped out, many of whom are still buried under the rubble today. The people of Mosul deserve to know, from their government, that there will be justice and reparation so that the harrowing impact of this operation is duly addressed.

In its report, Amnesty describes how ISIS forced citizens of Mosul into new areas of the city to effectively use them as “human shields.” By relocating citizens to the western part of Mosul, ISIS created a barrier between its fighters and the Iraqi-American coalition. ISIS was able to keep civilians there by welding doors shut and booby trapping exits, and fighters would kill anyone who tried to escape.

On the flip side, the U.S. and Iraqi coalition chose to use weapons that were much too powerful for their intended targets or take the necessary precautions to protect civilians when conducting attacks. For example the report states on March 17 a U.S. airstrike that targeted two ISIS snipers ended up killing 105 innocent civilians. The report charges that the coalition failed to “adapt their tactics” and ended up doing significantly more harm than necessary.

Military officials from the Pentagon have so far rebuffed the alleged violations of international law. Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend said in a press conference:

I would challenge the people from Amnesty International or anyone else out there who makes these charges to first research their facts and make sure they’re speaking from a position of authority.

Next steps at this point are unknown. Holding states liable for their actions during wartime is difficult, even more so when non-state actors like ISIS are involved. But U.N. officials have said that accountability will be sought for the situation in Mosul.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post War Crimes in Mosul?: Amnesty Claims All Parties Violated International Law appeared first on Law Street.

Okinoshima, a 200-acre island off the Japanese mainland, was announced as one of the newest additions to the UNESCO World Heritage sites list on Sunday. But globe-trotters wanting to visit Okinoshima may need to reconsider: the island bans women.

The reason behind the island’s ban is unknown, but it is commonly thought to stem from an ancient belief that menstruation makes women impure.

Men who wish to go to the sacred island also have to follow strict guidelines, including ridding themselves of their impurities by bathing naked in the ocean before coming ashore. Men are allowed only one visit per year. They must also never speak of the island, nor remove so much as a flower or blade of grass from the environment, according to Japanese newspaper The Asahi Shimbun.

The female-free land mass is manned year round by a Shinto priest who prays to the island’s gods and watches over the 17th century shrines.

The mystical island is also home to a vast collection of culturally significant and virtually intact archeological artifacts that “provide evidence of intense exchanges between the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula and the Asian continent,” according to UNESCO.

The island’s treasures and new World Heritage status would have likely attracted a number of tourists, were it not for its policy on travelers. But local officials have stated they will not loosen any rules in light of UNESCO’s decision.

UNESCO Faces Criticism

While the Japanese government welcomed the announcement of its 17th heritage site, many took to social media to express their discontent that a site banning women was given a UN commendation.

Okinoshima island's forbidden to women & Unesco thinks it's ok since there's another place forbidden to women. whatever @UNESCO #WonderWoman

— V-Lex (@VitalMilla) July 10, 2017

The UNESCO Committee debated whether Okinoshima’s inclusion as a World Heritage site would be discriminatory, but found a precedent in Mount Athos, in Greece, which also prohibits entry to women. Okinoshima’s approach to gender segregation did not constitute a sufficient reason to prevent the island from becoming a World Heritage site, according to UNESCO spokesperson Roni Amelan.

An island official refuted comments saying the practice was discriminatory, and told AFP that the ban “is meant to protect women, the birth-giving gender” because travel by sea can be dangerous.

Still, some find that the decision sends the wrong message and is directly at odds with UNESCO’s Priority Gender Equality Action Plan, which has a stated goal to “ensure that a gender equality perspective is reflected in all its policies, programs, and processes.”

Rajan Zed, president of the U.S.-based Universal Society of Hinduism, called for UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova’s resignation for failing to uphold the organization’s ideals.

“Where women are revered, there the gods are pleased; where they are not, no rite will yield any fruit,” Zed said, quoting Hindu scriptures.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japanese Island That Bans Women is Now a UNESCO World Heritage Site appeared first on Law Street.

Despite being separated by an over 5,000 mile-long border, the United States and Canada share a few commonalities, including an opioid crisis that is growing at an alarming rate. But how the U.S. and Canada have responded to the crisis shows a difference in how both countries approach a drug epidemic.

There were more than 2,400 opioid deaths in Canada last year, and the province of British Columbia alone is on pace for over 1,400 deaths this year. To tackle this issue, the Canadian government decided to create more safe places for addicts to shoot up. Health Canada, the country’s department of public health, announced in June that it would add three more “safe injection sites”–bringing the national total to seven–with the intention of building scores more in the future.

These sites give addicts clean syringes, medical supervision, and freedom from arrest. Addicts don’t get help in kicking their habit unless they ask for it, but the program dramatically reduces the chance of a fatal overdose or the transmission of blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis or HIV. Last year alone, Canada’s first injection site–built in 2003 and located in Vancouver–saw 214,898 visits by 8,040 individuals, with nurses intervening in 1,781 overdoses. The site says it has never had an overdose death. Health Minister Jane Philpott swears by the safe sites.

“They are absolutely known to save lives and reduce infections,” she said. “We have a very significant public health issue in our country.”

Professionally-staffed injection sites first began in the Netherlands in the early 1970s as “alternative youth service” for members of St. Paul’s church in Rotterdam. The government officially sanctioned these sites in 1996–despite years of receiving support from law enforcement and local officials–and countries like Switzerland, Germany, Spain, and Australia soon followed suit.

In the U.S., more than 59,000 people died from an opioid overdose last year, according to a study done by The New York Times. Drug overdoses became the leading cause of death among Americans under 50 in 2008, a CNN study found. In addition, heroin-related deaths increased 439 percent from 1999 to 2014, the study found.

While most of the western world saw the potential in safe injection sites, the U.S. has relied on state-level measures with varying results. Forty states, for example, have passed Good Samaritan overdose laws. But in states like Washington, only 33 percent of opioid users–and 16 percent of police officers–were aware of the policy. Only seven percent of officers could describe who the law protects.

Police have also decided to try and take this issue into their own hands. In New York City, nearly 40 percent of patients trying to get a daily dose of methadone said they’d been stopped and frisked by police outside of clinics.

One would think that with all of these methods in place, a safe injection site would be a natural evolution. But states and the federal government have fought against such sites. California Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Democrat, introduced a bill in April 2016 that would make it legal for local and state health departments to allow the use of controlled substances in clinics. The bill did not pass.

President Donald Trump recently proposed a 95 percent cut to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, despite campaigning on a promise to help fix the opioid crisis.

There might still be hope, however, for public health advocates. Last week, the Trump Administration nominated Indiana state health commissioner Jerome Adams to be the next U.S. Surgeon General. Adams has received praise from addiction specialists for prioritizing the opioid crisis during his tenure in Indiana. He persuaded then-Governor Mike Pence to implement syringe exchange programs, despite Pence’s initial reservations, which caused the number of HIV cases in the state to drop 30 percent.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canada Could Provide a Treatment Blueprint for U.S. Opioid Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Protests began Tuesday evening in Hamburg, Germany, ahead of the G-20 summit where leaders from 19 countries and the EU will gather on Friday and Saturday to discuss global issues, including trade and climate change.

Thousands of G-20 protesters gathered in Hamburg to protest capitalism, environmental inaction, and the G-20 summit itself. The protesters believe the summit is undemocratic because a select group of world leaders is making decisions that will impact the entire world. German police fired water cannons to disperse a group of about 500 protesters on Tuesday, according to the UK news outlet The Daily Express.

On Wednesday, 1,000 performance artists clad in clay-covered clothes crept and crawled through the streets of Hamburg. The performance by artist collective “1000 Gestalten” (1,000 figures) was meant to represent individuals’ advancement of themselves rather than society as a whole, and to get people engaged in the political process, according to the group’s website.

The demonstrators, coated head-to-toe in gray clay, inched their way down the street with dull expressions on their faces. Eventually, they stripped off their gray clothing to reveal colorful clothes–and for some, naked bodies–underneath as a symbol for joyous liberation.

Germany: Actors smeared in clay protest #G20 summit https://t.co/UgnAmmrVmT pic.twitter.com/IbmCdu8PjL

— RT (@RT_com) July 6, 2017

Peaceful protests continued on Wednesday and Thursday, including a march resembling a block party with music and dancing.

In Germany, they protest the #G20 with dragons on top of cars, beer, and serious, serious techno. pic.twitter.com/egGxSKMqVy

— James H-H (@jamesonthewaves) July 5, 2017

Stores boarded up their windows in preparation for property destruction and looting.

Hamburg: stores closed/boarded up in anticipation of (anti-NATO/IMF) #G20 protesters,”Hamburg macht dicht” #G20HAMpic.twitter.com/jrWIdn3OJc

— Kristina Dei (@2kdei) July 6, 2017

One group of protesters dressed as the heads of state present at the summit to protest the leaders. Another group carried a sign reading “Welcome to Hell,” a phrase which became the moniker of Thursday’s march.

G20 Welcome to Hell – My pictures of yesterday are online. Escalated After Police attack https://t.co/pclzlbMUTn #g20 #nog20 #w2h #nog20en pic.twitter.com/FEiePPHhWA

— Fabian Schumann (@schumann_fabian) July 7, 2017

According to the Guardian, the “Welcome to Hell” march was supposed to travel from Hamburg’s harbor toward the convention center where the summit is being held, however police stopped the protesters from proceeding shortly after the march began.

Hamburg police deployed water cannons and tear gas against protesters Thursday evening around 7 p.m. Some protesters began tossing bottles and other objects back at police, according to The Daily Express.

Demonstrators clashed with police in Hamburg during an anti-G20 protest, with tear gas and water cannon being used #G20 pic.twitter.com/eYyTIWksqk

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 6, 2017

Protests at the G-20 summit are nothing new. During the 2010 G-20 summit in Toronto, peaceful protests were interrupted by a group of anarchists who destroyed police cars, store windows, and other property. Police used batons, tear gas, pepper spray and plastic bullets against protesters, and detained more than 1,000 people.

While the G-20 has seen protests before, the events leading up to this year’s summit were especially tense given protesters’ opposition to President Donald Trump. Trump visited Poland’s President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday and gave a speech questioning “whether the West has the will to survive.”

Trump then flew to Germany later that day for the G-20 summit, arriving amidst the protests in Hamburg, where he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The president declined to say what he and Merkel discussed behind closed doors. However, Merkel told the German parliament on June 29 that “we cannot expect easy talks in Hamburg” on climate issues.

On Friday, the first day of the summit, demonstrators resumed peaceful protests with sit-ins and marches.

RAW: Police cleared a sit-in protest ahead of the opening of #G20 summit (Video: Sebastian Kroeck) pic.twitter.com/96Ai6X1WE7

— dwnews (@dwnews) July 7, 2017

“You are 20, we are plenty,” reads a banner shown at a #G20 protest rally in #Hamburg. #G20HAM17pic.twitter.com/7yEKqGfRiE

— Arafatul Islam (@arafatul) July 7, 2017

With the start of the G-20 summit, Trump will continue to meet with fellow heads of state, including his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet for the first time at the G20 summit in Hamburg pic.twitter.com/LQmSKkWQks

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 7, 2017

If one thing is clear, it’s that demonstrators from Germany and around the world are dissatisfied with the G-20 summit and the direction in which the world’s top leaders are moving.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters and Police Clashed Ahead of G-20 Summit in Germany appeared first on Law Street.

The French government announced on Tuesday that parents will be legally obligated to vaccinate their children starting in 2018.

Currently, French law makes vaccines for three diseases mandatory–diphtheria, tetanus, and polio–while the rest, including vaccines for hepatitis and whooping cough, are only recommended. This change will make all 11 vaccines that are universally recommended by health authorities compulsory.

France has fallen victim to a measles outbreak that the World Health Organization has warned will sweep across Europe. There were 79 cases of measles reported in January and February alone, mostly due to an outbreak of 50 cases in the north-eastern Lorraine region, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. From 2008 to 2016, more than 24,000 cases of measles were found in France, according to the country’s public health authority. Approximately 1,500 of those cases involved serious complications and 10 people died.

Other European countries have enacted compulsory vaccination measures to combat declining immunization rates. Italy–where cases of measles rose more than five-fold in April relative to the same month last year–recently made 12 vaccines mandatory for children attending school up to age 16 and banned all non-vaccinated children from attending state schools. Beatrice Lorenzin, the Italian health minister, said the legislation was in response to “an emergency generated by fake news.”

The “fake news” that Lorenzin refers to is misinformation about vaccinations. Italy’s populist Five Star Movement was recently blamed for the outbreak of measles cases in the country because of its outspoken opposition to vaccines. Even as recently as 2012, a court in Rimini awarded damages to a family claiming its son had become autistic because of vaccines, though the decision was eventually overturned on appeal. A recent survey even found that more than three in 10 French citizens don’t trust vaccines, and only 52 percent of those vaccinated said the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

Fears surrounding vaccines are typically linked to a discredited study by disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield, who claimed to show a link between the inoculation and autism. In the United States, for example, these fears still persist. A 2015 Gallup poll found that 6 percent of Americans believe vaccines cause autism and that the number of people who believe it is “extremely important” to vaccinate their kids has gone down 10 percentage points over the last 14 years.

Recent attempts to put compulsory vaccination into law are the latest developments in what has been a longstanding campaign. In the 20th century, many countries enacted such measures as the first few vaccines became available to the public. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that states could compel vaccination for the “common good.” At the same time, Brazil attempted to enforce compulsory vaccination laws that allowed government workers to force vaccination on citizens in lower income areas of Rio de Janeiro, which ultimately led to the Vaccine Revolt.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post France to Make 11 Vaccines Mandatory for All Children in 2018 appeared first on Law Street.

Scottish lawmakers announced last week that the government will introduce a “soft opt-out” system for organ donation. The system, which has raised medical ethics questions in other countries, presumes consent unless an individual has opted-out of donations before their death.

“We have made a transforming decision in Scottish politics,” said Anne McTaggart, a lawmaker in the previous Parliament who initially presented the “opt-out” bill.

This system is an attempt to increase the number of life-saving organ donations. The nation has recently invested heavily in donation campaigns, consultations, and petitions. Last year alone, a record-breaking number of people who were waiting for a transplant received an organ they needed, according to NHS Blood and Transplant.

The new law is trying to build on this growth. Previously, adults willing to donate had to “opt-in” and then hold on to a donor card. Now, all adults will be placed on the donor list unless they have officially stated their wish to not donate. However, family members will get the last say. If they don’t want to go ahead with their loved one’s donation, their wishes will be respected.

Public Health Minister Aileen Campbell said “we should not forget that organ donation is a gift, which can only occur as a result of tragic circumstances.”

Though many countries, such as Germany or the United States, still prefer an explicit consent system, Scotland isn’t alone in passing a presumed consent law. In fact, “opt-out” policies are gaining ground in Europe and South America as the need for transplants increases.

France implemented the system in January. Spain has had a comparable policy in place for 25 years and has become the world leader for organ donations with about 43.4 organ donors per million inhabitants. This compares to the United States’ 28.2 donors per million inhabitants in 2015.

In the United Kingdom, Wales also debuted a soft “opt-out” policy in 2013, which inspired Ireland and some U.S. states to consider making the jump.

Last Friday, Theresa May announced that the government will also closely monitor how transplant numbers evolve in Wales and Scotland to assess whether the rest of the Kingdom should adopt this law.

“Organ donation hit a record high last year here and we obviously want that to continue and continue to rise,” a Downing Street spokesperson said.

Mixed reactions to the law

Although the bill was passed after 82 percent of a public consultation agreed to the “opt-out” system, some are resistant or see flaws in the policy.

“The State does not have a right to anyone’s organs. Even a so called soft opt-out system ruins the nature of organ donation as an altruistic gift,” said Dr Gordon Macdonald from CARE Scotland, a Christian action group.

Dr Calum MacKellar, of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics (SCHB) believes the system creates a “very significant risk for serious mistakes,” with no guarantee that a deceased’s wishes are followed and a risk for public confidence to be undermined, thereby impacting overall donation levels.

Yet, many Scots are optimistic that this system will bring about much needed help to some of the roughly 500 people waiting for an organ.

“We believe that genuine choice over organ donation can be facilitated through a soft opt-out system,” said Peter Bennie, chair of British Medical Association for Scotland. “If properly implemented, with adequate resources and staff, and backed up by a high-profile campaign, an opt-out system could save or transform people’s lives.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scotland to Presume Consent for Organ Donation with “Soft Opt-Out” Law appeared first on Law Street.

Former South Korean President Park Geun-hye doesn’t have a ton of fans right now. The former president was ousted and is currently facing corruption charges. At one point toward the end of her presidency, her approval rating fell to a measly 4 percent. But now there is apparently one more thing she has to worry about: North Korea.

While North Koreans have never been too fond of their neighbors to the south–technically speaking they are still at war–they appear to have a particular hatred for the former South Korean president. In an announcement on North Korea’s state-run television, the state claimed that it had discovered a “revelation” that implicated Park and her National Intelligence Minister in organizing an assassination attempt in 2015 against Kim Jong-Un, the leader of North Korea.

Representatives from the North Korean government declared her actions “unpardonable”and issued a statement on North Korean state-run TV, saying she should receive: “A miserable dog’s death any time, at any place and by whatever methods from this moment.”

This announcement may have come as a response to an article published in a Japanese newspaper, Asahi Shimbun Daily, on Monday. It cited an anonymous source that claimed Park had approved of a plan to oust Kim from his position.

This is the second time in as many months that North Korea has accused the South Koreans of an assassination plot. In May, the North Koreans accused South Korea of teaming with the CIA in a biochemical attack against the supreme leader.

Alternately, North Korea’s claims could be based on the attack that killed Kim Jong-un’s half brother earlier this year in a Malaysian airport. That attack may have triggered internal fears that the North Korean government is vulnerable to assassination attempts. However, that theory might not hold up because others have claimed that the assassination of Kim’s brother came from inside the government in the first place.

North Korea has attempted to assassinate leaders of South Korea before. In 1983, North Korean assassins attempted to kill then-South Korean dictator Chun Doo-hwan when he was visiting Burma, but the attack was unsuccessful.

Park already has enough problems to contend within in her own country. In December of 2016 it was alleged that she abused her power, supposedly accepting bribes and leaking classified information to an influential friend. The South Korean Parliament suspended her powers in December 2016, and in March she was removed from power by a South Korean court and then arrested.

It’s incredibly unlikely that current South Korean President Moon Jae-in would grant an extradition request from North Korea. He recently visited Washington to meet with President Donald Trump. The two leaders were slated to discuss the ongoing tensions between the three countries and a possible joint response to the North’s development of nuclear weapons.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post North Korea Proclaims a Death Wish for Former South Korean President Park Geun-hye appeared first on Law Street.

Cardinal George Pell has been charged with multiple sexual assault allegations by Australian authorities. Pell is the highest ranking member of the Catholic Church to be implicated in the child abuse scandal that has tarnished the church’s reputation throughout the past few decades.

Pell is accused of “historical sexual assault offenses.” These include at least two men who have come forward and described Pell inappropriately touching them at a swimming pool in the 1970s. Pell denied these allegations after an interview aired on Australian television in 2016 and he has denounced this “relentless character assassination,” according to the Washington Post.

Pope Francis did not release a statement on the issue, but the Vatican said that it feels “great regret” over the situation and that the Pope has appreciated what Pell did during his three years in Rome, according to the Washington Post.

Pell is set to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on July 18. The magistrate will decide next week whether not to release the details of the investigation, according to BBC.

While he has repeatedly said he will fully cooperate with the investigation, Pell has also strongly denied the accusations. The Pope has granted him a leave of absence to fight the charges, according to BBC. Pell said that he would make the trip back to Australia if his doctor permits it. Last year doctors would not permit him to fly back to Australia last year so he answered questions from detectives via videochat.

“I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court,” Pell said. “I am innocent of these charges, they are false. The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me.”

Pell, an adviser to the Pope and Prefect of the Secretariat of the Economy, is a native of Ballarat, Australia, and was the Archbishop of Melbourne and then Sydney before becoming a cardinal in 2004. Named the head of the Vatican’s finances in 2014, Pell is considered the third most powerful person in the church.

In the past decade Pell has played a prominent role on Vatican commissions created to combat sexual assault within the Roman Catholic community. In 2013 he was named one of eight cardinals charged with investigating ways to reform the church, according to CNN. However, he has also been criticized for his lack of impact on the investigations and supposed connections with known child-abusing priests.

Because of his powerful position within the Vatican and the Australian Catholic community, it is possible that these allegations will be the biggest obstacle the church faces when it comes to combatting child abuse. Peter Saunders, a British abuse survivor who served on a papal commission investigating the abuse, told the Washington Post:

[These charges] will probably rock the Vatican like nothing else has ever done…The fact that one of the pope’s right-hand men, the secretary for the economy, has in a sense been arrested and will be charged with such serious offenses, that surely has got to have some kind of effect on the Vatican and the hierarchy.

So, the coming months will be telling for how the Pope and the Catholic Church respond to the accusations against Pell and the recurring issues with abuse within the church. While they’ve dealt with past scandals within the Vatican and in other branches, such a high profile conviction brings with it new challenges in addition to worldwide attention. Pope Francis has made it one of his goals to cleanse the church of child abuse and this will likely set him back.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cardinal George Pell Charged with Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

As Muslim communities celebrated Eid al Fitr last weekend, mosques across the globe welcomed worshippers for the celebration–except at Iraq’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri, a thousand-year-old structure recently reduced to rubble in the battle for Mosul.

Islamic State’s Amaq news agency has claimed the mosque was destroyed by a U.S. airstrike, but both U.S. forces and the Iraqi army have stated that ISIS militants destroyed the mosque as they retreated from Mosul. Video evidence shows the blast that toppled the building exploding from within multiple levels of the minaret rather than from the impact of an airstrike.

The al-Nuri Mosque has joined the long list of monuments and historic sites destroyed in the Middle East over the past twenty years. Many cultural heritage sites in the Middle East have been systematically erased, from the Buddha statues of Bamiyan destroyed by the Taliban in Afghanistan to the dozens of temples and historic cities that have been decimated by ISIS over the past three years. The justification for this destruction is often that the ancient sites celebrate idolatry or polytheism but sometimes, as in the case of the al-Nuri Mosque, the intentional destruction of the site is not motivated by a higher cause–a site that represent generations of tradition and history is simply seen as expendable. Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has claimed that blowing up the al-Nuri Mosque was a declaration of defeat and a clear sign that ISIS is losing the battle for control of the city–but the destruction of the mosque is still a heavy blow to Mosul, as Iraqi military leaders had privately hoped to liberate the mosque and celebrate Eid al Fitr within its hallowed halls.

The leveling of historic sites is often written off as “collateral damage” but an important International Criminal Court case in 2016 could change that. An Islamic militant who destroyed the shrines of Timbuktu was sentenced to nine years in prison after the ICC labeled cultural destruction a war crime. ISIS militants who are captured would of course be put on trial for far more violent and severe crimes than cultural destruction but consider that the International Committee of the Red Cross’ definition of war crimes does include “making buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes or historic monuments the object of attack, provided they are not military objectives.”

The destruction of the al-Nuri Mosque and sites like it do impact the cultural legacy of a nation and should be treated as serious crimes. During the bombings of World War II, cultural sites were burnt to the ground every night but we are now in a different era of warfare and should set different standards. Mosul’s air, water, and land have been polluted and torn apart by the battle for the city but Iraqi forces will seek to rebuild once they have expelled ISIS forces. A structure like a large mosque is important for the rebuilding process on a logistical level as it would serve as an ideal place to set up shelters, food and clothing distribution and a headquarters for relief efforts–but we must also think beyond the practical. The al-Nuri Mosque was a symbol of a shared identity and heritage that defined Mosul–and the militants who destroyed it are committing a form of cultural genocide.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should We View the Destruction of the al-Nuri Mosque as a War Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in is officially in D.C. to meet with President Donald Trump. Elected in May, following the impeachment of South Korea’s former leader, Moon comes to Washington with a vision on how to deal with North Korea that is much different than the Trump Administration’s.

Moon has scaled back maneuvers that could be seen as aggressive toward North Korea, while stressing the importance of dialogue with his country’s northern neighbor. Trump, on the other hand, lacks a coherent Pyongyang strategy, and has flirted with both an armed response and a diplomatic one.

Before the two leaders met, Moon, who landed in the U.S. on Wednesday, sought to highlight the countries’ common interests. To kick-off his first visit to the U.S. as president, Moon visited a Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, and laid a wreath to commemorate the Marines who died fighting in the Korean War. He used the occasion to underscore the U.S.-South Korea alliance.

“Together we will achieve the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program, peace on the Korean Peninsula and eventually peace in Northeast Asia,” Moon said. Later, in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Moon highlighted South Korea’s economic and trade ties with the U.S., and called for further cooperation. He said:

The U.S. market share in Korea’s import market has increased and Korea has also seen an increase in its share of the U.S. important market. Expansion of bilateral trade is enriching the daily lives of our peoples…Both our countries have new governments in place; let us become best partners by creating new jobs in our countries. Let us move forward hand in hand toward a path of joint and common prosperity.

Despite the very real economic and military ties between Washington and Seoul, the presidents are bound to clash when it comes to North Korea. Moon is South Korea’s first liberal president in decades; he supports increased dialogue and investment with Pyongyang rather than the more military-based, isolationist approach of his conservative predecessors.

Moon also recently delayed the deployment of additional missile defense batteries supplied by the U.S. He said the delay is intended to provide time for an environmental review. But some analysts see it as a move to placate China, which opposes the system, known as Thaad. Still, where Moon and Trump might bump heads most forcefully is on how to deal with North Korea in the immediate future.

The Trump Administration’s most recent public comments on its North Korean strategy came on Wednesday, from National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. The U.S. is preparing “all options,” McMaster said on Wednesday, “because the president has made clear to us that he will not accept a nuclear power in North Korea and a threat that can target the United States.”

Under Kim Jong-un’s leadership, North Korea has increased its ballistic missile tests over the past few years. The launch frequency has increased since Trump took office, and Kim has stated his nuclear arsenal is nearing the capacity to strike the continental U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile.

Though analysts say Pyongyang is months, if not years, away from acquiring such capabilities, the threat is growing by the day. In addition, thousands of U.S. soldiers are spread across South Korea, Japan, and Guam, all of which are currently within North Korea’s range. A few months into his tenure, Trump seemed to have embraced the idea of using China to bully the North to curtail its nuclear ambitions. That tact has apparently failed. Last week, Trump tweeted:

While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2017

On Thursday, the Trump Administration tightened the screws on China, imposing sanctions on a Chinese bank that deals with North Korea. On Wednesday, in a stark reminder of the threat North Korea poses, its state-run news agency issued a “death penalty” on former South Korean President Park Geun-hye and her former spy chief. Accusing the former president of attempting to assassinate Kim, the statement said, she might receive a “miserable dog’s death any time, at any place and by whatever methods from this moment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and South Korean Leader Moon Jae-in Meet Despite Different North Korea Strategies appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backtracked on an agreement he made last year to create an egalitarian space at the Western Wall. He said he would seek what he feels is a better compromise between liberal progressive Jews and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Netanyahu decided to scrap the bill despite previously calling the solution a “fair and creative solution,” according to the Washington Post.

The Western Wall, or the “Kotel” in Hebrew, is one of the holiest sites in the world, and the holiest site for the Jewish people. It marks the only remaining ruins of the second Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE, according to the biblical account. A second temple was built a few decades later, and was ransacked and destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

For years, Jews and tourists from across the globe have traveled to the last remaining wall of the second temple in order to pray and stuff personal notes into the wall’s cracks. But one issue that has stemmed from this tradition is the wall’s gender divided prayer space. Men are allotted about 75 percent of the space, while women are granted a much smaller section.

Israel’s reform and conservative movements, together with Women of the Wall, an Israeli feminist organization, filed an official petition in September to reconfigure the prayer space. This action angered the ultra-Orthodox and decreased the chances for compromise, Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said.

Senior minister Tzachi Hanegbi has been appointed to seek an alternative solution. Netanyahu plans to meet with senior officials of the bipartisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC President Lillian Pinkus and CEO Howard Kohr made an emergency visit to Jerusalem on Wednesday in order to meet with Israel’s leader, according to Haaretz.

AIPAC released a one-sentence statement expressing its faith in Israel’s democracy as “the best hope for a productive outcome,” according to Haaretz. Netanyahu opted not to meet with American reform and conservative Jewish leaders despite them being in Jerusalem for the Jewish Agency’s Board of Governors summit, according to Times of Israel.

While the ultra-Orthodox community was delighted by Netanyahu’s backtracking, the decision was met with outrage from many Jews in Israel and around the world. In recent years, Women of the Wall has emerged to campaign for changes. The progressive group has advocated for a more egalitarian space at the Western Wall where husbands, wives, and children can pray together instead of being separated by a barrier. Anat Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, wrote:

This is a bad day for women in Israel. The Women of the Wall will continue to worship at the women’s section of the Western Wall with the Torah scroll, prayer shawls and phylacteries until equality for women arrives at the wall as well.

The reason the barrier is there in the first place is to appease ultra-Orthodox Jews who adhere to the separation of the sexes. At Orthodox synagogues there are “mechitza’s” which separate the men and women during prayer.

Women are not permitted to read aloud from the Torah, wear prayer shawls (talit) or sing at the Western Wall. Women of the Wall also considers it a priority to change those restrictions.

Even some within the Israeli government spoke out against Netanyahu’s decision. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that the prime minister’s choice “causes terrible harm to Jewish unity and to the alliance between the State of Israel and Diaspora Jewry,” according to the Washington Post.

Yaakov Katz, the editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote a column saying, “Sunday will go down in history as a shameful day for the State of Israel, another nail in the coffin of Israel’s failing relationship with Diaspora Jewry.” Clearly, many Jews in Israel and those living outside the country have had strong negative reactions to Netanyahu’s decision.

Multiple Jewish groups have announced that they will reconsider their relationship with Israel. The board of directors for the non-profit Jewish Agency canceled a dinner that was planned with Netanyahu, according to San Francisco Gate. Additionally, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said he felt betrayed. Since Jacobs sees no point in meeting with Netanyahu at this point, the Union would instead prepare for future debates, according to Times of Israel.

Newly minted ambassador to Israel David Friedman spoke about the controversy while at an event in Jerusalem. Friedman said he understood the frustration, but called for unity and understanding between the two sides, according to Haaretz.

Netanyahu’s decision on the Western Wall represents a huge divide between ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews and non-Orthodox Jews in Israel and around the world. Many American Jews have become frustrated with Netanyahu and the Israeli government in recent years, so this abandonment will only fuel those flames.

Now, the two sides must sit back down and find a compromise. It remains to be seen when a new deal will be reached, but the path there will surely be contentious.

“These negotiations were reached by listening to each other, mutual understanding… The [prime minister] initiated the negotiations and promised us and inspired us and now in one quick swoop without any warning stopped it all,” Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israeli Government Stalls Plans for an Equal Space at the Western Wall appeared first on Law Street.

Ehe für alle (marriage for all) may soon become the law of the land in Germany after Chancellor Angela Merkel softened her stance on same-sex marriage during an interview on Monday. Merkel said the Parliament ought to carry out a “vote of conscience” on the issue. The body intends to do so on Friday.

Germany is one of the only Western European countries that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage. The country allowed same-sex couples to enter civil partnerships in 2001 and numerous legal battles since then have also won couples the right to inherit items and property. The bill, proposed by the left and green parties following Merkel’s call for a free vote, would add to this list the rights to marry and adopt.

The bill is expected to pass easily on Friday, in part because many believe this law is long overdue. A YouGov poll estimates that two thirds of Germans would advocate for a law allowing LGBTQ individuals to wed and over half of Germans support adoption.

A political move, more than a historic one?

Amid the excitement surrounding the vote, many are speculating that Merkel’s pivot emerged as a political play in her campaign for Germany’s September election, in which she is running for a fourth term.

Merkel, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, has long resisted demands for same-sex marriage to be passed. “For me, personally, marriage is a man and a woman living together,” Merkel said. But, in recent months, she has faced pressure to follow in the footsteps of more progressive parties on this issue.

Her main opponent in the race, Martin Schulz, is the chosen candidate for the Social Democratic party. On Sunday, Schulz promised that same-sex marriage would be legalized in any government involving his party. Family “is not only father, mother, child,” Schultz told supporters. Family is “there wherever people take responsibility for each other.”

We will push through marriage equality in Germany. This week.

— Martin Schulz (@MartinSchulz) June 27, 2017

Two other parties, the Free Democratic Party and the Green Party have said they would not form a coalition with Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) if same-sex marriage was not on the agenda.

Merkel’s call for the vote may have broadened her pool of potential voters, however she risks alienating the CDU’s sister party: the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU).

“Germany has more paramount issues to address,” said CSU legislator Peter Ramsauer.

Despite the political motivations behind this decision, many Germans, Europeans, and LGBTQ advocates have expressed their delight that Germany will likely soon join the ranks of countries where same-sex couples can legally marry and establish families–and just in time for the end of Pride month.

For my English speaking followers: German parliament will vote on gay marriage tomorrow – on the 48th anniversary of Stonewall. #Ehefueralle

— Stina ⛱ (@Stinalotte) June 28, 2017

Now only 48% of EU citizens live with marriage equality. From Friday it will be 64%.

#Ehefueralle

— Filipe Henriques (@FHenriques) June 28, 2017

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Merkel Softens Stance On Same-Sex Marriage, Prompting Snap Vote appeared first on Law Street.

The company that supplied cladding panels for the Grenfell Tower block in West London has ceased sales of its product for use on other high-rises, two weeks after a fire raged through the building, killing at least 79 residents.

Arconic, a U.S.-based aluminum firm, said the fire identified “issues” with the polyethylene core cladding, which it sold to a local distributor for use on the public housing complex. As investigations into the fire’s cause continue, more buildings across London have been revealed to use the same or similar materials.

What Did the Firm Know?

A Reuters report revealed that Arconic officials knew of the material’s flammability, and that a company brochure published in 2016 noted that the panels should not be used for buildings taller than 10 meters. The material is banned elsewhere in Europe and in the U.S.

In a statement to Reuters Arconic said that it had known the panels would be used at Grenfell Tower but that it was “not its role to decide what was or was not compliant with local building regulations.”

Other involved parties, such as those who installed the panels, the tower’s recent refurbishment contractor, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which the tower block, have yet to talk to the media.

The cladding, Reynobond PE, has a plastic core, which experts say creates a “chimney effect,” shooting an intense heat and fire vertically around the outside of the building. The Grenfell fire was started when a Hotpoint refrigerator positioned against an exterior wall burst into flames and ignited the flammable cladding. Investigators have determined that the fire was not started deliberately.

Investigating More Buildings

U.K. officials are currently running tests of cladding samples from buildings across the country to evaluate their fire safety preparedness. So far, 95 towers have failed local fire safety tests, and at least 17 buildings are undergoing removal of the cladding. A Scottish university has ordered repairs to one of its residence halls after finding the material.

Prime Minister Theresa May has called for a thorough investigation into the use of this cladding material on high-rises. Authorities are considering potential manslaughter and criminal charges as the investigation of the fire’s cause continues.

As more fire safety noncompliance instances are discovered, thousands have been evacuated from potentially dangerous buildings. The fire was the country’s deadliest in more than a century.

The Price of Safety

The Grenfell fire and information about the hazardous cladding reveal a disaster that was years in the making. Safety components like sprinklers, fire alarms, and fire escapes were nonexistent in the building, and residents complained for years prior to the blaze that their living conditions were dangerous.

Most of the structures in need of repairs due to flammable cladding are social housing buildings–government or council-owned properties for low-income residents. This is indicative of bigger-picture neglect of the city’s poor.

Kensington, where Grenfell Tower is located, has one of the city’s largest gaps between the affluent and the working class. Monthly rent for private housing costs nearly five times as much as that of social housing, and poor residents in the area say they have felt pushed out by the wealthy community.

Officials and politicians have said that requiring only fire-proof building materials is not economically viable for the government–the cost concerns outweighed the potential risk. The Reynobond PE cladding is cheaper than other cladding produced by Arconic.

Surviving residents of the Grenfell blaze are demanding a say in the logistics of the public inquiry. While unusual, the request appears appropriate to help local authorities regain the trust of residents as protests against the prime minister and other local leaders continue.

Last week, the British government announced in a press release that the first set of new homes for displaced Grenfell residents have been secured. Social housing is also expected to see an increase in funding due to increased political pressure. While it won’t undo the Grenfell tragedy or give much comfort to the families whose loved ones are still missing, a heightened focus on the unsafe living conditions in social housing is a step in the right direction for a government that has turned a blind eye to its poorest residents.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Firm Halts Sale of Flammable Material Found in London Grenfell Fire appeared first on Law Street.

The United States has become the sixth region to ban fresh beef imports from Brazil, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. joins China, Mexico, Chile, Japan, the European Union, and Hong Kong in banning the beef.

The USDA made the decision on beef imports after inspections showed health concerns, unsanitary conditions, and animal health issues. The bans will remain in place until Brazil “takes corrective action,” the statement said.

Brazil is the fifth largest exporter of fresh beef to the United States and has already shipped over 50 million pounds of beef this year. After the other regions banned Brazilian beef in March, American officials say they have been inspecting the meat more closely. This has resulted in a refusal of 11 percent of the beef, much higher than the normal 1 percent refusal rate, according to CNN Money. As a result, 1.9 million pounds of beef have been sent back to Brazil.

“Although international trade is an important part of what we do at USDA, and Brazil has long been one of our partners, my first priority is to protect American consumers,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.

Brazilian Agriculture Minister Blairo Maggi plans to visit Washington soon in an attempt to overturn the decision, Reuters reported.

Aside from health and safety concerns, other countries expressed concern over potential corruption. A few months ago Brazilian authorities said some meat companies were bribing government officials to turn a blind eye to safety concerns, according to the USA Today.

While Brazil still has other countries with which it can trade, the loss of the American market could be damaging to the Brazilian economy–the United States is the ninth biggest market for Brazilian beef export.  Since the restrictions began in March, Brazil has responded by closing three processing plants and suspending licenses for 21 meat packing plants, according to CNN Money.

It may take some time to resolve the situation, and it may result in economic issues, but the USDA has decided to take a stand after observing issues with the beef. In the mean time, the U.S. will have to rely on other global beef exporters including Japan, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United States Bans Fresh Beef Imports from Brazil appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner will attempt to re-ignite peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians while on his trip to Jerusalem and Ramallah this week. He would be laying the groundwork for what President Donald Trump calls the “ultimate deal.” The trip is Kushner’s first to the region in his capacity as Trump’s chief envoy for the peace process.

For over two decades, American diplomats have been flummoxed by the peace process. Successful mediation of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has eluded even the most experienced and well-respected diplomats. Evidently, experience alone has not worked, leading some experts to believe Kushner’s inexperience could be beneficial.

Immediately upon landing in Israel on Wednesday, Kushner visited the parents of Hadas Malka, a 23-year-old Israeli police officer who was stabbed to death by a Palestinian last Friday.

Kushner arrives in Israel, visits family of slain border guard https://t.co/14UkeWSkxj

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) June 21, 2017

 Later, Kushner met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his office in Jerusalem. He was joined by Jason Greenblatt,Trump’s other envoy for the peace push, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, and his American counterpart David Friedman. Greenblatt has been particularly exhaustive in his efforts, speaking with representatives from both sides of the conflict. He also regularly live tweets his endeavors in the region:

Spending time w/families who r breaking the #Ramadan fast at Pediatric Cancer Ward @ Makassed Hospital. I pray for the kids’ quick recovery. pic.twitter.com/xHIggTxPuk

— Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) June 20, 2017

Back at the Kotel for much needed prayer. Inspired by the constant stream of warm wishes for success in bringing peace from others praying. pic.twitter.com/bPTMXVEOeT

— Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) June 20, 2017

According to the Associated Press, before the meeting began Netanyahu told Kushner it was “an opportunity to pursue our common goals of security, prosperity, and peace.”

On Thursday, Kushner is expected to travel to Ramallah in the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

Deep divisions exist between the negotiating parties, including the status of East Jerusalem and the nearly 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. The Palestinians are adamant that East Jerusalem be the capital of their future state, which would largely exist in the West Bank. Israel captured both areas, along with the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip, which is governed by the terrorist group Hamas, during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Trump’s ascendence to the White House initially overjoyed the far-right elements of Netanyahu’s governing coalition. His embrace of Israel, a far warmer public posture than former President Barack Obama, led many to believe his administration would be a blank check for settlement building. But he has since made it clear that he thinks settlements are, at least in part, an impediment to peace.

Could Trump’s flexibility–his ignorance and inexperience, critics might say–benefit him in a realm that has proven intractable for decades?

“President Trump is at his point of maximum leverage,” Daniel Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under Obama, told The Washington Post. “He has gained respect in the region. He is seen as serious. Add to that, his known streak for being unpredictable. This might make it very difficult to say no to him or to a member of his family.”

But still, Shapiro warned, “This creates an opening. Not more than an opening. One shouldn’t be irrationally exuberant. But the opening is real.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kushner Heads to Israel, West Bank for First Crack at Peace appeared first on Law Street.

Police in India have arrested at least 15 people for celebrating too vividly after Pakistan beat India in a cricket match that took place in London on Sunday. The two neighboring countries have traditionally had a hostile and competitive relationship, and that also extends to the sports world. The men were arrested on suspicion of sedition, a charge that could carry with it ineligibility for government jobs or even life in prison.

Most arrests were made in the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India, after a neighbor called the police complaining about cricket fans who were shouting anti-India slogans and lighting firecrackers. Police seized 15 men aged 19 to 35 on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Burhanpur district.

“They expressed hatred toward India and friendship toward Pakistan. They are charged for sedition and criminal conspiracy,” said Ramasray Yadav, a police officer who took part in the arrests. However, he also said the men shouted slogans expressing their love for India while in detention.

15 Muslim men arrested in India for celebrating Pakistan’s victory over India in the Champions Trophy cricket final https://t.co/8xLdAgh5UT pic.twitter.com/e0EGmcZz9J

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 21, 2017

The neighbor who called in the complaint that led to the arrest of the 15 men is Hindu, while all the suspects are Muslim. And India is not free from Islamophobia. Muslims are a minority there, and many say they are experiencing an increase in violence and hostility, targeted because of their religion. Leaders of the ruling party BJP have tried to paint Muslims as violent and dangerous and accused them of scheming to rid India of Hindus.

Recently there have been several violent attacks on Muslims after people have accused them of killing, selling, and eating cows. Cows are holy in India, so slaughtering them is illegal. What Human Rights Watch calls self-appointed “cow protectors” have made it their task to crack down on Muslims suspected of stealing cows.

Since May 2015, at least 10 Muslims, including a 12-year-old boy, have been killed because of “cow protector”-related violence. On April 21, a mob of people brutally attacked a nomad family, including a nine-year-old girl and an elderly man. After their assault they set the family’s home on fire.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is mainly Muslim. Tensions between Pakistan and India turned so bad a few years ago that the annual cricket competitions had to be cancelled. Scheduled peace talks have been repeatedly abandoned for the past three years, and there seems to be no end to the conflict over the disputed area of Kashmir.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indian Police Arrest at Least 15 for Celebrating Pakistan’s Cricket Victory appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s ban on “gay propaganda” violates international law, Europe’s top human rights court ruled on Tuesday. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that the ban was discriminatory and violated freedom of expression.

“Above all, by adopting such laws the Court found that the authorities had reinforced stigma and prejudice and encouraged homophobia, which was incompatible with the values — of equality, pluralism and tolerance — of a democratic society,” the ECHR wrote.

Life in Russia has long been unwelcoming–and at times, perilous–for LGBTQ people. According to Russian news outlet Novaya Gazeta, more than 100 gay men in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe, have been detained in Chechan prisons. Some have been tortured and killed due to their sexual orientations. In an interview with VICE News, Ayub Kataev, a Chechan prison warden and head of the ministry of internal affairs, not only denied the reports of the imprisonment and abuse of gay men, but denied the existence of gay people altogether.

“My officers would not even want to touch such people, if they exist, let alone beating or torturing them,” Kataev told VICE News.

Since 2003, regional governments in Russia have passed variations of the “gay propaganda” ban, and in 2013, the ban was adopted nationwide. Three Russian LGBTQ rights activists, Nikolay Bayev, Aleksey Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev, protested the ban between 2009 and 2012 at a school in Ryazan, a children’s library in Arkhangelsk, and an administrative building in St. Petersburg–some of the cities that had instituted a ban at the time. The activists were found guilty of administrative offenses and fined. After the activists unsuccessfully appealed the convictions to Russia’s Constitutional Court, the ECHR agreed to hear their case.

According to the ECHR, Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences was amended in 2013 with the ban that prohibited “the promoting of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors, … creating a distorted image of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.”

The ECHR held that the Russian government had failed to demonstrate how LGBT expression would negatively impact so-called “traditional families,” and minors, who the government claimed needed to be protected from non-heterosexual orientations. To the contrary, the ECHR asserted that the ban “embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority.”

The decision was handed down by a seven judge chamber comprised of judges from seven different European countries. The chamber’s judge from Russia, Dmitry Dedov, was the lone dissenter, claiming that “a positive image of homosexuality adversely affects the development of children and puts them at risk of sexual violence.”

The ECHR ordered Russia to pay a total of 43,000 euros to the three activists who brought the lawsuit. However, whether that ruling will be followed has yet to be seen as Russia approved a law in 2015 allowing the country to ignore ECHR rulings if they conflict with the Russian constitution.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post European Court Rules Russia’s “Gay Propaganda” Ban Violates International Law appeared first on Law Street.

After the tragic death of University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier following his release from North Korea, Arizona Senator John McCain wants to reform the system of tourism to the totalitarian country.

McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that North Korea “murdered” Warmbier and that Americans who are “stupid” enough to travel to the dangerous country despite State Department warnings should sign a waiver clearing the United States of any blame should they get in trouble.

Approximately 800 Americans visit North Korea each year. There are several tour companies that help these curious American travel the country, but many are now questioning whether they should accept Americans for future trips.

Warmbier was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor after he was convicted of stealing a propaganda sign while on vacation there. He was in a coma when North Korea released him to the United States and less than a week after his return, the 22-year old passed away in Cincinnati, Ohio.

McCain expanded on his thoughts in an interview with the Associated Press:

There should at least be a form for them to fill out that says, ‘If I go to North Korea, I understand I am taking great risk and I do not hold the American government responsible.‘ Now I hope the American government will help, etc., etc. But I realize what has happened to previous American citizens, including their deaths.

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, went even further and proposed banning American citizens from visiting the dangerous nation.

“I think we should strongly consider it,” Corker said. “It puts us in a really precarious situation when Americans are detained there.”

McCain also used his platform to remind the American public that Warmbier experienced just a bit of the “forced labor, mass starvation, systematic cruelty, torture, and murder” that the North Korean population has had to endure for decades.

McCain said that while he doesn’t wish ill on anyone, he hopes that those who visit North Korea in future years will “assume the responsibility of their welfare.”

These ideas for reform haven’t been turned into concrete legislation, but they are powerful comments from politicians who serve in key roles on congressional committees.

Whether either McCain’s or Corker’s proposals become reality remains to be seen, but Warmbier’s death likely will have consequences for American tourism to North Korea.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senators Discuss New Rules for Travel to North Korea After Otto Warmbier’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

French President Emmanuel Macron and his allies won a large majority in the country’s second and final round of parliamentary elections on Sunday. While Macron captured the seats he needs to carry out his centrist agenda, the election saw a record-low turnout, suggesting that much of the country is unenthusiastic about the young leader’s ability to change realities on the ground.

Macron’s En Marche party and its ally, the Democratic Movement, picked up 350 spots in the 577-seat National Assembly, Parliament’s powerful lower chamber. The vote was a repudiation of France’s establishment parties, as the center-right Republicans captured 135 seats, while the left-leaning Socialist bloc won 45 seats. Led by Macron’s deeply unpopular predecessor, Francois Hollande, the Socialists dominated the 2012 election, winning both the presidency and a majority in Parliament.

“A year ago, no one could have imagined such a political renewal,” Prime Minister Édouard Philippe said on Twitter. Referring to the record abstention rate–only 43 percent of eligible voters went to the polls–he added: “Abstention is never good news for democracy. The government interprets it as a strong obligation to succeed.”

Fatigue could account for the record-low turnout–there were two rounds of presidential voting in May plus two rounds of parliamentary voting in June. But more likely, a majority of French voters are simply unsure about Macron’s program. According to Luc Rouban, a professor at the Center for the Study of French Political Life at Sciences Po, “Many people are in a state of uncertainty.”

“The level of abstention in the second round is a sign that a large part of the working-class electorate are not going to vote anymore,” Rouban told the New York Times.

Contrary to France’s traditional left-right politics, Macron, 39, ran on a centrist platform that advocated for continued integration with the European Union, and shedding restrictions on businesses. Since ascending to the presidency, many observers have applauded Macron’s interactions with leaders who would like to see the Western liberal alliance erode, like Russian President Vladimir Putin. But still, for French voters, Macron has a lot to prove.

The poles of France’s political spectrum also suffered a convincing defeat on Sunday–Le Pen’s far-right National Front picked up nine seats, while the far-left leader Jean Luc Melenchon and his allies won 27 seats. Aside from the rejection of the left and right, French politics are changing in other ways: over 200 women were elected to Parliament, a record in France’s modern history.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macron Wins Large Parliamentary Majority Despite Low Turnout appeared first on Law Street.

Panama established official diplomatic ties with China last Tuesday, thereby renouncing its ties to Taiwan. This decision comes as a major political victory for China as it seeks to further isolate Taiwan and strengthen vital economic partnerships in Latin America.

A joint statement issued by representatives of both countries said that Panama recognizes “only one China” and that the “government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing all China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the Chinese territory.”

And then there were 20: Taiwan’s isolation solidifies

Panama’s decision leaves Taiwan with just 20 international allies. Many are just small countries or islands in Latin America and the Pacific (its only European ally is Vatican City), yet every loss to China further secludes the island nation.

Both Beijing and Taipei require foreign countries to decide whether to forge diplomatic relationships with either the People’s Republic of China (China) or the Republic of China (Taiwan)–never both.

In recent decades, as China’s global economic influence has grown, many countries have found it more advantageous to build ties with China. The latest country to switch its allegiance in favor of China was São Tomé and Príncipe, which announced the move in December.

Taiwan severed its ties to Panama on Wednesday, one day after Panama’s announcement. Taiwan’s foreign ministry said it felt “anger and regret” over the “very unfriendly” diplomatic turn by Panama, which it deemed “yielded to economic interests by the Beijing authorities.”

Beijing has increased its pressure on Taiwan after Tsai Ing-wen was elected president last year. Her liberal democratic party views have regularly heightened tensions with China. She did not endorse the “One China” policy, after she took office, a common practice between the two countries, which agree to endorse the policy but hold different interpretations of what it means.

Then in January, after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Tsai called him to offer her congratulations. China took offense to the fact that the U.S. took the call and because it saw the potential for the two countries to get closer.

Tsai has tried to foster that possibility. She stopped in the U.S. in January, en route to Central America for diplomatic visits, and made a point to visit politicians such as Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL.).

Tsai, who visited Panama just last June, emphasized the years of friendship between the two countries in a speech she gave on Tuesday. She maintained that Taiwan would not engage in “a diplomatic bidding war” with China, despite the fact that China continues to “pressure Taiwan’s international space.”

“We are a sovereign country,” Tsai said. “This sovereignty cannot be challenged nor traded.”

An important play for Panama

China is currently the Panama canal’s second biggest user and it’s clear this new relationship will give China an economic advantage over the historically U.S.-controlled Panama canal.

China was funding a $50 billion alternative to the Panama Canal in Nicaragua. However, financial struggles and environmental critiques have halted construction before it even started. Though that project has largely fallen through, China can now comfortably rely on Panama’s canal to circulate its goods.

The Panama Canal Authority also just announced it will be looking for contractors and customers to modify infrastructure surrounding the canal later this year, further providing China with strong potential business opportunities.

Asia-based political risk analyst Ross Feingold said that “enhanced communication channel between the Panamanian and Chinese governments following diplomatic recognition can only be a positive for Chinese logistics and infrastructure companies that operate in the canal zone.”

However, China may not be the only party to benefit from this alliance. In the last few years, two of Panama’s main economic drivers, the canal and its status as a fiscal sanctuary, have taken a hit.

In late 2013, President Xi Jinping announced the Maritime Silk Road plan, a development strategy aimed at integrating and coordinating trade between Eurasian countries. This plan completely excluded North and South America. In 2015, the Suez canal, perhaps the Panamanian canal’s main competitor, underwent a renovation, which allows it to accommodate larger ships and ease congestion.

China’s renewed interest in Panama through this diplomatic relationship can be seen as an indicator that Panama and its canal will not be cast away in favor of newer, more convenient options.

New Chinese direct investments are also an opportunity for Panama to revive its financial and fiscal image, which had taken a toll after last year’s “Panama Papers” revelations.

At the time, many officials had complained that the shorthand used by international media outlets for the Mossack Fonseca case hurt the country’s reputation.

“It’s not about Panama, it’s about one company. Nobody called it the Texas fraud when Enron [went] bankrupt,” vice-minister of the economy Ivan Zarak said at the time. “It’s unjust. You are holding accountable the whole country for the actions of one company,”

A renewed relationship with China could indeed help the nation re-boot. In a televised speech given last week, Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela, who actually met with President Donald Trump earlier today, said he was “convinced that this is the correct path for [the] country.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Shift Away From Taiwan, Panama Established Key Relationship With China appeared first on Law Street.

Early Saturday morning a Philippine-flagged merchant ship collided into the side of a U.S. warship off the coast of Japan. The crash caused several parts of the American ship, the USS Fitzgerald, to flood. On Sunday, seven sailors who went missing after the crash were found dead in the flooded compartments. Now people are asking questions, as it was revealed it took the Filipino ship an hour to alert the Japanese coastguard.

Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin spoke to reporters at Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan on Sunday. He said considering the damage that was done to the ship, many more people could have died. “There was a big puncture, a big gash underneath the waterline,” Aucoin said, adding that the flooding was “tremendous.” No one knows what caused the crash and there are multiple investigations underway.

On Monday, a spokesperson for the Japanese coastguard, Takeshi Aikawa, said that the collision happened at 1:30 a.m. But the Philippine-flagged container ship, named the ACX Crystal, didn’t alert Japanese authorities until at 2:25 a.m. Data from the ACX Crystal also shows that for some reason, the ship made a U-turn sometime between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m. Three U.S. crew members were injured, including Cmdr. Bryce Benson, who was in charge of the ship.

#USSFitzgerald listing after collision at about 3amJST with PH flagged container ship near Japan. (COR) Photo via NHK Helicopter pic.twitter.com/rSTVmE4Atw

— Robert Speta (@robertspeta) June 16, 2017

Japanese officials said they are conducting two separate investigations, one of which is for “endangerment of traffic caused by professional negligence.” It was unclear whether that applied to the U.S. ship or the Filipino one. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard also opened an investigation.

U.S. Navy confirms all 7 missing sailors from USS Fitzgerald found dead https://t.co/amOOEjsg7h pic.twitter.com/NTQCetvr2E

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) June 19, 2017

No one seems to understand how the Fitzgerald, one of the most technologically advanced warships in the world, could be involved in an accident like this. The damage indicates that the Fitzgerald was hit on its right side, while the Crystal was damaged on its left side, suggesting they were traveling in the same direction. Most of the crew on the Fitzgerald was asleep when the collision occurred and big container ships like the Crystal are often lightly crewed and use an autopilot.

There is also the question why the Crystal made a sudden U-turn right before the accident. Acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley said the Navy is determined to get to the bottom of things. “In due time, the United States Navy will fully investigate the cause of this tragedy,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Questions than Answers as Investigations into USS Fitzgerald Crash Begin appeared first on Law Street.

Venezuela has been plagued by political unrest and protests since April. Last month, a prominent opposition politician who often joined members of the public in the protests, Wilmer Azuaje, disappeared without a trace. And also last month, an 18-year-old violist named Armando Cañizales was shot and killed by government forces for participating in a demonstration. Both became symbols of the resistance and protesters have only become more determined to bring about change.

But so far, the military has been firm in its support of the sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, whom members of the opposition say has turned into a dictator. However, last week the leader of the National Defense Council, Gen. Alexis López Ramírez, resigned from his position, and on Tuesday he announced why. While López Ramírez expressed his general appreciation of Maduro, he also said he disagreed with the president’s plans to create a constituent assembly.

Maduro has said he wants to create a citizens’ assembly to rewrite the constitution. The opposition has criticized the move as a way to create more power for Maduro without having to consult the opposition-controlled National Assembly first. Maduro claims the assembly would bring peace to the country. López Ramírez’s resignation further increased the unrest, and many wondered whether the military could stop its support of Maduro.

Protesters set fire to Venezuela’s Supreme Court as anti-government clashes rage on after two months https://t.co/aqK0Hg7Plk pic.twitter.com/E42NisYgis

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) June 13, 2017

Last week, Venezuela’s chief prosecutor Luisa Ortega Diaz challenged Maduro’s efforts at creating a constituent assembly. On Monday, the country’s Supreme Court dismissed her request, after which protesters set the Supreme Court building on fire. Ortega Diaz said that after she turned against Maduro, she and her family have received multiple threats. She also said agents had followed her and state officials have verbally attacked her.

So far, 70 people have died in the protests. The increasing violence of the protests has caused people that have received benefits from the government to turn their backs on it. After Cañizales, the violinist, was killed last month, the country’s classical musicians took to the streets.

Classical musicians in Venezuela have generally stayed out of politics. Most of them belong to a state-financed musical program that has offered training for hundreds of thousands of kids from working-class families. “In its 42 years, El Sistema somehow managed to keep an impartial position,” said Ollantay Velásquez, the director of Cañizales’s orchestra, referring to the program. “It has stayed that way until today.”

Classical music in Venezuela had long been neutral to politics — until a young musician was killed in protests https://t.co/iBQ2C1yAZf pic.twitter.com/Oi0VQfAo6u

— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) June 12, 2017

Azuaje, the politician who disappeared, was allegedly last seen being shoved into a National Guard plane in the middle of the night in early May. “He’s disappeared. They kidnapped him. There is complete silence,” his mother Carmen Cordero said, adding that he has been a thorn in the side of the government for a long time. He allegedly encouraged people to keep protesting, which led Maduro supporters to call him a promoter of violence.

Names of those who were killed during protests in Venezuela https://t.co/D4SbFgw91w pic.twitter.com/B2uMyVkIJh via @MariaGMonagas

— Liveuamap (@Liveuamap) June 12, 2017

Many Venezuelan officials and former politicians have chosen to move abroad, but recently they have faced increasing public shaming. Last month in Miami, former minister Eugenio Vasquez was having breakfast at a bakery when angry Venezuelans caught sight of him. With shouts of “rat” and “thief,” the people drove him out of the bakery. In Switzerland, a woman ran into Ambassador Cesar Mendez at a grocery store, and shouted “corrupt” and “thieves.”

Similar cases have been reported from New York, Madrid, and Sydney, where the daughter of the Caracas Mayor Jorge Rodriguez, Lucia, was harassed by a woman shouting “Thanks to your father, people are dying!” Lucia Rodriguez is currently in Sydney on a student visa. A petition to the Australian government to revoke her visa–and other children of Venezuelan officials–has almost 30,000 signatures.

Maduro has condemned the treatment of officials and their families abroad, and even compared it to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews. But, as Javier Fungairino from the Miami bakery pointed out, they only use words. “I never laid a finger on him. I simply raised my voice,” he said. “They hate when people complain. They think they’re so powerful that they’re not used to that kind of treatment.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unrest in Venezuela Rages on After Military Kills Teenage Violinist appeared first on Law Street.

The American University of Afghanistan has once again seen death at the hands of the Taliban, but it has no plans to stop providing education.

An adjunct professor and a graduate student were both killed on May 31 when 150 people were killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, by a truck bomb. Their deaths marked the third time in less than a year that members of the school, which is not affiliated with the American University located in Washington D.C., have been injured by the notorious terrorist organization.

The saga began on August 7, 2016, when Professors Kevin King and Timothy Weeks were abducted from their car. The pair then appeared in a hostage video which led officials to believe they are being held with other Westerners by the Haqqani sect of the Taliban. After this most recent attack, the university once again reiterated its request for the professors’ release.

Then, on August 24, 2016, suicide bombers set off a bomb outside the walls of the school and raided the compound. The attack left 15 people dead, including students, professors, and police officers.

Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, has once again erupted with violence in recent weeks, including an attack on a mosque and a bombing in rush hour that left hundreds of people injured. This violence has erupted during the holiest month of Islam, Ramadan.

Since American intervention in 2001, the city has been divided and on a perpetual edge of chaos. Still, the university reiterated its commitment to bringing Western education to the troubled nation.

“We haven’t closed, we haven’t stopped educating,” said David S. Sedney, who spent nine months as acting president of the school and revamped its security. “But we do watch things very carefully. But right now on balance, it’s the right thing to do to continue operations.”

Despite its fortification with 19-foot-high walls, the university remains on edge. Those walls are part of the new, supposedly safer, campus that reopened on March 25. While they enjoy the new facilities, students can be found debating how much safer the campus is, law student Samiullah Sharifi told the Washington Post.

The university, which opened in 2006, graduated its first class in 2011 as it sought to bring a liberal, Western education center to Afghanistan. It has lost a number of its professors and students in recent years, but is committed to their education no matter the costs. “In one attack we’re safe and in another we’re not,” Sharifi said. “We have accepted this as the reality of our lives.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American University in Kabul Faces Tragedy Again appeared first on Law Street.

The iconic Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen has taken on a new look this month: anti-whaling advocates vandalized the statue, coating it in red paint in an effort to draw attention to the endangered whales of the Faroe Islands.

Copenhagen’s famous Little Mermaid statue was vandalized…again https://t.co/8Aq7meZiMy pic.twitter.com/odfmW4UiON

— Condé Nast Traveler (@CNTraveler) June 7, 2017

For a thousand years, the people of the Faroe Islands have conducted an annual grindadráp, a drive hunt where a flotilla of small boats drive whales and dolphins into a small bay where they are killed by hand with knives. The organization Sea Shepherd has worked to end these hunts since the 1980s, but the inhabitants of the islands have pushed back, arguing that the “grind” is critical for both food and preserving the islanders’ sense of community. The enmity between environmental advocates and the Danish authorities has grown exponentially since crews of Sea Shepherd boats were detained by the Danish navy when they tried to block the 2014 grind. Whaling is illegal within the EU and Sea Shepherd has declared that Brussels must launch “infringement proceedings” against Denmark for allowing the grind. However, the Faroe Islands have a unique status–as an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, they rely on Denmark for military, judicial, and foreign affairs but have control over their own domestic issues.

Carl Christian Ebbesen, head of Copenhagen’s culture and leisure committee, was outraged by the vandalism, calling it “well out of line” and “as stupid as you can possibly get.” Despite Ebbesen’s dismissal of the red paint, this is not the first time the Little Mermaid statue has been used for political purposes. In 1964, the Situationist avant-garde group sawed off the head of the statue. She has also lost limbs and been painted numerous times by various groups. In 2004, a burqa was draped over the head of the statue as part of protest against Turkey joining the EU and the statue was clothed in a headscarf in 2007 for reasons that are unclear.

Vandalizing the statue may seem like a petty or juvenile act, but it has served its purpose–getting the grinds of the Faroe Island back in the headlines in the wake of Sea Shepherd officially requesting the European Commission punish Denmark for the grinds (Sea Shepherd has claimed no responsibility for the vandalism). Tourists visiting Copenhagen and dozens of media outlets picking up images of the statue have made the red paint stunt go viral, bringing attention to a debate that relatively few outside of Denmark have been following. By next week, the red paint will have been removed from the statue and it will return to its role as a charming backdrop in Instagram snaps for visitors from around the globe–but for the moment, it is a powerful political statement.

In the past, we’ve discussed Greenpeace’s symbolic activism as effective at drumming up sympathy and finding new allies but activism does not always have to take place on such a grandiose scale. The painting of the statue is an effective, albeit temporary, protest–the anonymous painters should consider it a job well done.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Vandalism as Activism: Protesting Whaling on the Faroe Islands appeared first on Law Street.

Japan’s lower house of parliament, the House of Representatives, approved a bill on June 8 that would amend the country’s rape laws. Japan has not changed its rape laws since 1907.

The amendment would expand the legal definition of rape, add a provision about the psychological factor of rape and sexual assault, raise the minimum sentence for rape convictions, and remove a provision requiring victims to press charges themselves to prosecute their accused rapist.

Currently, Japan’s legal definition of rape is limited to forced vaginal intercourse, but the new amendment would expand that definition to include all forms of forced sexual intercourse.

Current law also requires the use of threats and/or violence for an offense to be considered rape or sexual assault. However, the amendment would expand that definition to include instances in which an aggressor in a position to control or influence a victim–such as the relationship between a guardian and a child–exhibits psychological control over that victim.

The minimum sentence for those convicted of rape would be raised from the current three years to five years under the new law. The amendment would also remove a provision requiring victims to request the indictment of their accused rapist. As of right now, victims must decide whether to pursue the case, which can lead to aggressors pressuring their victims to drop charges.

Even with the amendment, however, prosecutors can still decide not to pursue rape charges. In fact, 53 percent of rape and sexual assault cases are dropped by prosecutors. In September 2016, prosecutors decided not to pursue rape charges against Japanese actor Yuta Takahata, who was accused of allegedly raping a hotel worker.

Support for an amendment to Japan’s rape laws was sparked by Former Minister of Justice Midori Matsushima in 2014. Matsushima founded the Discussion Group on Sex Crime Penalties which led to further governmental discussion about how the penal code addressed sex offenses, and later led to the submission of the amendment.

If the bill is approved by the House of Councillors, the upper house of parliament, Japan will amend the country’s rape laws accordingly.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japan Moves Toward Amending its Rape Laws appeared first on Law Street.

While Americans were tuned into former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate hearing yesterday, the British were headed to the polls–again. Prime Minister Theresa May called the June 8 snap election in an effort to increase her party’s majority in Parliament and bolster support when negotiations to leave the European Union begin June 19.

But instead of achieving a stronger hold, May’s Conservative Party actually lost seats, leaving Parliament without a majority party. The country is now in uncharted waters as it enters Brexit talks. Read on to find out what happened, and what comes next.

Hung Parliament

With 649 out of 650 seats declared, no party has won the necessary 326 seats to have a majority in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party still has the highest number of seats, 318, but the body is now what is known as a “hung Parliament.”

The final seat will continue to undergo recounts through Friday evening.

The biggest surprise of the day was the 31 seats that the opposition party, left-wing Labour, gained. The Scottish National Party lost 21 seats, dashing hopes of another Scottish independence referendum. The Liberal Democrats gained three seats, bringing their total to 12. The UK Independence Party failed to gain a single seat, remaining with no representation in Parliament and prompting UKIP leader Paul Nuttall to resign Friday morning.

“A new era must begin with a new leader” – UKIP’s @paulnuttallukip stands down #GE2017 https://t.co/BZNkyAG3cX #bbcelection #hungparliament pic.twitter.com/PnekWR0zJk

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 9, 2017

Prime Minster’s Election Fumble

When May called the election back in April, she–and many others–assumed a Conservative victory was a done deal. Since then, a combination of poor campaigning, increased security concerns after three terror attacks, and rising popularity for Labour caused her plan to backfire.

May was criticized for refusing to engage in face-to-face debate with Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, for proposed policies that would force the elderly to pay more for care, and for taking police officers off the streets, which some said undermined the country’s security during the Manchester Arena and London Bridge attacks.

The success of Corbyn’s party has historically been dependent on high voter turnout, and this year was no different. Labour won seats in every district where turnout increased by more than five percent.

What’s Next for May?

Even after the election results, May will remain Prime Minister. Though the monarchy has no role in politics, the Prime Minister must seek Queen Elizabeth II’s approval before forming a government. May did this Friday morning before speaking at Downing Street, announcing her intentions to form a minority government with the socially conservative Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

“Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years, and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together, in the interests of the whole United Kingdom,” May said in her statement.

This will leave her with a tiny majority of 328 seats, but will not strengthen her negotiating hand, as she had hoped. The DUP favors a soft border with Ireland, contradicting May’s stance on a “hard” Brexit.

Political analysts have already questioned the strength of May’s proposed government.

“I question whether the new government can cobble together a majority for any version of Brexit–hard, soft, poached, scrambled, or deviled with Tabasco sauce–without losing the support of some Conservative MPs, and potentially losing a Commons vote,” writes the BBC’s Mark D’Arcy.

Going forward, a number of things could happen. Minority governments like these are not as secure, as the party with more seats is dependent on the voting support of the less powerful party.

If the government fails, or May receives a vote of no confidence from the majority of MPs, there could either be yet another general election, or Corbyn could take a shot at forming a government. Corbyn has already called for May to resign, saying people have “had quite enough of austerity politics.”

“She wanted a mandate,” Corbyn said. “The mandate she’s got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence. I would have thought that is enough for her to go.”

Election Successes

The hung parliament is not the only interesting development to come out of yesterday’s vote. Voter turnout was unexpectedly high, especially among young people. The estimated turnout for voters ages 18-24 was 66 percent.

The election was also a major success for female politicians. More than 200 female MPs were elected, leaving this new parliament with the highest number of female seats in history. The country also elected its first female Sikh MP and the first turban-wearing Sikh MP, both Labour, according to the Telegraph.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.K. Election: What’s Next for the Hung Parliament? appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks ago, militants in Marawi City, a Muslim enclave on the Philippines’ southernmost island, burned buildings down and clashed with government forces. Since the initial siege, Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law, and the military descended upon the city of 200,000. Islamic State-linked militant groups occupy parts of the city–about 10 percent, according to government officials.

Over 170 people, including 20 or so civilians, are believed to have perished in the conflict so far. Hundreds of residents are trapped in the city–180,000 have already fled. The remaining militants, ranging from 40 to 200, according to government authorities, are hiding underground, burrowed in tunnels and basements, stockpiling food and weapons. Led by the Maute group, also known as the Islamic State of Lanao, militants have reportedly destroyed churches and schools; they have also taken hostages, including a Catholic priest.

The conflict began on May 23: Government forces tried to arrest Isnilon Hapilon, a senior leader of Abu Sayyaf, a local extremist group that has declared allegiance to ISIS. Hapilon is also on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists; the agency has slapped a $5 million bounty on him. Marawi, located in the middle of the southern island of Mindanao, a Muslim-majority slice of the mostly Catholic country, has long been a staging ground for militants. None, however, have held on to this much territory for so long.

The center of Marawi City. Shots and explosions from many directions. Fires burn from end to end. Day 18. pic.twitter.com/3zwRYzVv9W

— Chiara Zambrano (@chiarazambrano) June 9, 2017

“If the situation in Marawi in the southern Philippines is allowed to escalate or entrench, it would pose decades of problems,” Singapore’s Defense Minister, Ng Eng Hen, said at a conference this week with other regional leaders. “All of us recognize that if not addressed adequately, it can prove a pulling ground for would-be jihadists.”

As for what the militants–a loosely-knit menagerie of fighters from the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Chechnya–desire, a recently captured video of them plotting the initial siege gives some clues.

Gen. Eduardo Ano, the Filipino military’s chief of staff, said the video, which was provided exclusively to the Associated Press, shows that the militants have “this intention of not only rebellion, but actually dismembering a portion of the Philippine territory by occupying the whole of Marawi city and establishing their own Islamic state or government.”

According to Filipino news outlet ABS-CBN, the military launched airstrikes on Maute rebels on Friday. At least three soldiers were killed, with dozens of others wounded. Earlier, a 15-year-old boy who was praying in a mosque was killed by sniper fire.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Siege of Marawi, Philippines: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, two deadly terror attacks took place in Tehran, and ISIS has since claimed responsibility. The attackers targeted two symbolically significant places: the Parliament building and the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini–not to be confused with the country’s current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

International leaders offered their support for the people of Iran, but it took longer for the White House. Finally White House officials published a statement condemning the attacks on its website, but in the last sentence seemed to say that Iran had itself to blame. It read:

We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.

On Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif criticized the language and rejected the condolences on Twitter. He called the choice of words “repugnant” and said Iran rejects the United States’ claims of friendship.

Repugnant WH statement & Senate sanctions as Iranians counter terror backed by US clients.Iranian people reject such US claims of friendship

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) June 8, 2017

The attack on Tehran was the worst in many years, and the first successful terror attack by Islamic State on Iran, if the group’s claims are true. The perpetrators were reportedly disguised as women, hiding weapons and suicide vests under their clothing. Five were men, one was, in fact, a woman. All six were killed. At least 12 other people died in the attacks and 46 were injured.

It seemed like Iran was unprepared for the violence, as it took hours to get the situation under control. Pictures on social media showed how people, including children, fled through the windows of the parliament building. The attackers shot at people on the streets outside, and at one point, one of them ran out on the streets to continue shooting.

Daily Brief: ISIS traps thousands in Mosul; Germany asked to arrest CIA deputy; #StopArmingSaudi; Iran attack; more https://t.co/TJocoOEo67 pic.twitter.com/i5mRQO1ggR

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) June 8, 2017

Even so, the speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, said the attacks were just a “minor incident” and called the attackers “some cowardly terrorists.” And Zarif, the foreign minister, also said: “Terror-sponsoring despots threaten to bring the fight to our homeland. Proxies attack what their masters despise most: the seat of democracy.”

Zarif’s comments seem to refer to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Salman al-Saud’s statements from last month, when he said that Saudi Arabia would bring the battle for regional influence to Tehran rather than fight the fight in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim, while Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia denied being involved in the attacks, but combined with the recent development involving Qatar, tensions are on the rise in the region.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran Dismisses White House Statement on Terror Attack as “Repugnant” appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May addressed activists on Tuesday about where human rights fall on her priorities following Saturday’s attack in London and the Manchester bombing in late May. “And if our human rights laws stop us from [tackling extremism and terrorism], we’ll change the law so we can do it.” she said to a crowd in Berkshire, England.

This statement follows her speech on Sunday in which she presented a four-point plan toward combatting terrorism, and comes only 36 hours before polls open for Britain’s snap election this coming Thursday. Polls show her lead continuously shrinking. May also added that she wants to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and monitor the movement of those suspects when there is a fear that they pose a threat but there’s not enough evidence to prosecute them.

While many are familiar with the human rights atrocities Britain has committed in its various roles as a colonial power, violations within its borders may come as a slight surprise to some. But May’s statements become less surprising with some context:

What “human rights laws” currently govern Britain?

There are two sets of laws that Britain currently abides by: the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act. The former was ratified in 1953 by the then-newly-formed Council of Europe after World War II to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening again, protect human rights, and defend “the fundamental freedoms in Europe.” The latter was created so that the rights contained in the ECHR would be incorporated into British law, and human rights breaches could be challenged in domestic courts without having to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Wait, back up. Why do we care about the European Convention of Human Rights? Isn’t Britain leaving the EU?

The ECHR is separate from the EU so Britain doesn’t have to leave if it doesn’t want to. For the time being–it seems like the Conservatives, the current party in power, want to remain in it, according to their manifesto. The decision will be revisited after the next parliament’s term ends. Oddly enough, Conservatives are more concerned with replacing or amending the domestic Human Rights Act as they begin their Brexit.

Makes sense. But if there are two sets of human rights laws, wouldn’t that make it difficult to enact any change?

Despite May’s comments, precedent in the United Kingdom shows that the current “human rights laws” might not even need to be changed in order to accomplish the counter-terrorism policies she laid out (but we’ll get to that later).

Wait, so the UK can violate human rights?

Technically. Britain is allowed to “derogate”–or temporarily ignore–parts of the European Convention of Human Rights in a “time of emergency” that is “threatening the life of the nation” under Article 15 of the agreement. Their particular cup of tea is the suspension of habeas corpus. In 1979, for example, the European Court of Human Rights allowed them to use preventative detention without trial of PIRA terror suspects in Northern Ireland after a string of attacks killed British soldiers.

Today, terror suspects can be held for 14 days without a trial, a decision that was implemented with the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. May has stated that she is looking to revisit that number and seek derogation to extend that period to 28 days, a move that was attempted in 2011 when she was Home Secretary, the UK’s equivalent of a Director of Homeland Security, and when Conservative David Cameron was Prime Minister.

“When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days,” she said in an interview with The Sun. “We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they think is necessary for us to do.”

Even doubling the figure seems tame compared to previous attempts to extend the length of uncharged detention. In 2005, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to lengthen the period to 90 days following the July 7 attack on London. That time, however, civil rights groups stepped in out of protest and that provision was subsequently dropped.

And even with all of this wiggle room, May wants to change the laws?

Yes. As previously stated, Conservatives don’t really view the Human Rights Act too favorably. Not necessarily in a maniacal way, more in a “we want to make a better version” way. They have wanted to replace the law with a British Bill of Rights for a few years now, and this year is no exception.

May’s comments about changing human rights laws most likely also comes from her suggested plans to expand terrorism prevention and investigation measures, a two-year designation given to terrorism suspects considered to be enough of a threat. The measures currently include overnight curfews of up to 10 hours, electronic tagging, reporting regularly to the police, exclusion from certain zones, enforced relocation, and some limitations on use of mobile phones and the internet.

When you bundle expanding all of that with her Sunday promise to “make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need,” it’s clear why she wants to remove as many legal roadblocks as possible.

What are other people saying about this?

Former director of public prosecutions and Labour shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, believes that the laws should stay in place as they are because they have not gotten in the way of combatting terrorism and extremism before.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights… we are throwing away the very values at the heart of our democracy,” he said in a BBC Radio 4 Today interview.

Current Labour leader, and the closest political opponent to May in the election, Jeremy Corbyn, lambasted the Prime Minister’s comments and accused her of trying to “protect the public on the cheap,” referencing that fact that she cut nearly 20,000 police officers during her time as Home Secretary.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron took the accusation a step further and said May’s speech about being tough on terror was just a facade.

“In her years as home secretary she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut,” he said. “We have been here before – a kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”

Whether or not the British public believes May’s words will be tested in Thursday’s election. Polls show that Conservatives are still leading Labour by about six points, down from almost a double digit vote lead when both campaigns started.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May’s Challenge of Human Rights Laws is Unsurprising appeared first on Law Street.

India is growing… fast. For the first time in its recent history it became the fastest growing economy in the world with 7.6 percent growth in 2015, beating out China. Some economists believe that India will continue to be the fastest growing economy in the 2017-18 financial year. While India may still be in better shape economically than everyone else, will it be able to lead a thriving and free democracy?

On Monday, it was reported by multiple news outlets that India’s Central Bureau of Investigation raided the homes and offices of the private news channel NDTV (New Delhi TV) co-founders Prannoy and Radhika Roy.

In a statement, the Roys claim that the raids were conducted based on a complaint that they had not repaid a loan to the private bank ICICI in 2007. However, documentation provided by the Roys seems to prove that they repaid their loan more than seven years ago.

In a statement to The Washington Post, Prannoy Roy said that he wasn’t surprised by the raids because of how the media is treated by the government. He said:

In American media, it is considered patriotic to question and make the government accountable, here to be patriotic is to just agree with everything the government says.

His comments suggest that this investigation is not isolated but emblematic of how India lacks a robust free press that is guaranteed by the government.

The questions are reasonable. According to World Press Freedom Index of 2017, India ranks 136 out of 180 possible countries, down three slots from a year before. In contrast, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan, two places with massive amounts of political instability and non-democratic regimes rank 135 and 120 respectively.

Though India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stated that he believes that having a free press is “vital in a democracy,” his actions since being elected in 2014 contradict that sentiment. In the first months after his election, Modi chose to use state-backed media sources as his primary choice for disseminating information.

In November 2016, the government shut down NDTV for 24 hours, accusing them of reporting on sensitive information when they covered an attack by terrorists on the Pathankot military base. This was done without even needing a court order, and is completely legal under the Indian government.

Furthermore, the laws in India make it significantly easier to curb dissent from media sources. Section 124A of the Indian Penal code, also known as the sedition law, gives prosecutors the ability to issue life sentences based on negative comments against the government.

India may be on the verge of becoming a superpower, but it remains to be seen if the country will be able to accomplish its lofty goals and still allow a free press. Though the Indian government may say that they love the press, they need to start backing up those words with action.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post As India’s Economy Booms, Can it Maintain a Healthy Free Press? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a man attacked a police officer outside of the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. The man reportedly swung a hammer at the officer, and also had knives on him. Another quick-thinking officer shot him in the chest and the first officer was not seriously injured. French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb later said the man shouted, “This is for Syria” as he attacked.

The man was taken to the hospital and the situation was quickly contained, but as it happened, many feared a larger terrorist attack was taking place, only days after the attack in London. People on social media said they were escorted inside the cathedral and asked to put their arms in the air. Nancy Soderberg, a former White House Deputy National Security Adviser under President Clinton, was among those in the cathedral.

Locked inside #notre dame cathedral in #paris while police investigate attack outside against a policeman. All calm pic.twitter.com/Z4B8wUzPTV

— Nancy Soderberg (@nancysoderberg) June 6, 2017

France has been in a state of emergency ever since the terror attacks that shook Paris in November 2015, and Tuesday’s incident caused panic on the streets of central Paris. However, thanks to the high-security alert, a lot of officers were patrolling the streets and the attacker was rendered harmless quickly. The 900 people inside the cathedral reportedly remained calm until they were allowed to exit again.

Notre-Dame: de nombreux effectifs se dirigent vers le lieu pic.twitter.com/FWWAGJzoW0

— David Perrotin (@davidperrotin) June 6, 2017

Authorities have not released the name of the suspect but said he was carrying identification that showed he is an Algerian student. His motives remain unclear but he seemed to be acting by himself and it didn’t seem like a very well planned attack. “One sees that we have gone from a very sophisticated terrorism to a terrorism where, in the end, any tool can be used to carry out attacks,” said Collomb, the Interior Minister. Prosecutors launched an anti-terrorism investigation into the incident.

France has seen several separate attacks recently, many of which targeted police officers or soldiers. A man stabbed two police officers, a couple, to death last June; a month later, another man drove a truck into a crowd in Nice killing more than 80 people; in March, a man attacked a soldier at the Orly airport; and a gunman fired shots at a police van on the Champs-Élysées in April.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor Launches Probe into Hammer Attack appeared first on Law Street.

Sweeping changes are likely to come in Britain’s policy toward terrorism and extremism after Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “enough is enough” during a speech outside of 10 Downing Street on Sunday. The speech was prompted after another attack on Saturday night at the London Bridge where a white van struck pedestrians in a coordinated attack that killed seven and injured dozens that was later claimed by ISIS.

This is the third major attack that has occurred in Britain this year including a terror attack on Westminister Bridge that occurred in March and the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May.

In her speech, May responded with the introduction of a new four-point plan toward combating the “new trend” of ideological extremism. While the plan presented was broad and skimmed on policy specifics that might be introduced, it was indicative of the direction of counter-terrorism policy in Britain.

Defeating the Extremist Ideology

In her remarks, May recognized that while the attacks were not committed by the same organizations, they were all committed in the sense of a singular ideology. Her conclusion is that terrorism can only be defeated by changing the mindset of those vulnerable to violence, and to have them embrace British values.

This could mean that there could be a further expansion of the Prevent Strategy, a measure of the UK counter-terrorism system that aims to stop people from becoming or supporting terrorist and terror organizations.

Prevent was originally created in response to the London attacks in 2005 and aimed to support organizations that would improve integration of minority groups. But in 2011, under then-Home Secretary May, the program was revamped to focus on terrorism and training public officials to spot radicalism.

Prevent has shown success: data from 2015 shows the amount of people who travelled to Syria and Iraq from Britain has decreased. But the program has its critics who believe that it will naturally lead to more discrimination toward Islamic groups.

Crackdown on Online Extremism

May called upon both internet companies as well as democratic countries to form more international agreements to regulate extremism on the web.

Currently, the UK employs a counter-propaganda campaign where in 2015 social media snoopers were able to remove 55,000 pieces of radical propaganda. How this strategy could move beyond Britain and become an international agreement is still unknown.

“Too Much Tolerance of Extremism”

In perhaps the most controversial excerpt from her speech, the prime minister spoke candidly about the potential new powers that could come as a result of her new strategy, saying:

There is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.

One suggestion that May made was to increase custodial sentences for terrorist-related offenses, one of the harshest possible forms of criminal punishment in the UK justice system.

New Powers to Security and Police Forces? 

The final part of her plan indicated that May is leaning toward giving an increase in new powers to the security and protective services. This could mean that May is planning to revamp her counter-extremism bill that was rejected by the government’s lawyers in January because it failed to adequately define “extremism” and “British values.”

Critics of the legislation argue that by broadening the definition of what extremism is, it could lead to infringement on basic rights such as free speech and religion. But with the recent attacks that have taken place and an election within a matter of days it is very possible that legislation and reforms are on the horizon.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What is the Future of British Counter-Terrorism Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

A handful of Gulf Arab nations severed ties with Qatar on Monday, citing its support for terror groups and accusing the oil-rich nation of working behind the scenes with Iran, a regional rival. Some analysts see the abrupt diplomatic freeze as the result of President Donald Trump’s warm embrace of Saudi Arabia during his first overseas visit last month. The countries–Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the Maldives–might have felt emboldened to spar with Qatar, some analysts said, because of Trump’s explicit support of Riyadh.

According to statements from Saudi and Egyptian officials, the coordinated split with Qatar is not related to a recent, isolated event, but rather what they see as a longstanding support of terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which the current Egyptian leader ousted from power in 2013.

“[Qatar] embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, and al-Qaeda,” said a statement from a Saudi state news agency. An Egyptian official similarly said Qatar “threatens Arab national security and sows the seeds of strife and division within Arab societies according to a deliberate plan aimed at the unity and interests of the Arab nation.”

Qatar, for its part, denies the claims of the Gulf countries, saying: “The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications.”

Despite its neighbors’ claims that it is conspiring with Iran, Qatar, one of the region’s wealthiest oil producers, backs groups in Yemen and Syria that are battling Iranian-backed proxies. In Yemen, Qatar supports the Saudi-led (and U.S.-backed) coalition against the Houthi group, which Iran aids. In Syria, Qatar provides support to some of the rebel factions that are fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who enjoys Iranian backing as well.

While Gulf Arab states have cut diplomatic ties with Qatar in the past, most recently in 2014, they have not taken as drastic steps as they did Monday: land, air, and sea routes were blocked, and Qatari diplomats and citizens expelled. The unprecedented steps could create problems for the U.S. effort to eradicate ISIS–the U.S. military, which partners with Gulf nations to combat ISIS, uses an air base in Qatar.

Whatever the future implications, some Gulf experts see the coordinated stiff-arming of Qatar to be, at least in part, bolstered by Trump’s strong rebuke of Iran last month in a speech in Riyadh.

“You have a shift in the balance of power in the Gulf now because of the new presidency: Trump is strongly opposed to political Islam and Iran,” Jean-Marc Rickli, head of global risk and resilience at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told Reuters. “He is totally aligned with Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, who also want no compromise with either Iran or the political Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson implored the feuding nations to work out their differences, though he remains confident the spat will not affect the fight against terrorism. “We certainly would encourage the parties to sit down together and address these differences,” he said, adding that he does not foresee the disagreements having “any significant impact, if any impact at all, on the unified fight against terrorism in the region or globally.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the Diplomatic Standoff Between Gulf Countries and Qatar Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

A day after North Korea launched yet another missile test, the Pentagon tested a missile defense system on Tuesday, its first in three years, in recognition of the closer-than-ever reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea. The system, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, is designed to thwart inter-continental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, that can strike the continental United States.

Kim Jong-un, the North’s leader, suggested Pyongyang is nearly capable of launching such a missile, and its recent flurry of medium and short-range missile tests has proved Kim’s rhetoric is more than mere words.

Here’s how the $244-million defense system works:

A test missile is launched off an atoll in the Marshall Islands. Concurrently, a so-called “interceptor” launches from an underground airbase in California, spitting out a “kill vehicle” that collides with the missile–hopefully destroying it–mid-air before it can hit the earth. The system, which launched its first test in 2004, is far from a sure thing: it has been successful in four of nine attempts.

According to the Associated Press, Tuesday’s test was a success:

BREAKING: Pentagon says it has shot down mock warhead over the Pacific in key success for US missile defense program.

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 30, 2017

“This is part of a continuous learning curve,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, recently said. “We improve and learn from each test, regardless of the outcome. That’s the reason we conduct them,” he added. “We look forward to understanding the results so we can continue to mature the system and stay ahead of the threat.”

That threat is perhaps more pressing than ever before. North Korea has launched a handful of missile tests since President Donald Trump took office in January. Trump has vowed to stop the threat, and has looked to China, the North’s neighbor, largest trading partner, and primary benefactor, to pressure Kim to cease his provocations. Trump, meanwhile, reacted to North Korea’s latest test on Twitter:

North Korea has shown great disrespect for their neighbor, China, by shooting off yet another ballistic missile…but China is trying hard!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2017

In addition to Tuesday’s interceptor test, the Pentagon is deploying two U.S. aircraft carriers to the Sea of Japan on Wednesday, for a few days of training. Despite the training sessions taking place hundreds of miles off of the Korean Peninsula, one U.S. official told CNN, “how can we say it’s not sending a message?”

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” Defense Secretary James Mattis made clear that the U.S. is taking the North Korean threat seriously. He said: “They have been very clear in their rhetoric — we don’t have to wait until they have an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon on it to say that now it’s manifested completely.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pentagon Tests Defense System Designed to Thwart North Korean Missiles appeared first on Law Street.

During a speech in Brussels on Thursday, President Donald Trump spoke to a cluster of European heads of state. He implored them to pay their fair share in defense spending for the NATO alliance, while simultaneously refusing to commit to support in case of an attack. The speech baffled America’s European allies, and potentially pleased Russia’s militarily-adventurous President Vladimir Putin.

“Members of the alliance must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations,” Trump told the leaders of the 28-member defense bloc, including the newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron. “Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.”

Trump, it turns out, was correct: According to NATO figures, only five countries meet the benchmark for defense spending, which is set at two percent of each member nation’s respective GDP. The U.S., Britain, Estonia, Greece, and Poland are the only five NATO members that meet the mark. The rest, including Europe’s economic engines, France and Germany, do not.

Speaking at the opening of NATO’s new billion-dollar headquarters in Brussels, Trump barely mentioned Article 5, the treaty’s tenet of collective defense. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and fomented a pro-Russia separatist movement in eastern Ukraine that same year. So, Trump’s refusal to explicitly endorse Article 5 could worry NATO members, especially the Baltic States, which border Russia and were occupied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The last–and only–time the 68-year-old alliance triggered Article 50 was after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, when NATO forces joined the war in Afghanistan. While Trump–who called NATO “obsolete” as a candidate but nominally embraced it as president–did not reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did.

Asked on Wednesday about Trump’s commitment to Article 5, Tillerson said, “of course we support Article 5.” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said all the fuss about Trump’s failure to back Article 5 was “silly because by being here at such a ceremony, we all understand that by being part of NATO we treat the obligations and commitments.” He added: “By having to reaffirm something by the very nature of being here and speaking at a ceremony about it is almost laughable.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Speech at NATO HQ, Trump Implores Members to Pay More for Defense appeared first on Law Street.

Angered by leaks of sensitive information to the American media, British officials have stopped sharing information related to the Manchester Arena bombing with the United States.

President Donald Trump released a statement Thursday pledging to investigate leaks coming from U.S. government agencies, which he called “deeply troubling,” according to the Associated Press.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will confront Trump about the leaks during meetings at NATO headquarters in Brussels this week.

“TRUST IS BREACHED”

On Tuesday, U.S. television networks NBC and CBS published the name of suspected bomber 22-year-old Salman Abedi, citing U.S. officials. The next day, The New York Times published photos of crime scene evidence.

Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Ian Hopkins said the photos caused “much distress for families that are already suffering terribly with their loss.”

A spokesman for Britain’s National Counter Terrorism Policing unit released a statement condemning the leaks.

“When the trust is breached it undermines these relationships, and undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses, and their family,” the statement said. “This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorized disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter-terrorism investigation.”

A British official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly, told the AP that Manchester police will cease sharing information with the U.S. until they are guaranteed that no more information will be leaked.

British Home Secretary Amber Rudd called the leaks “irritating” in an interview with BBC Radio.

“The British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise,” she said. “It is irritating if it gets released from other sources, and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again.”

THE MEDIA RESPONDS

The New York Times released a statement defending its decision to publish the photos, saying that it falls in line with their standards of reporting on terrorist acts.

“Our mission is to cover news and inform our readers,” the statement reads. “We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday’s horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible.”

A FRIENDSHIP AT RISK?

The cessation of information-sharing about this attack is significant, but likely won’t be a permanent wedge between the U.S. and the U.K.

The Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement, which originated in the 1940s, binds the U.S. and the U.K. with other English-speaking democracies–namely, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The intel-sharing alliance has survived leaks for decades, and experts have said it remains strong even post-Edward Snowden.

So far, the Manchester Arena bombing is the only topic where information is being withheld from U.S. officials. All other intelligence sharing will continue, according to the BBC. Furthermore, the decision to stop sharing information came directly from the Greater Manchester Police, not from Downing Street. The BBC reported that the department is “furious,” but hopes to return to the normal two-way sharing procedures soon.

Eyes are now on Trump–whose administration has been under fire for a stream of leaks to the media and to foreign officials–to, as Trump says, “get to the bottom” of the situation. If his proposed investigation and prosecution of leakers goes well and plugs the holes, the relationship between the U.S. and one of its closest allies likely won’t face irreparable damage.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Pledges to Investigate Leaks After UK Withholds Intel appeared first on Law Street.

Taiwan is one step closer to becoming the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage: on Wednesday, Taiwan’s highest court, the Council of Grand Justices, ruled it unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marriage. Taiwan’s parliament has two years to pass legislation–either an amended form of the current bill or a new measure altogether–to legalize same-sex marriage.

If the parliament fails to pass legislation, “two persons of the same sex who intend to create the said permanent union shall be allowed to have their marriage registration effectuated… by submitting a written document signed by two or more witnesses,” the 14-member court said.

Taiwan gay marriage supporters cry with joy after landmark Asian ruling pic.twitter.com/V2DhMFDyPq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) May 24, 2017

Taiwan has long been one of the more progressive spots in Asia: it has held a gay pride parade since 2003, and has a thriving LGBT community. But it wasn’t until the Democratic Progressive Party took power last year that marriage equality became a real possibility. President Tsai Ing-wen has expressed support for equal marriage rights, though she has been more subtle in her support in recent months.

In 2015, at Taipei’s gay pride parade, she said: “Every person should be able to look for love freely, and freely seek their own happiness.”

Last November, DPP lawmakers drafted three bills that would have legalized same-sex marriage. Those bills have stalled in recent months, after protests against gay marriage swelled. Despite stiff resistance from the conservative and religious sectors of Taiwanese society, a slim majority of citizens support same-sex marriage. One poll from 2013 found that 53 percent of Taiwanese citizens favor marriage equality.

Well done Taiwan, we needed some good news ️‍ #loveislove pic.twitter.com/mPiDLt7Wgp

— meg is seeing h (@stylesrichonne) May 24, 2017

The court’s ruling was in response to two cases: one request was filed by veteran gay rights activist, Chi Chia-wei, the other by Taipei city officials. Progressive lawmakers in Taiwan cheered the court’s decision.

Yu Mei-nu, a DPP lawmaker, called it “a step forward in the history of Taiwan’s same-sex marriage.” She added: “I hope that the legislators will have the moral courage to pass same-sex marriage into law, however it is hard to predict how long it will take, at this moment…The opposition toward gay marriage in Taiwan won’t just gladly accept it and give up the debate, so the debate will continue.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Same-Sex Marriage in Taiwan Gets a Huge Boost from Supreme Court Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

Flags at Downing Street are flying at half mast today, as U.K. political leaders respond to the terror attack that left 22 dead and at least 59 injured after a concert in Manchester Monday night.

Union flags lowered to half mast in Downing Street following Manchester Arena attackhttps://t.co/Ty9bRdV4G4

(via @ChrisMasonBBC) pic.twitter.com/S3JieUS6rp

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) May 23, 2017

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack at the Manchester Arena, where a single actor deployed an improvised explosive device just as a concert by pop singer Ariana Grande was ending. Greater Manchester Police arrested a 23-year-old man Tuesday in connection with the attack.

This attack is the largest terror incident in the U.K. since 7/7, a series of organized attacks on the London transport system in July 2005 where 52 people died and more than 700 were injured. It is the largest incident in North West England.

An Upcoming Election

In response to the attack, Prime Minister Theresa May has suspended all campaign activities for the upcoming June 8 general election.

In a statement at Downing Street, May called the attacker “warped and twisted” and resolved to “thwart” future attacks.

“All acts of terrorism are cowardly attacks on innocent people but this attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenseless children and young people who should have been enjoying one of the most memorable nights of their lives,” May said.

Campaigning was also suspended this past Sunday, as a show of respect and memorialization for Jo Cox, the Member of Parliament who was shot and killed last June just before the Brexit referendum.

This attack comes at a time of heightened political tension surrounding immigration and security, especially in the U.K. Two months ago, four people were killed in an attack outside Parliament, one year after the Brussels airport suicide bombing.

The U.K. is approaching the one-year anniversary of its citizens voting to leave the European Union, the outcome of which many believe was connected to fear of attacks like this one. The “Leave” campaign was criticized for a tweet that directly connected the Orlando nightclub shooting to Brexit, telling voters that a similar attack could befall them if they voted to remain in the EU. The tweet was taken down, but security and terror threats have remained strongholds in Brexit negotiations and U.K. politics in general.

Now, weeks before the general election, the assault at Manchester could cement Conservative power in Parliament.

Polls from the weekend showed the center-right Conservative Party’s lead over leftist Labour slipping. Conservative Party leader May called the election to build support for her approach to Brexit negotiations and increase her party’s 17-seat working majority in Parliament.

May’s party has been stronger on Brexit and immigration. The recent polls may have indicated that a landslide victory for the Conservatives was out of the question, but the next few weeks will reveal whether the tragedy at Manchester Arena and fear of a similar attack will lead to increased support for May.

The attack also had an immediate effect on the value of the pound, which fell as low $1.2954 Tuesday morning.

Political Leaders Respond

The heads of the U.K.’s political parties have spoken out on the attack and suspended their campaign activities.

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, spoke with May and agreed to suspend national campaigning.

Corbyn stated his support for the victims and their families and called the attack a “terrible incident.”

“I am horrified by the horrendous events in Manchester last night,” Corbyn said. “My thoughts are with families and friends of those who have died and  been injured. Today the whole country will grieve for the people who have lost their lives.”

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, canceled a speaking engagement in Gibraltar, expressing sympathy to the victims and families. Farron was scheduled to meet with voters on his trip.

“This is a shocking and horrific attack targeting children and young people who were simply enjoying a concert,” Farron said. “I would like to pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of the emergency services.”

Paul Nuttall, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) and Member of European Parliament for North West England, canceled UKIP’s campaign activities. The BBC also canceled a scheduled interview with Nuttall.

“Just woken to the terrible news in the heart of my constituency, Manchester,” Nuttall said. “My prayers and thoughts are with those affected. Stay strong.”

“Evil Losers”

World leaders across the globe have expressed condolences to the victims and their families and condemned the attack, including U.S. President Donald Trump.

From Bethlehem, where he met with Palestinian leadership, Trump called the assailant and those involved in the attack “evil losers.” Early Tuesday morning he tweeted a message of solidarity with the British people.

We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom. pic.twitter.com/X6fUUxxYXE

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2017

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.K., World Leaders Respond to Manchester Attack appeared first on Law Street.

Saudi Arabia gave President Donald Trump the royal treatment over the weekend, lavishing him with pomp and applause during the first stop in his inaugural overseas trip as president. In a 30-minute speech, Trump gave the Kingdom precisely what it wanted–a strong rebuke of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s enemy and its greatest threat to regional hegemony. Trump signaled a tighter embrace of Saudi Arabia and a more forceful rejection of Iran than his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

Iran provides terrorists “safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment,” Trump said, adding it’s “a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region.” Trump piled on:

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region…It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room.

By calling out Iran while delivering a message of “friendship and hope” to Saudi Arabia and leaders from other Gulf Arab nations like Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, and the U.A.E., whose leaders were also in attendance on Sunday, Trump is pivoting to a more traditional U.S. approach to the region than Obama’s.

Obama angered Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations with a variety of decisions–or non-decisions–that they saw as deferring to Iran. For one, he negotiated the nuclear accord with Iran; the Trump Administration recently admitted to Iran’s compliance with the controversial agreement. Additionally, Obama’s inaction in the conflict in Syria–he never took direct military action against President Bashar al-Assad, and instead provided support to various rebel factions–upset the Saudis as well.

The Trump Administration, after the Syrian government dropped chemical bombs on its citizens in March, launched 59 cruise missiles at a government air strip. Since then, however, Trump has largely followed the Obama playbook by supporting proxy forces in the fight against the Islamic State. Still, the decisive action heartened the Saudi monarchy, which virulently opposes Iran and its various proxy projects, like its support for militias in Bahrain, Yemen, and Iraq, and its support of Assad in Syria.

Trump was unreserved in his warm embrace for Saudi Arabia, saying the U.S. “is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture, and commerce” with the Kingdom. He announced that Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and other high-ranking officials pledged billions of dollars in investments for Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The U.S. recently provided the Saudis with over $100 billion worth of arms and other defense equipment.

He also used the speech to highlight two initiatives aimed at combating terrorism–the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, and the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center. Both will be built in Riyadh. “Today we begin a new chapter that will bring lasting benefits to our citizens,” Trump said.

In contrast to the traditional, largely bi-partisan U.S. approach to countries like Saudi Arabia, where personal freedom is heavily policed and human rights are consistently trampled upon, Trump made no mention of improving human rights in the country. In fact, he explicitly rejected calling out potential partners in how they choose to govern their countries.

“We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all,” he said.

A safe, secure, and prosperous Middle East, Trump insisted, must be shaped with the help of Iran, which held a presidential election on Friday. Iranians re-elected Hassan Rouhani to a second term, rejecting the hard-line Islamic cleric Ebrahim Raisi. Still, in his speech on Sunday, Trump pointed to Iran as the primary font for extremist ideologies in the region, ignoring Saudi Arabia’s own agenda that critics say abets terrorism.

“Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve,” Trump said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Embraces Saudi Arabia and Rebukes Iran appeared first on Law Street.

The first bad omen came earlier this week, when an American official reportedly told an Israeli official that the Western Wall in Jerusalem is “not your territory.” Then, President Donald Trump, in a closed-door meeting at the White House with Russian officials, let slip classified intelligence regarding an Islamic State threat. The source of that intel: Israel, the most important ally for the U.S. in the Middle East.

As Trump embarks on a trip to the Jewish State–he arrives on Monday–it’s worth asking whether or not America’s relationship with Israel is in danger. Many top Israeli officials have already reaffirmed their country’s commitment to its partnership with the U.S. But the gaffes keep coming, and the initial honeymoon between Trump and Israel’s leading right-wing faction is slowly fading away.

When Trump was elected, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu breathed a sigh of relief. Eight years of President Barack Obama–with his insistence on freezing Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, and Netanyahu’s perception that Obama never truly grasped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–drained the prime minister. Trump signaled a change. He was steadfast and vocal in his support for Israel. People close to him–including now-ambassador to Israel David Friedman–had life-long ties to Israel.

Pro-settler groups and lawmakers in Israel thought that Trump would provide a rubber stamp on the settlement project, which Palestinians (and many Israelis) argue is an impediment to peace. But not long after taking office, Trump told Netanyahu, during a visit to the White House, to “hold back on settlements for a bit.” Unlike Obama, Trump has not explicitly condemned settlement building, but he has not been quite the unconditional supporter of settlements many hoped he would be.

Still, the partnership has remained strong. This week has certainly been a test, however. ABC reported that the Israeli source that picked up the ISIS threat that Trump relayed to the Russians might be compromised. Some former Israeli intelligence officials, including former heads of the Mossad, Israel’s chief spy agency, said they might hesitate to share intelligence with the Trump Administration moving forward.

“I get the sense that there are certain questions indeed,” former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told the Associated Press. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman played down the episode, and reiterated Israel’s partnership with the U.S.

“The security relations between Israel and its greatest ally, the United States, are deep, significant and unprecedented in their scope and their contribution to our strength. That is how it always was and how it always will be,” he said.

All eyes will be on Trump when he visits Israel–part of the president’s first overseas trip–next Monday. His trip will include visits to Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Veshem, and the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City. One of the holiest sites in Judaism, the Western Wall lies in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, along with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Earlier this week, while preparing for Trump’s visit, an American aide told an Israeli aide the Western Wall was not a part of Israel, during a spat about Netanyahu’s request to visit the holy site with Trump, a request that was ultimately rejected. Israel considers Jerusalem its eternal capital, and Palestinians insist its eastern half would be the capital of their future state. But while the status of Jerusalem has been contended for decades, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, recently brought some clarity to the debate.

During a Tuesday press conference, when asked about the American aide’s comments in regard to the Western Wall, Spicer said the site is “clearly in Jerusalem,” a fact all sides can agree on.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is America’s Relationship with Israel in Danger? appeared first on Law Street.

During a meeting in Seoul on Tuesday, South Korean and U.S. officials described guidelines the two allies would follow in dealing with North Korea, which tested a powerful missile on Sunday. With a new administration installed in South Korea last week, a uniform approach between the U.S. and South Korea toward North Korea is facing new uncertainties.

Moon Jae-in, who was elected president last week, is the country’s first liberal leader in years. He supports a more dialogue-based strategy in cooling the North’s nuclear ambitions than his U.S. counterpart, President Donald Trump. The Trump Administration has previously indicated “all option are on the table” in regard to responding to the North Korean threat–including a pre-emptive military strike. But now, U.S. and South Korean leaders appear to be on the same page.

Yoon Young-chan, Moon’s spokesman, detailed the approach to North Korea he discussed on Tuesday with Matthew Pottinger, the Asia director on the National Security Council. “First, the ultimate goal is to completely dismantle the North Korean nuclear weapons,” Yoon said. “Second, to that end, both sides will employ all means, including sanctions and dialogue. Third, dialogue with North Korea is possible when the circumstances are right. Fourth, to achieve these goals, South Korea and the United States will pursue drastic and practical joint approaches.”

Liberals in South Korea, including Moon, favor a diplomatic approach–like increased economic investment–to dampen the nuclear threat from its northern neighbor, in contrast to South Korean conservatives’ hard-line approach. Previous diplomatic overtures to North Korea have failed, and critics say investment from past liberal administrations in South Korea have ironically boosted the North’s nuclear capabilities.

Both Trump and Moon have indicated they would be willing to meet with North Korea’s young leader, Kim Jong-un. North Korean and South Korean leaders last met for face-to-face talks in 2007. In launching a missile test on Sunday, by some estimates its most powerful yet, North Korea reminded the world that its nuclear and military ambitions remain unbroken. The missile flew nearly 500 miles before falling into the sea.

South Korean officials recently said that North Korea’s nuclear program is progressing at a quicker pace than expected. And despite its failed launch last month and recent slaps on the wrist from China, its foremost trade partner and benefactor, North Korea remains a threat to the U.S. and its allies in the region, namely Japan and South Korea.

On Tuesday, U.S. and South Korean officials said a summit meeting between Moon and Trump could come as early as next month. Last Wednesday, when Moon was sworn in at the National Assembly, he said he would “do whatever it takes to help settle peace on the Korean Peninsula,” adding: “If necessary, I will fly immediately to Washington.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. and South Korean Officials Outline New Approach to North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

In March, Filipino Congressman Gary Alejano filed an impeachment complaint against President Rodrigo Duterte, accusing him of being responsible for the mass killings of civilians in the country. But on Monday, lawmakers dismissed the complaint, claiming that Alejano could have no “personal knowledge” about these allegations.

Duterte has, in an attempt to crack down on drug trafficking, presided over a campaign of extrajudicial killings. Police statistics show that more than 4,000 people have been killed by police in drug raids, or during drug-related conflicts, since he came to power last June. But even so, agencies and institutions are hesitant to do anything.

“Institutions are just unwilling and are unable to prosecute the president. What is the people’s recourse? Where will you complain? We will look for other ways to seek justice,” Alejano said. A majority in the country’s House of Representatives favors Duterte and this decision blocks additional impeachment cases until next March.

Philippine lawmakers struck down an impeachment complaint filed by Rep. Gary Alejano against President Duterte for crimes against humanity. pic.twitter.com/nqL0rzTrcK

— AJ+ (@ajplus) May 15, 2017

In April, a Filipino lawyer filed a complaint against Duterte in The Hague’s International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. Jude Josue Sabio alleged the same crimes as Alejano but went further back in time. More than 9,400 people have allegedly been killed since Duterte became the mayor of Davao City in 1988. He wrote:

The situation in the Philippines reveals a terrifying, gruesome and disastrous continuing commission of extrajudicial executions or mass murder from the time President Duterte was the mayor of Davao City.

Sabio represents two Filipino men who claim they were part of Duterte’s so-called Davao Death Squad. The group set out to kill drug dealers and criminals guilty of minor crimes. The president and his spokespeople deny all wrongdoings and called the reports “false news.”

Duterte’s many contentious statements include comparing himself–favorably–to Hitler, calling then-president Barack Obama a “son of a whore” and calling United Nations experts “stupid.” He regularly curses or uses profanities in public and has been aggressively resistant to criticism. But despite those comments, he was elected in a landslide victory precisely because of his promise to crack down on drug users and his constituents don’t seem to be complaining. An independent poll from late March showed that three-quarters of respondents still believe Duterte to be trustworthy, while 78 percent approved of his performance as president.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Philippine Lawmakers Dismiss Impeachment Complaint Against President Duterte appeared first on Law Street.

On May 19, Iran will hold a presidential election, its first since Hassan Rouhani was elected in 2013. Rouhani, a relative moderate who helped broker the nuclear deal with the U.S., is running for re-election against five other candidates. The election pits Rouhani against a host of hard-liners, including Ebrahim Raisi, who has secured the backing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard.

During a speech on Wednesday, Khamenei, who holds greater powers than the president, suggested tensions are growing in the weeks before the election. He bluntly said any troublemakers, anybody seeking to disrupt the election “will definitely be slapped in the face.” It seems Khamenei, who has been Iran’s supreme leader since 1989, was suggesting that protests would be met with violence.

Many Iranians saw the 2009 election as a rigged affair in favor of then-incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Millions flooded the streets in protest; dozens were killed, hundreds more were arrested. Ahmadinejad, an extremely controversial figure who took a hard stance against the U.S. and Israel (he’s a Holocaust denier and has called for Israel’s destruction), registered to run for a third term in the coming election.

In April, Iranian authorities rejected Ahmadinejad’s bid, along with 1,636 other presidential hopefuls. The pool of six candidates who were chosen include the mayor of Tehran, Iran’s capital city. Rouhani, however, is widely expected to net a second term. His presidency has largely been defined by his promise to kick-start the Iranian economy, which he contends the nuclear deal helped achieve.

Forged in 2015, the deal lifted sanctions off Iran’s economy, thawing billions of dollars worth of assets. Many Iranians, however, have not felt a substantial change in their daily lives. The deal was also opposed by Iran’s hard-line clerics and its Revolutionary Guard, who saw the deal as a threat to their own economic power. Rouhani’s platform rests on the success of the deal, which he contends needs time to pan out.

But Iran’s most powerful figures want a president more in line with their hard-line ideology. Raisi, who is close to Khamenei, is accused of helping to orchestrate a 1988 plot that killed thousands of political prisoners. He is also seen as a potential successor to Khamenei, who is 77. Electing Raisi could heighten tensions between Iran, the West, and Israel.

Iran is currently on the opposing side in proxy wars being fought in Syria and Yemen. It also funds Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group that the U.S. and Israel deem a terrorist organization. Under a more hard-line president like Raisi, who holds virulently anti-Western views, these conflicts could worsen. In addition, the nuclear deal could hold less weight, as a leader like Raisi has less stake than Rouhani in its ultimate success.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What to Expect in the Upcoming Iranian Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

The world watched with bated breath on Sunday to see if the tide of nationalism sweeping through Western democracies would rise even higher in France. By voting in Emmanuel Macron–a proponent of the European Union–the French people, for the time being, stemmed that rising tide. But Sunday’s election, in which Macron won over 66 percent of the vote, was not a death knell for populism.

Marine Le Pen, the face of France’s populist movement, was roundly defeated by Macron, but one-third of the country supported her populist nationalism and anti-EU posturing. Equally as important to the future of France, however, is the parliamentary elections set to take place between June 11 and 18, which will shape France’s government and determine the length of Macron’s leash as he pursues his agenda.

As France moves beyond this divisive election, it is unclear exactly where it is heading. For one, Le Pen’s National Front party resonated with some 10 million people, a great deal more than it did in 2002 when her father was crushed in the run-off by Republican Jacques Chirac. But the far-right National Front was not the only fringe player this time around. Far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon attracted hordes of young people and others who are equally as disaffected by the European project and its moneyed elites.

Populist yearnings, or at least curiosities, will not simply vanish because of Macron’s resounding victory. In 2017, for the first time in decades, France’s top two parties were not of the traditional left-wing, right-wing dichotomy. People in France–and, seemingly, around the globe–are craving change. If Macron is able to deliver tangible benefits to the people–from the factory worker in France’s hinterlands to the young, unemployed Parisian–then perhaps he can bring about a new stability that will defend against hard-liners like Le Pen and Mélenchon.

The first test of Macron’s effectiveness will come next month, during the two-round parliamentary elections, which follow the runoff format used in the presidential election. His En Marche! (Onward!) party, formed last year, will have to attract a sizable swath of parliamentary seats to carry out Macron’s centrist vision.

Conditions in France have clearly enabled populism to grow–on both ends of the political spectrum. Macron’s most important–and most challenging–task will be to appeal to those who voted him in (many who did so reluctantly, more against Le Pen than for Macron), and to create conditions and opportunities that snuff the growing populist flame. After Sunday’s vote, Macron appeared ready for the myriad challenges that face him and the republic he will now lead.

“I understand the divisions of our country that have led some to vote for extremists,” he said. “I understand the anger, the anxiety, the doubts that a great part among us have also expressed.” Later Sunday evening, Macron, standing in front of the Louvre, pledged to make good on his all-inclusive platform: “I will do everything I can in the coming five years to make sure you never have a reason to vote for extremism again,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emmanuel Macron Won the French Election, but Populism is Not Dead appeared first on Law Street.

With France’s consequential election just around the corner–the final round is Sunday–it’s easy to forget another key U.S. ally is set to choose its next leader in the coming days: South Korea.

Taking place just over a month after former President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment, South Korea’s presidential election could have wide-ranging effects on how the U.S.–and its Asian allies–deals with the threat posed by North Korea.

Early voting began on Thursday at 3,510 stations across the country; the official vote takes place next Tuesday, May 9. Moon Jae-in, a 64-year-old former human rights lawyer, is the current front-runner, polling far ahead of his opponents. A center-left member of the Democratic Party of Korea, Moon favors engagement with his northern neighbor and, eventually, reunification.

“The North and South were one people sharing one language and one culture for about 5,000 years,” he told Time Magazine in a recent interview. “Ultimately, we should reunite.”

The son of refugees from North Korea, Moon could add a layer of complication for U.S. policy in the region if elected. For one, he opposed the deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system, which was recently deployed in a South Korean village. The system is meant to defend against missile launches from the North, but China, an important ally of the South and a vital patron of the North, strongly opposes THAAD.

As the U.S. aims to further isolate North Korea, the likely next leader of South Korea might choose the opposite path. The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a measure to squeeze Kim Jong-un’s regime with tighter sanctions; the Senate is expected to pass the measure as well.

President Donald Trump has pressed China to do more to pressure North Korea to reign in its nuclear weapons program. Analysts predict the North is readying its sixth nuclear test in a decade, which could further increase tensions.

Moon, who narrowly lost to Park in the 2012 election, hews closer to the “sunshine policy” of former President Roh Moo-hyun, whose government he also worked for. That policy called for economic investment with North Korea, as a way to deepen ties between the North and South. Millions of dollars were poured into the North, and critics contend the policy bolstered the North Korean regime’s nuclear program.

Ahn Cheol-soo is Moon’s top competitor. His North Korea policy is at the other end of the spectrum and more in-line with the isolationist approach of the United States. Ahn, who supports the THAAD system, recently said, “If the North is about to launch a nuclear attach, we should first strike the source of attack.”

Ahn and Trump share another similarity: both went to the Wharton business school at University of Pennsylvania.

Despite his softer stance on North Korea, Moon sounds prepared to cooperate with both the U.S. and China. At a campaign event in April, Moon said he will “create a government most feared by North Korea, most trusted by the United States and most reliable for China.”

He also sounds confident that he and Trump will be able to reach common ground. “I believe we will be able to share more ideas, talk better and reach agreements without difficulty,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the South Korean Election Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

For a quarter century, the U.S. has exhaustively tried to broker the deal of all deals: an independent Palestinian state. And it has been seeking lasting peace in a region that has been rife with violence for a century. On Wednesday, during a meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, President Donald Trump expressed confidence that he would achieve what none of his predecessors have been able to.

“We will get this done,” Trump said. Striking a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians has been one of Trump’s more consistent priorities. He has appointed a former Trump Organization lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, as the liaison for negotiations. Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew, has garnered wide praise for his willingness to listen to all of the involved parties–Israelis, Palestinians, and leaders from nearby Arab states like Jordan and Egypt.

Trump insisted he is “committed” to brokering an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that “allows both people to live, worship and thrive and prosper in peace.” During a February meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump did not explicitly support a two-state solution–sovereign states for both Israel and Palestinians–instead saying he favors “the one that both parties like.”

Abbas, speaking in Arabic, said a Palestinian state is the only solution to the decades-old conflict, calling on the pre-1967 borders–the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem–as the template for a future state. Ceding East Jerusalem, home to Judaism’s holiest sites, to the Palestinians as their future capital has long been a contentious point for the Israelis. The last stab at peace, mediated by former Secretary of State John Kerry, folded in 2014 after the two sides could not agree to the specifics of a peace deal.

According to Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, in a private sit-down with Abbas after their public remarks, Trump told the Palestinian leader that a key to lasting peace is for the PA to stop sponsoring terrorism. According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the PA, which receives foreign aid, including from the U.S., pays $315 million each year to the families of “martyrs,” or men who commit suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

For Abbas, the “occupation of our people and of our land” must end before a peaceful solution can be reached. “After 50 years,” he said, referring to Israel’s capture of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War, “we are the only remaining people in the world that still live under occupation.” Abbas, like Trump, expressed confidence the quest for peace is not finished. Switching to English, he turned to Trump and said: “now, Mr. President, with you, we have hope.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Deal: “We Will Get This Done” appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday is World Press Freedom Day. A free press is vital for a functioning democracy, and how free the press is often indicates the freedom of a country’s citizens. But new numbers from Freedom House show that 2016 was the worst year for press freedom in 13 years, both in the U.S. and internationally.

Freedom House, an independent democracy watchdog, conducts its analysis based on the political, economic, and legal climate for journalists in each country. The countries are then rated from 0-100–the closer to zero, the better. This year, the U.S. went up two points to 23, which is its worst score in a decade. Reporters Without Borders also makes an annual ranking, and on its list the U.S. ended up in 43rd, in between Burkina Faso and Comoros.

#WorldPressFreedomDay | Journalists Under Threat in Both Democracies and Dictatorships https://t.co/oS4ppXgMyA map via @rsf_inter pic.twitter.com/cGyn9w4Bj0

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) May 3, 2017

Only 13 percent of countries have a completely free press. The criteria for ranking as free are, according to Freedom House, a media environment with extensive political coverage, guaranteed safety for journalists, minimal state intrusion in the media, and no legal or economic pressures on reporters.

President Donald Trump is mentioned as a partial cause of the decline in U.S. press freedom. He has frequently criticized the media for its coverage and often calls mainstream media “fake news.” Back in March, he tweeted that he might push to change the libel laws. And on April 30, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said the administration had “looked at” changing them. Priebus added that the media needs “to be more responsible with how they report the news.”

The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws? https://t.co/QIqLgvYLLi

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 30, 2017

Who’s at the Bottom of the List?

Around the world there are countless examples of journalists who are detained because of what they report. The lowest-ranking countries are dictatorships in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. But due to violence from drug cartels and organized crime, Mexico is also deemed one of the worst countries to be a journalist. Independent nonprofit organization Committee to Protect Journalists has documented more than 50 killings of journalists in Mexico since 2010.

The CPJ’s report on Mexico shows that convictions for murders of journalists are very rare, and when they do happen, authorities often fail to prove a clear link to journalism. Instead they often frame it as a regular crime, making it hard to keep data accurate and confront the actual problem. Corruption in the government and police force is also a huge problem.

“As Mexican journalists, we feel alone.” Miguel Ángel Dìaz, who was under threat for his work as a journalist. #WPFhttps://t.co/NMugf62xN5pic.twitter.com/oPwat4x38c

— CPJ (@pressfreedom) May 2, 2017

What’s Happening in the U.S.?

But even in the U.S., reporters are sometimes detained for doing their jobs. In February, freelance reporter Jenni Monet was arrested for covering the protests at the Dakota Access Pipeline near Standing Rock. Despite following police instructions to stay behind police lines, she was detained for 30 hours. She was later charged with rioting and trespassing.

“It didn’t matter that I was complying with their instructions and it didn’t matter that they knew I was a member of the press. I was handcuffed and held in a chain link enclosure with 18 other women for hours,” she said. Amnesty International is calling for the charges to be dropped, citing the critical role of reporters in holding governments accountable for human rights abuses.

On #WorldPressFreedomDay, we need YOU to get loud to demand charges be dropped against #DAPL journalist Jenni Monet https://t.co/hbgEqSE9mPpic.twitter.com/1V9vkp4mlW

— AmnestyInternational (@amnestyusa) May 3, 2017

A Spotlight on Turkey

In Turkey, at least 156 media outlets have been shut down and at least 2,500 journalists have been fired since last summer’s failed coup. More than 120 journalists have been jailed, facing terrorism-related charges, because of what they have written or drawn. One newspaper editor and his brother who appeared on a TV panel discussion about the coup were accused of ‘sending subliminal messages’ to the people behind the coup. Both were arrested, as was the TV show’s presenter.

Since the coup, President Erdogan has cracked down on all kinds of dissent. Last weekend, almost 4,000 people were fired from public offices and the government blocked Wikipedia. Now more than 250,000 people have signed an online petition urging the Turkish government to release all the jailed journalists. Many have tweeted photos of themselves using the hashtag #FreeTurkeyMedia, including Chinese artist Ai Weiwei and the Al Jazeera journalists who were imprisoned in Egypt for more than 400 days in 2013.

♫ Ai Weiwei’s done it,
Mandela’s statue’s done it,
Even the #FreeAJStaff‘ve done it,
Let’s do it,
Let’s post a #FreeTurkeyMedia selfie. ♫ pic.twitter.com/aRHrR0e4E8

— FreeTurkeyMedia (@FreeTurkeyMedia) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Press Freedom Day: Worst Outlook for Freedom of the Press in 13 Years appeared first on Law Street.

Hamas, the militant group that governs the Gaza Strip, announced a new charter on Monday, aiming to bolster its appeal to the international community by adopting a slightly less militant stance against Israel. Many analysts see the document, a sort of sequel to its 1988 founding charter, as a way to stake its claim as a legitimate leader of the Palestinian people, and to recast its message in a more politically-oriented sheen in place of its traditional religious dogma.

Revealed in Doha, Qatar on Monday, two days before Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump in D.C., the document is the culmination of a decade-long attempt to retool the optics of a group that the West–and a number of Arab countries–considers a terrorist organization. Hamas’ new charter lightens the group’s tone on Israel, omitting calls for the Jewish State’s destruction–though it does call for an “armed struggle”–a stance it has espoused for decades. But it does reject “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” adding:

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

The document envisions a provisional Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, known as the “Green Line.” During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and the West Bank and east Jerusalem–home of Judaism’s holiest sites–from Jordan. Hamas 1988 charter essentially called for the destruction of Israel, and a return to the pre-1948–the year Israel achieved statehood–reality.

Founded in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas assumed control of Gaza in 2007, two years after Israel recalled its settlements in the tiny strip of land on the Mediterranean coast. Since then, Israel and Hamas have fought three wars. The group has launched hundreds of attacks on Israeli civilians, shooting rockets indiscriminately across the border, and sending assailants through tunnels that snake under the border. Hundreds of Israelis have been killed. A few thousand Palestinians have died in the fighting.

The new charter comes at a precarious time for Gaza’s leadership–and its citizens. Last week, Mahmoud Abbas–the internationally-recognized leader of the Palestinian people, and a thorn in Hamas’ side–decided to stop funding Gaza’s flow of electricity from Israel. Supplied by Israel and paid for by the Palestinian Authority, Gaza has historically relied on these two neighbors for its energy. Gaza residents already face frequent blackouts and now with Abbas’s decision to withhold the PA’s funding, access to electricity will be severely limited.

Israel, which celebrated its 69th Independence Day on Monday, is taking the new charter as the same product with new branding. A statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office called the document a “smokescreen,” adding: “We see Hamas continuing to invest all of its resources not just in preparing for war with Israel, but also in educating the children of Gaza to want to destroy Israel.”

A spokesman for Netanyahu, David Keyes, echoed that sentiment: “Hamas is attempting to fool the world but it will not succeed,” Keyes said. “They dig terror tunnels and have launched thousands upon thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians,” he said. “This is the real Hamas.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Hamas Policy Document Omits Calls for Israel’s Destruction appeared first on Law Street.

Anti-government protests have defined Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s time in office, but few, if any, past demonstrations compare to this latest wave. Infuriated by a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling in late March, millions of Venezuelans have been taking to the streets demanding the 2018 presidential election be held ahead of schedule.

On Wednesday evening, Yibram Saab Fornino, son of Venezuela’s Defensoría del Pueblo (Ombudsman), Tarek William Saab, posted a video on YouTube denouncing the government’s violent response to protesters and calling on his father to act. While the Ombudsman is meant to be a politically independent defender of social justice and humans rights, Saab is considered a government insider.

In December 2014, pro-Maduro United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) legislators controversially elected Saab as Ombudsman weeks before they would lose control of the National Assembly. The opposition Democratic Unity Table (MUD) boycotted the vote on the basis that Saab was a former PSUV state governor who only left the party to take up the politically independent role. Although PSUV did not have the two-thirds majority constitutionally required to elect an Ombudsman, the Supreme Court, stacked with government sympathizers, upheld the vote.

Critics argue that by ignoring the violence the supposedly apolitical Ombudsman is protecting his political allies, and is complicit in the violent suppression of the opposition. Opponents of the government are latching onto Yibram Saab’s statement.

Yibram Saab begins the open letter to his father by expressing his concern for Venezuela’s “ruptured constitutional order.” He affirms that neither he nor his siblings were threatened into publishing the video but were acting freely and in accordance with the values imparted by their father. Saab goes on to condemn the “national security forces’ brutal repression” of protesters. Saab then pays tribute to Juan Pablo Pernalete, a 20-year-old university student and recent victim of Venezuela’s security forces, before appealing to his father by saying “that could have been me.”

Over the past month, Venezuela’s security forces have killed at least 29 demonstrators. Maduro has justified the violence by claiming that security forces are fighting against a terrorist-led coup. Nonetheless, Yibram Saab’s video is emblematic of the fact that state sanctioned violence has only served to embolden anti-government sentiment.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in Venezuela: Son of Ombudsman Calls on His Father to Act appeared first on Law Street.

In a crackdown on religious freedom, the Chinese authorities have banned Islamic baby names and other religious symbols in the mainly Muslim region of the country, Xinjiang. About half of China’s 23 million Muslims live in this region, which is one of the most militarized in the country due to violent conflicts that authorities blame on religious extremists. Xinjiang is home to a Muslim minority group called the Uighurs.

Now Chinese officials have said that “religious” names like Islam, Quran, Saddam, and Mecca are prohibited, as such names could “exaggerate religious fervor.” Children that are given these names will not be eligible for household registration, which is what gives citizens access to social services, healthcare, and education in China.

The new rules follow other restrictions issued last month by the Xinjiang authorities that ban men from wearing an “abnormal beard.” Specific cities in Xinjiang already had bans in place prohibiting women from wearing face veils in public spaces like airports or train stations, but now the ban will apply to the whole region.

Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, called the actions by the Xinjiang authorities “blatant violations of domestic and international protections on the rights to freedom of belief and expression.” She said that officials are punished by the state if they are too lenient on these “crimes” or other actions deemed inappropriate. One official was reprimanded for complaining about the new rules to his wife through a messaging app. Another one was fired from her job for having her wedding ceremony at home and not at a location approved by the government.

China bans Islamic baby names in Muslim majority Xinjiang province https://t.co/cWsITdTHeL pic.twitter.com/13i04R9yll

— Aüd (@CodeAud) April 25, 2017

There have been a number of violent incidents in Xinjiang in recent years that have been blamed on Muslim extremists. In 2013, 35 people, including 16 Uighurs, were killed in a confrontation between rioters and police. State media claims a group of religious extremists attacked police officers after one of their group members was arrested. Police killed 11 of them and labeled the act a terrorist attack.

That incident made many worry that the violence of 2009 would be repeated, when protests led to the deaths of at least 197 people. Many killed were Han Chinese, the main ethnic group in China. And in 2015, more than 50 people died in a knife attack at a coalmine in northwestern Xinjiang. State media claimed that one of the suspects said he had been carrying out a jihad.

But human rights experts say that the Chinese government’s harsh crackdown on Muslims will only deepen the Uighurs’ resentment. A spokesman for an exiled group of Uighurs, Dilxat Raxit, said that the violence was sparked by the Chinese government’s indiscriminate detentions of Uighurs. Others say that the government strongly exaggerates the level of organization behind protests and violence. “If the government is serious about bringing stability and harmony to the region as it claims, it should roll back–not double down on–repressive policies,” said Richardson.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Bans Islamic Baby Names, Beards, and Veils in the Xinjiang Region appeared first on Law Street.

On March 29, El Salvador became the first country in the world to ban metal mining. The ban passed through the El Salvador unicameral legislature with support from a sweeping coalition and is favored by nearly 80 percent of the El Salvadorian population. In spite of the overwhelming support for the ban, the anti-mining movement started with a handful of grassroots groups determined to push back against the country’s historical devotion to “pro-business” policies.

El Salvador: An Unlikely Contender

Like many Latin American countries, El Salvador opened its doors to multinational companies in the early 1990s in the hope that an influx of foreign investment would help steady its newly reformed political system. Entrance into the globalized economy appeared to be the best option for a country emerging from a long and brutal civil war. The region saw a spate of political pushbacks against neoliberal economic policies, but El Salvador remained devoted to the globalized economy.

Following the 1992 peace accords, the right-wing, pro-business Nationalist Republican Alliance (NRA) controlled El Salvador for 17 years. During this time, foreign money, much of it from mining, flooded into El Salvador. In 2001, the conservative government adopted the U.S. Dollar as its official currency. Officials pegged their currency to the dollar with the intention of stabilizing the economy and making El Salvador a more attractive destination for international investors.

Candidates from the socialist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) have won the past two presidential elections but have largely continued the economic strategies initiated by the NRA. The FMLN leaders have not employed the kind of “anti-imperialist” rhetoric that has often been used by other socialist leaders in the region. When Salvador Sánchez Cerén, a former leftist guerilla, took power in 2014, he promised budget cuts and to maintain a close relationship with the United States. Sánchez’s predecessor and fellow FMLN member, Mauricio Funes, ruled the country as a centrist.

It is surprising that a country so roundly committed to foreign investment and the global economy would be the one to lead a charge against multinational metal mining corporations.

From Grassroots to Mainstream

Not long ago, El Salvador was actively courting multinational mining operations. After the civil war, the government began trying to rebuild the large-scale mining industry that had died out when conflict erupted in 1980. When global gold prices began to climb in the early 2000s, El Salvador received a flurry of exploration permit applications.

After some exploratory drilling, Pacific Rim Mining Corporation proposed plans for a mine named El Dorado to be built in the basin of the Rio Lempa–El Salvador’s primary source of drinking water.  According to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Division, El Dorado would use two tons of cyanide and 900,000 liters of water a day to extract over 1.4 million ounces of gold in about four years.

Rapid industrialization and population growth in the 1990s caused extreme environmental degradation. By the early 2000s, over 90 percent of El Salvador’s ground water was chemically contaminated and no amount of boiling, filtering, or chlorination would make it potable. The prospect of a cyanide and water intensive mine on the crux of the country’s primary source drinking water was, for many, too much to stomach. Locals feared the mine’s copious water consumption would suck up supply and that the cyanide would render it undrinkable in the process.

As word of the mine spread, groups began to form and resist the El Dorado mine and mining in general. By 2005, the grassroots movement had turned national. Local and international groups united to form The National Roundtable Against Metal Mining in El Salvador (La Mesa), and the population’s support for a metal mining ban had grown.

In May 2007, El Salvador’s anti-mining movement gained one of its most powerful allies–the Catholic Church. In response to anti-mining statements from archbishops in neighboring countries, the El Salvadorian Catholic Church publicly denounced mining, claiming “no material advantage can be compared to the value of human life.” By October of the same year, polls showed 62 percent of the population opposed metallic mining in El Salvador.

The conservative NRA party had previously blocked attempts by the FMLN to pass a legislative ban on metallic mining but public support for the ban had become irresistible. In March 2008, NRA President Antonio Saca instituted a nationwide moratorium on metal mining permits.

The Backlash

Though this moratorium remained in place until the passage of an anti-mining law last month, the presidential moratorium wasn’t permanent and could have been lifted at any moment. The situation was precarious.

Pacific Rim and other mining cooperations quickly filed legal complaints against El Salvador. These suits quickly devolved into drawn-out legal battles, in which mining corporations demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from one of the poorest countries in Latin America.

As these compensation claims crawled through World Bank tribunals, pro-mining operatives launched violent attacks against the anti-mining movement. From 2009 to 2011, at least four anti-mining activists were murdered. Rather than silencing the movement, these acts of violence galvanized support for the ban.

In late 2016, the World Bank slapped down Pacific Rim’s claim to compensation paving the way for a permanent ban.

A Future Without Mining

Over the course of a few years, the El Salvadorian government’s stance on mining underwent a 180-degree turn. Forces that once backed the mining lobby were forced to concede to a groundswell of opposition. As the effects of environmental degradation and exploitation become more apparent, El Salvador’s grassroots movement provides hope for similar ones around the world.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How El Salvador Became the First Country to Ban Metal Mining appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s Supreme Court has banned the Jehovah’s Witness organization after the Ministry of Justice labeled it an extremist group. The denomination already was on shaky ground in Russia, as the government had banned its literature and website as well as arrested members and seized their property. But now with a complete and nationwide ban, the group’s headquarters in St. Petersburg and 395 local branches will all become state property.

Last year, the Russian general prosecutor issued a warning to the group, urging it to stop all “extremist” activities. But there was no clarification of what that means or which activities would be seen as “extremist.” One of the Jehovah’s Witnesses main codes of conduct is to be peaceful and not engage in violence. But according to an attorney with the country’s Justice Ministry, Svetlana Borisova, the Jehovah’s Witnesses “pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security.”

But the Jehovah’s Witnesses dispute this claim, and the organization published a statement on its website on Wednesday. It says that Russian officials never specified any legal basis for the ban. According to the country’s anti-extremism law, crimes that are “motivated by prejudice or, as stated in Russian law, ‘ideological, political, racial, national or religious enmity, as well as hatred or enmity towards a social group’” are extremist crimes.

#Russia: #JehovahsWitnesses ban – blow 2 #FoRB, sign of totality. Pacifism is not extremism. https://t.co/FymTwysX6x pic.twitter.com/8auTw7Yp9B

— Jan Figel (@janfigel) April 21, 2017

The group argues that if that is the law under which the Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, that sounds like a clear misuse of the law. It describes the opposite of what the organization promotes, which is anti-violence. “In the whole world, Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as peaceful, obedient, respectful citizens. We respect government, and we are politically totally neutral,” said Yaroslav Sivulsky, an official from Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

The anti-extremism law also makes it illegal for any group other than the Orthodox Church to claim to “offer the true path to religious salvation.” This basically means that there is no freedom of religion.

Many people see the latest court order as a crackdown on freedom of religion and expression. Some worry that other groups of people or religions will be next. Human Rights Watch issued a statement from Moscow and said the ban is “a serious breach of Russia’s obligations to respect and protect religious freedom.”

Catholics for Choice condemns #Russia‘s ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses (learn more: https://t.co/KDelnhPC1W) pic.twitter.com/FrMCalcF6X

— Catholics for Choice (@Catholic4Choice) April 21, 2017

There are about 170,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and they are all now officially in the same category as extremists like Islamic State. According to the New York Times, the group does not engage in politics or criticism against the government. But President Putin has repeatedly targeted the Jehovah’s Witnesses since his third term began in 2012, when he started promoting the Orthodox Church in order to lift Russia to greater international power.

Victor Zhenkov is a lawyer representing the organization. He called the ban “an act of political repression that is impermissible in contemporary Russia.” He said they would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and if that it fails, take it to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Bans Jehovah’s Witnesses, Labels Them Extremists appeared first on Law Street.

“America First,” President Donald Trump’s ubiquitous campaign slogan, is apparently contagious. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull proposed a set of rules on Thursday that would make it tougher for refugees and immigrants to become Australian citizens. And last week, Turnbull announced plans to raise the barriers for migrants hoping to come to Australia for high-skilled jobs on a temporary work visa.

Among the citizenship rules the prime minister proposed on Thursday is an “Australian values” test, more stringent requirements for the citizenship test, and a four-year wait period. Hopeful citizens would also be expected to have a greater knowledge of English than currently required. In a statement, Turnbull explained his crack down on migration:

“We must ensure that our citizenship program is conducted in our national interest,” he said. “Membership of the Australian family is a privilege and should be granted to those who support our values, respect our laws and want to work hard by integrating and contributing to an even better Australia.”

Australia is a multicultural bastion, often overshadowed by the “melting pots” of America, Canada, and other Western nations. In fact, 27 percent of the population is foreign-born, double the foreign-born rate in the U.S. and England. Australia is represented by migrants from 200 countries. The new rules, which must be approved by parliament, would stiffen an already stringent citizenship process.

For instance, prospective citizens must already have solid enough English skills to take the citizenship test, which is only offered in English. Under the proposed new rules, three test failures would spell the end of an immigrant’s or refugee’s chance at citizenship. According to Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 102,029 people took the citizenship test between 2015-2016. Nearly 3,500 people failed it over three times. Prospective citizens must also sign an “Australian values statement.” Here is an excerpt:

Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good.

Around the world, populism and nationalism are on the rise. France may elect the populist, far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen. England left the European Union. Turkey’s president just effectively cemented his hold on power until 2029, a move likely to alienate Turkey from the West. But until now, at least to the outside world, Australia seemed to be eluding the populist trend. But some analysts see Turnbull’s proposals not as a turn toward nationalism, but as a way to placate Australia’s populists.

“These new laws are about trying to keep traditional coalition supporters from turning to the far-right parties,” Haydon Manning, a political analyst in Adelaide told Bloomberg. “Turnbull will be aware that he doesn’t have much to offer voters in the budget because the coffers are bare, so this is a way he can show that he’s still thinking about them and addressing their concerns about jobs and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull Proposes a More Difficult Path to Citizenship appeared first on Law Street.

Protesters took to the streets of Glasgow last week to push back against the “rape clause” in the UK welfare system. After reforms of the welfare system took effect in April, the tax credits a family can receive for having children are now capped at two children–except in the case of mothers who have a third child as a result of rape. However, those mothers have to provide evidence that the child was in fact conceived from rape–a provision decried as inhumane.

Rape survivors have to fill out an eight-page form detailing the attack and a third party (such as a healthcare provider or a social worker) must provide additional testimony. The woman can only receive tax benefits if she is not living with the perpetrator and if she has not received financial compensation following a conviction of the perpetrator. But psychologists across the UK have expressed concern that this rape clause will harm survivors. In a letter to The Guardian, a set of psychologists write that forced reliving of the attack may cause “flashbacks, renewed shame and emotional turmoil, and consequently affect how mothers bond with their children.”

The clause was an amendment to an existing law, so it was not debated or voted on in parliament. First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP has decried the clause and has fought against it. SNP MP Alison Thewliss led the Scrap the Rape Clause campaign, presenting a petition with 10,000 signatures asking for the clause to be struck from the tax reforms. Members of the Scottish Parliament have filed a motion to debate the clause, which could push the UK Parliament to also debate it. The SNP is not alone in its discontent: the rape clause may particularly harm women in Northern Ireland, where reporting serious crimes, including rape, is mandatory. If women apply for a tax credit for a third child conceived through rape, they may be drawn into a criminal investigation against their will.

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has argued that the Scottish government could set up new benefits to aid families with more than two children, outside of the UK government’s reforms. Davidson accused Sturgeon of simply writing the rape clause off as part of her list of complaints against the UK government instead of actively considering how Scotland could adapt the tax credit system.

Whether or not the rape clause is upheld, families across the UK will find themselves in a new financial bracket thanks to the tax reforms. Historically there has not been a limit to how many children a parent can claim–so large families that have previously benefited from tax credits may now find themselves slipping out of financial stability. The tax reforms disproportionately affect low-income families and will push them deeper into poverty. The rape clause was established in an odd effort to be “compassionate” but the misguided attempt to soften the blow of the tax reforms has only exacerbated ideological divides both within Scotland and the UK as a whole.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Scotland’s Battle Against the UK Welfare “Rape Clause” appeared first on Law Street.

On March 2, Cecilio Pineda Brito, a nationally known crime reporter, was shot dead by two men on a motorcycle. On March 19, Ricardo Monlui Cabrera, the editorial director of the Córdoba’s Él Politico newspaper and president of his local journalism association, fell victim to similar motorcycle drive-by. Miroslava Breach Velducea, a correspondent for the national newspaper La Jornada, was shot and killed four days later. Last Friday, reporter Maximino Rodriguez Palacio was shot dead in La Paz, Mexico, marking the fourth fatal attack on a journalist in only six weeks.

The recent spate of attacks is shocking but not surprising. Human rights and freedom of the press advocates, both domestic and international, have long been calling for a response to anti-media violence in Mexico.

Freedom House’s 2016 Freedom of the Press Index named Mexico “one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists and media workers,” citing numerous violent attacks in 2015. Conditions have only been intensifying.

According to a report by Article 19–a non-profit devoted to protecting freedom of expression–suppressive and/or violent attacks on journalists have been on the rise since 2010. The report found 426 acts of aggression against journalists and 11 homicides in 2016. While 2016 was the bloodiest year for journalists under President Enrique Peña Nieto and the worst since 2000, 2017 may surpass it.

Despite these statistics, Peña Nieto’s government seems unconcerned with attacks on journalists. Article 19 reports that the Mexican Special Prosecutor’s Office on Crimes Against Freedom of Expression–known in Mexico as FEADLE, its Spanish acronym–only investigated 118 cases of the 426 acts of aggression against journalists and that 99.75 percent of attacks go unresolved.

Although criminal organizations often take most of the blame for any kind of violence in Mexico, there is a slew of evidence implicating the government in the anti-media violence. In 2016, “State agents” supposedly perpetrated 53 percent of the 426 acts of aggression identified by Article 19–criminal organizations are believed to have perpetrated 4 percent of the attacks.

Last month, Gilberto Israel Navarro Basaldúa, a journalist from the city of Guanajuato, reported that an employee of the municipal government’s economic council had swerved his car and hit Navarro off his motorcycle. Although employees of state and municipal governments are believed to have carried out the majority acts of aggression, Article 19 found 56 examples in which federal officials allegedly attacked the press.

It is clear that the Mexican government is unwilling to protect its media. Peña Nieto has blamed local governments for obstructing investigations but Article 19 found that his government had consistently refused to use its authority to take control of the process. The fact that state workers from all levels of government are believed to be responsible for the majority of acts of aggression against the media perhaps explains why the government is unwilling to investigate and prosecute anti-media crimes.

Historically victimized by criminal organizations and now increasingly victimized by government officials, the Mexican journalists have no place to turn. Freedom of the press has long been under threat in Mexico, but it appears the government is intent on undermining the expressive freedom in its entirety.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Responsible for Anti-Media Violence in Mexico? appeared first on Law Street.

Capping off a years-long pursuit of power, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan strengthened his rule on Sunday, as a referendum passed that changes the constitution from a parliamentary system to a presidential system. While supporters claim the new system will stabilize a government that faces growing internal and external threats, detractors say it will effectively give the Middle East yet another authoritarian leader. With the constitutional change, Erdogan could lead the country until 2029.

The referendum passed by a much narrower margin than many observers–including Erdogan–expected: 51.4 percent of the country supported the system change, while 48.6 percent opposed it. The narrow result shows just how divided Turkey is at a time of growing tensions both at home and abroad.

Domestically, the country is coping with the fall-out from last July’s coup attempt. Erdogan’s government has purged at least 100,000 workers from their jobs, and has jailed thousands of others, all accused of being followers of the exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen. Erdogan accuses Gulen, a onetime political ally, of fomenting the coup. Gulen lives in Pennsylvania.

Turkey has also gone from being a potential member of the European Union to being a thorn in its side. As the campaign for the referendum heated up in recent months, Erdogan sent over his ministers to Europe to drum up support among its millions of Turkish citizens who were eligible to vote–Germany alone has about three million Turkish citizens. The Netherlands, Germany, and others barred Turkish officials from campaigning; Erdogan likened their governments to Nazis. The relationship has soured ever since.

In addition to its domestic concerns, Turkey is a key player in the Syrian conflict. It holds small slices of territory in Syria’s northern border with Turkey, and cooperates with the U.S.-led coalition in airstrikes against Islamic State militants. Though differences remain between the U.S. and Turkey’s goals in the region–Turkey considers the Kurdish fighters, a U.S. ally, terrorists–the two remain vital partners in the fight against ISIS.

Sunday’s referendum result concerns those that see Erdogan as being on a mission to tighten his grip on the country’s politics. Since taking the presidential post in 2014, Erdogan has effectively swapped the job titles of prime minister and president. The presidential perch was designed to be ceremonial, and the prime minister–a position he held for ten years following his switch to president–was the position meant to wield power.

Among other sweeping changes, the new presidential system scraps the prime minister position altogether. It also allows a president to serve for up to two terms of five years each, with a possible extension to three terms. The president can directly appoint top public officials, including judges, and also has the authority to intervene in judicial decisions. New presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled for November 3 2019.

Some observers saw Erdogan’s campaign as unfair–the main opposition party is calling for a recount. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) derided the tactics of the government.

“The campaign rhetoric was tarnished by some senior officials equating ‘No’ supporters with terrorist sympathizers, and in numerous cases ‘No’ supporters faced police interventions and violent scuffles at their events,” said OSEC in a  statement.

Immediately after the results came in, Erdogan gave a speech to his supporters in Istanbul. “We are enacting the most important governmental reform of our history,” he said. Erdogan also suggested that he would hold a referendum on bringing back the death penalty to Turkey, which would effectively end its bid to become an EU member-state.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey Passes Referendum Giving President Erdogan Unprecedented Power appeared first on Law Street.

On April 23, French voters will choose two presidential candidates–the two highest vote getters–to advance to a run-off scheduled for May 7. Recent polls suggest a tight race. The projected victors of the first round–National Front’s Marine Le Pen and En Marche’s Emmanuel Macron–are both expected to net 22 percent of the April 23 vote. But after two successful debate performances, far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon is hovering just behind the front-runners at 20 percent. Francois Fillon, the conservative candidate who is ensnared in a corruption scandal, is right behind at 19 percent of the first-round vote. Though 11 candidates are in the mix, one of these four is likely to be France’s next leader.

Marine Le Pen

Le Pen, the self-professed “candidate of the people” needs no introduction. A populist firebrand in the same vein as U.S. President Donald Trump, Le Pen heads the National Front Party on a platform steeped in anti-immigrant and anti-EU messaging. With a potent brew of Islamaphobia and nationalism, Le Pen has stunned political observers with her success so far, especially considering her family tree. Her father, the former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, was a blatant anti-Semite and racist. Under his leadership, the party was a fixture of France’s fringe, but never gained traction with a large chunk of voters. That is changing under Marine.

Francois Fillon

Fillon’s campaign has been marred by a corruption scandal that has overshadowed his policies. Fillon has been accused of paying his wife Penelope a hefty salary for a job that didn’t actually exist when he was a member of Parliament. His politics resemble a traditional conservative in the U.S.: he has pledged to cut taxes, open up the market, cut public spending, and increase the number of law enforcement officers.

Emmanuel Macron

A centrist and political novice–though he did serve as Minister of the Economy–Macron’s campaign has surged in recent months as French voters seek a candidate without Fillon’s establishment ties or Le Pen’s anti-EU nationalism. Macron is pro-EU. He has proposed a tax cut for corporations, and an influx of public spending. His social views are largely liberal, and he supports France’s secular society; he has said, however, that Muslim head scarves should not be banned at universities.

Jean-Luc Melenchon

In recent days, Melenchon, a 65-year-old admirer of Mao Zedong and Hugo Chavez, has been biting at the heels of Macron and Le Pen. His views are so far left that some worry he is an undercover communist. He would like to see a huge increase in public spending, he is skeptical of the EU, and he proposes France leave NATO. This is not his first rodeo; Melenchon ran in 2012, capturing 11 percent of the vote. But with his competitors stalling, and as France, like much of the rest of the West, seeks radical solutions, his star is on the rise.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the Top Contenders in France’s Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Seoul on Sunday, a day after North Korea is expected to test a nuclear missile. The U.S. military recently threatened a preemptive strike to thwart the North’s nuclear ambitions. The first stop on a 10-day Asia trip–which includes stops in Tokyo, Jakarta, and Sydney–Pence is expected to discuss the North’s latest provocations with South Korean officials. Trade will also be on the agenda.

Pyongyang recently threatened to conduct its sixth nuclear test in a decade, rising tensions–and the odds of a military confrontation–to the highest levels in recent years. Its threat carries added weight because of Saturday’s “Day of the Sun” celebration, which commemorates its late founder Kim Il-Sung’s 105th birthday. North Korea, which has inched closer to developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the coastal U.S., commonly engages in military posturing on its founder’s birthday.

A senior White House foreign policy adviser said on Thursday that Pence will address North Korea’s latest provocations with South Korean officials on Monday. “We’re going to consult with the Republic of Korea on North Korea’s efforts to advance its ballistic missile and its nuclear program,” the adviser said. Referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the adviser added: “Unfortunately, it’s not a new surprise for us. He continues to develop this program, he continues to launch missiles into the Sea of Japan.”

The U.S. is prepared to take a preemptive strike against the North’s nuclear sites, the adviser and other officials said. Earlier this week, in a show of force, the military sent aircraft carrier Carl Vinson toward the Korean peninsula. Two destroyers, one a mere 300 miles from a North Korean nuclear site, were also recently shipped to the area.

North Korea recently warned of a “big event” for this weekend’s ceremony. On Thursday, it released a statement that promised a “merciless retaliatory strike” for any U.S. attack. Trump has reportedly reached out to Chinese President Xi Jinping a few times since their meeting last week, imploring him to corral Kim’s nuclear buildup. China, the North’s biggest trading partner and the crutch that keeps its economy afloat, has so far shown little appetite for pulling the plug on North Korea.

Meanwhile, North Korea has shown no signs of backing down. In its statement released Thursday, it warned: “By relentlessly bringing in a number of strategic nuclear assets to the Korean peninsula, the U.S. is gravely threatening the peace and safety and driving the situation to the brink of a nuclear war.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mike Pence Heads to Seoul as Military Clash with North Korea Looms appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in wartime on an ISIS target in Afghanistan, says a Pentagon spokesman. The GBU-43/B, or Massive Ordnance Air Bomb, is often referred to as the “Mother of All Bombs,” likely due to its acronym. The name seems fitting considering it weighs about 21,600 pounds. The bomb’s target was a ISIS cave and tunnel complex in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in the northeastern part of the country.

According to U.S. officials, the bomb was developed during the Iraq war but this is the first time it has ever been used on the battlefield. It was dropped from an airplane around 7 p.m. local time. The bomb is designed to explode in the air above its target and the overpressure crushes tunnels below it and everything in them. This could make it very difficult to determine if there was any civilian casualties.

Just dropped a MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan. Massive Ordnance Air Blast is a concussive bomb … the father of all bombs (nonnuclear). pic.twitter.com/fW5UE1r2QA

— Saman Arbabi (@SamanArbabi) April 13, 2017

The bomb focused on the underground tunnels that ISIS fighters use to move around freely in the area.

“The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction” to the militants, said a statement from Pentagon.

The bombing comes just five days after Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, a 37-year-old Green Beret from Maryland, was killed in combat with ISIS in the same province. He was the first American service member killed in combat this year in Afghanistan. President Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he would “bomb the s**t” out of ISIS, and Thursday’s strike seems to have done exactly that. But many people were confused about why an 11-ton bomb was needed.

Was use strategically necessary? Most efficient and effective option? Did it accomplish objective? Was there collateral harm?

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) April 13, 2017

Another U.S. airstrike Thursday targeting ISIS killed 18 Syrian rebel fighters allied with the United States. The strike marks the third time in just a month that U.S. forces have accidentally hit allies or civilians. The Pentagon is already investigating two earlier airstrikes that hit a mosque complex in Syria and a building in Mosul that both killed several civilians.

Now many people are questioning what the White House’s policy for the Middle East really is, and whether President Trump just wants to show off his powers and “play war.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drops One of the Largest Non-Nuclear Bombs in the World on ISIS Target appeared first on Law Street.

The Associated Press has reviewed 12 years of United Nations aid missions and found that peacekeepers have repeatedly sexually abused children, in some cases as young as 12 years old. While allegations to this effect have been known for a while, new reports show the issue is significantly more prevalent than previously believed. AP found almost 2,000 cases of alleged sexual abuse by peacekeepers and other UN personnel around the world. And even though more than 300 cases involve children, it’s difficult to prosecute these crimes.

Legally, the UN can’t do anything, as it doesn’t have jurisdiction over individual peacekeepers. It’s up to each country to punish its own troops, and it seems no one has an interest in doing that. AP reached out to 23 countries whose nationals are accused of sexual abuse, and few answered. The names of the accused were also classified, making it impossible to find out whether there was any punishment. A review of UN reports also showed a number of inconsistencies.

In Haiti, 134 peacekeepers from Sri Lanka sexually abused at least nine children between 2004 and 2007 in exchange for food, juice, or small amounts of money. Some of them were forced to have sex with the men several times a day for years. Eventually, 114 of the peacekeepers were sent home, but not one of them was arrested. UN workers are protected by diplomatic immunity and besides, their home countries often don’t want to make their bad behavior public.

.@AP finds U.N. peacekeepers ran child sex ring in Haiti. https://t.co/vauMSkYKv4 pic.twitter.com/poLAvSTutC

— The Associated Press (@AP) April 12, 2017

Antonio Guterres, who took over as UN Secretary General in January, announced in March the organization’s new guidelines for dealing with sexual abuse. “Certainly no person serving with the United Nations in any capacity should be associated with such vile and vicious crimes,” he said. He noted that gender equality is fundamental to tackling sexual crimes and said that promoting equality for all UN workers can help fight abuse of women. But for many, these promises are just hollow words. Similar efforts have been rolled out before to no avail.

As it’s difficult to punish the men guilty of these crimes, many have wondered whether the UN is doing more harm than good. When Nepalese aid workers brought cholera to Haiti, around 10,000 people died. Haitian lawyer Mario Joseph tried to get compensation for the victims from the UN and is now trying to get child support for the women that were left pregnant by UN workers and are living in poverty. “Imagine if the U.N. was going to the United States and raping children and bringing cholera. Human rights aren’t just for rich white people,” he said.

.@AP Despite this the UN is unable to punish those peacekeepers – it must leave that to “the countries that contribute the troops”. Unbelievable

— Peter Yeung (@ptr_yeung) April 12, 2017

A Haitian woman said she was 16 when she was raped at gunpoint by a Brazilian peacekeeper three years ago. In 2011, four Uruguayan peacekeepers filmed their gang rape of a teenager–the only response Uruguayan officials gave at the time was that it was a prank and not rape. In 2012, three Pakistani peacekeepers raped a mentally disabled 13-year-old boy and later abducted him to prevent him from talking to UN investigators. The list of victims goes on and on.

As long as there is no accountability for the member states of the United Nations and no international consensus on how to deal with these issues, it’s tough to imagine a solution. But Guterres is correct in pointing out that education about gender equality is vital. Many of the alleged abusers came from countries that are notorious for gender inequality. The most recent abusers came from Bangladesh, Brazil, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uruguay, and Sri Lanka, according to UN data.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UN Peacekeepers Allegedly Sexually Abused Children, Never Saw Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, reports came out stating that over a hundred gay men had recently gone missing in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe. The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta claimed that gay men had been “illegally detained, beaten, tortured with electric shocks” by officials. They were then allegedly locked up in secret prisons, including one former military facility. Now several media outlets have referred to these prisons as de facto concentration camps, after claims that inhabitants are regularly tortured and killed.

Though the exact situation is hard to glean, and proof would be hard to obtain, what is clear is that Chechen officials have a problem with gay people. The official response to the accusations is baffling–a spokesperson for the republic’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov said that the reports were “absolute lies and disinformation,” not because he condemned the atrocity of the reports, but because he claimed there are no gay people in Chechnya. “You cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist in the republic,” he told the Interfax news agency.

He also claimed that had there been “such people” in Chechnya, their families and relatives would already have sent them “somewhere from which there is no returning.” Chechnya is a strictly conservative region and the majority of occupants are Sunni Muslims. Kadyrov has been criticized previously for forcing women to wear hijabs in public places, encouraging polygamy, and starting two conflicts.

Reports Say That Gay Men Are Being Held in Concentration Camps in Chechnya https://t.co/E5orv8yzKV pic.twitter.com/l1Qh5josHX

— The Mary Sue (@TheMarySue) April 10, 2017

Human Rights Watch says the group has received information from reliable sources, including sources “on the ground,” that corroborates the information about detentions and torture. In a statement on its website, the group’s Russia Program Director Tanya Lokshina says that the number of sources and consistency of the stories leave her with no doubt that they are true. However, she wrote, she couldn’t reveal any details about the sources’ stories, for fear of repercussion against them.

People reacted strongly to the news and many questioned why this subject isn’t being given more attention.

Kadyrov denying gay concentration camps in Chechnya by saying ‘those people don’t exist in the republic’ is terrifying. Talk about this. pic.twitter.com/zs9yyxsqNo

— Meg V. Jones (@ItsMegNotMegan) April 11, 2017

What’s happening in #Chechnya today is literally what the Nazis did. Rounding up, torturing, and killing gay people. It’s abhorrent

— Ferenc G. Koszorus (@fgkoszorus) April 11, 2017

I’m calling on @nikkihaley to speak up against the reported #LGBTQ concentration camps in Chechnya. RT to join me. https://t.co/NM05ag67fA

— Sarah Kate Ellis (@sarahkateellis) April 11, 2017

A spokesman for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said that the government would look into the matter, but didn’t provide any details about what would be done. He also suggested that any individuals that have suffered abuses should file a complaint and go to court. But that would be basically impossible to do in Chechnya. Lokshina from Human Rights Watch says,

These days, very few people in Chechnya dare speak to human rights monitors or journalists even anonymously because the climate of fear is overwhelming and people have been largely intimidated into silence. Filing an official complaint against local security officials is extremely dangerous, as retaliation by local authorities is practically inevitable.

One of the harrowing accounts explains how a man was beaten with a hose and tortured with electricity to confess that he was gay. He said he was locked in a room with 30 others and that security officials told him the crackdown orders came from the republic’s leaders. Gay people are also sometimes shunned and killed by their own families in Chechnya.

Gay men have reportedly started fleeing the region and deleting their social media accounts. For now the outlook is grim, but at least an LGBT group in St. Petersburg, where the gay community is relatively strong, has set up an anonymous hotline that gay Chechens can call if they need help.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reports Claim that Chechnya Has Created Gay Concentration Camps appeared first on Law Street.

As tensions on the Korean peninsula continue to heat up, Chinese and South Korean officials met in Seoul on Monday and agreed to strengthen sanctions on North Korea if the state continues to carry out nuclear tests. As the two parties finalized the agreement, South Korea had to respond to news that the United States Navy dispatched a strike group to the Korean peninsula. Many in the region, and throughout the world, fear the U.S. strike force might exacerbate an already fractious situation.

The Chinese-Korean agreement on sanctions comes just before a busy period on the North Korean calendar. April 15 marks the beginning of the country’s most important holiday. The “Day of the Sun,” which actually involves three days, commemorates the birth of the country’s founder and first president Kim Il Sung. April 21 honors the birth of Kim Il Sung’s mother and April 25 is Military Foundation Day. The fear is that April’s festivities could motivate Kim Jong Un to order another round of missile tests as a show of national strength. The Chinese and South Koreans hope their threat is enough to discourage any holiday testing.

North Korea has few international allies and is heavily reliant on its diplomatic and economic relationship with China. While China’s agreement with South Korea will not go unnoticed above the 38th parallel, North Korea rarely demonstrates the kind of obedience China might expect from its dependent client state.

North Korea has a long history of shirking China’s wishes in favor of its own agenda. In the past, China was often willing to fund the regime and look the other way whenever North Korea misbehaved because it acted as a strategic buffer with South Korea and, by extension, the United States. While China publicly opposed North Korea’s efforts to obtain nuclear weaponry, Chinese trade with, and aid to, North Korea remained largely the static after Kim Jong Il ordered the country’s first round of tests in 2009. However, this dynamic may be shifting.

The relationship between the two countries seems to have deteriorated since Kim Jong Un ascended to power. Kim Jong Il visited China seven times in the last 11 years of his life, while Kim Jong Un has yet to meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Many believe the Chinese President firmly dislikes the Supreme Leader. Recent talks between China and South Korea could accelerate the growing rift between China and North Korea. China may soon be unwilling to forgive a North Korean state headed by a leader who it does not trust.

While it is unclear whether regional pressure will be enough to prevent more North Korean tests, Chinese and South Korean negotiators would have certainly preferred it if the United States had not sent a naval strike group to the region. South Korea’s chief nuclear envoy Kim Hong-kyun said that the two countries did not discuss the possibility of an American strike on North Korea, but President Trump’s snap decision to bomb a Syrian air base late last Thursday, as well as recent statements by both Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have put many on alert.

Even if the fleet’s deployment was a symbolic display of power, there is a good chance the simple presence of a U.S. strike force will make matters worse. Whereas Kim Jong Un may have considered standing down in the face of Chinese sanctions, the arrival of a U.S. naval fleet could push him to order more tests.

Although China appears increasingly frustrated with Kim Jong Un, it is not yet willing to take actions that might threaten the future of the Kim dynasty or the North Korea state. Meanwhile, the United States is taking steps that are unbeknownst to those in the region, including South Korea. The international community is at least cursorily united against Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions but has yet to form a combined front. The messy and disjointed way in which international actors are approaching North Korea may well rile up Kim Jong Un and push him to lash out.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nuclear North Korea: Can China, South Korea, and the U.S. Unite? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, some Arabs praised President Donald Trump on social media after his attack on Syria. On Thursday night, Trump authorized America’s first direct military action against Syria, in retaliation for the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack against its own people. It was an unexpected move that brought forth condemnation from Russia, praise from fellow Republicans, and a whole host of other reactions worldwide.

Many Arab social media users called Trump Abu Ivanka–“Father of Ivanka.” The nickname is a sign of respect and endearment. Some also referred to him as Abu Ivanka al-Amreeki–Father of Ivanka the American, and photoshopped a picture of him so that it looked like he had a full beard.

More Abu Ivanka al Amreeki hilarity from Syrian friends pic.twitter.com/j72ewXjIiJ

— Kareem Shaheen (@kshaheen) April 7, 2017

One Facebook user gave Trump another kind of makeover wearing a traditional tarboosh hat and wrote, “We love you.” Another one called him a “man of his words” and said that he managed to do what Obama couldn’t in eight years.

Arabs thank President Trump for airstrikes & give him new nickname: Abu Ivanka Al-Amreeki. https://t.co/hjwug8BVEi @BBCWorld pic.twitter.com/V0Vc7m1LDo

— Tara Hamawandi (@TaraHamawandi) April 7, 2017

It may seem bizarre that many people in majority Muslim countries are praising Trump after he announced a ban on Muslim refugees and immigrants. But U.S. allies across the Middle East that were angered when Obama didn’t act more forcefully against Iran to limit its nuclear program or stand against the Syrian government now may see Trump as a more decisive leader.

Many lavished Trump with praise, seemingly with the hope that this marks a shift in the U.S. approach to the conflict in Syria. Israel was also complimentary. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Trump’s actions would send a “message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions.” However, U.S. officials have not indicated the missile launch is a part of a bigger program–instead the move may just be considered a warning.

“People are jubilant in the Gulf right now,” said Saudi-Arabian Mohammed Alyahya, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, to the New York Times.  “What is clear is that Trump understands what American power can change and is willing to use it.”

“Everyone here in Khan Sheikhoun is happy. It is revenge for the families of the victims,” said Yasser Sarmini, a rebel fighter in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun that was hit by the latest chemical attack.

However, despite an unusual amount of international support for Trump, many people also criticized his actions. One blogger named Karl Sharro wrote that Trump, in the true tradition of U.S: politics, had discovered that when things go wrong at home you can always “start a military venture in the Middle East.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Receives Some International Praise After Syria Attack appeared first on Law Street.

During his four years as president, Nicolás Maduro has faced an ever-growing political opposition and has become the focal point of near constant anti-government protests. On March 29, Venezuela’s pro-government Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the majority-opposition legislature and absorb its powers. Though the high court softened its decision after an intense backlash, anti-government protesters continue to flock to the streets of Caracas and cities across Venezuela in opposition to what they are calling a coup d’état. Although the opposition is growing louder, larger, and more determined, Maduro is intent on keeping power at all costs. The current conditions have been long in the making and it is unclear what lies ahead.

Hugo Chávez and Oil

By most estimates, Venezuela has the largest discovered crude oil reserves in the world. For decades, the Venezuelan economy has depended on the exports of this single commodity. When Hugo Chávez rose to power in 1998, world oil prices were high and the economy was booming. Chávez used the profits generated by Venezuela’s nationalized oil industry to build a country with his socialist vision. Under his rule, social spending increased and many felt that Chávez more than lived up to his promises of a socialist society. Chávez famously launched an initiative in 2011 to provide over one million houses to families in need.

In spite of his promise to defy capitalism and imperialism, Chávez’s undiversified and commodity-based economy was always at the mercy of international markets. After hitting an all time high in July 2008, oil prices crashed in January 2009, putting the Venezuelan economy under immense pressure. However, although Chávez’s approval rating did suffer slightly, he retained popular support and his mandate was rarely in doubt. In tough times, Chávez’s cult of personality guaranteed him a certain amount of unconditional support and there was no one who could mount a realistic challenge against him.

Maduro’s Rise

Nicolás Maduro took over the United Socialist Party (PSUV) upon Chávez’s death in March 2013 and won a special election the following month. Maduro’s surprisingly narrow victory suggested he would never have the kind of support that his predecessor had enjoyed. Venezuela’s economy had been flagging long before Maduro took over; soaring inflation rates and a dependency on imported consumer goods had resulted in widespread shortages. However, without Chávez at the helm, Venezuelans appeared far less willing to turn a blind eye. Though Maduro promised to continue the Chávez legacy, he would never be able replace the revolutionary figure.

In January 2014, anti-government demonstrations gained traction after a violent government response to initial demonstrations caused matters to escalate. In May 2014, oil prices crashed and the situation went from bad to worse. Already struggling in the polls, Maduro’s approval rating plummeted below 25 percent. Protests continued to rage, and in March 2015, the National Assembly finally granted him permission to rule by decree.

Political Resistance

In spite of Maduro’s move to expand his power, the political resistance continued to mount. In December 2015, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable Party (MUD) took control of the National Assembly for the first time in more than 16 years of PSUV rule. MUD controlled 112 (67 percent) of the legislature’s 167 seats–a supermajority that granted deputies expanded powers over Maduro’s executive branch.

While Maduro initially accepted the results, the loyalist Supreme Court ruled to block three newly elected MUD lawmakers from taking office, citing electoral irregularities. The ruling, which was handed down a week before the deputies were set to meet for their first session, was seen by opposition politicians as a blatant attempt to dismantle the supermajority. The MUD-controlled National Assembly ignored the ruling and swore the deputies in. It was this act of defiance that compelled the court to dissolve the National Assembly and hand control of the country back to Maduro and the PSUV on March 29.

While the ruling effectively restored Maduro’s control over Venezuela’s three branches of government, it in no way restored his control over the country. On the day of the ruling, protestors amassed outside the court. In response to the outcry, the Supreme Court revised the contentious decision last Saturday. While it seems the Supreme Court will no longer take over the legislature’s power to enact legislation, the ruling was not reversed. The legislature has still been ruled to be in contempt of the court and may not be allowed to pass new laws. Unsurprisingly, this revision has done little to quell the opposition. Protests continue to rage and have since turned violent.

While there are signs that Maduro could lose the faith of some high-ranking PSUV members and face a challenge from inside the party, it seems unlikely the party will turn on him just yet. Maduro is intent on expanding his powers, while an ever-increasing number of Venezuelans are adamantly opposed to his leadership.

Maduro would almost certainly lose a free and fair election–scheduled for October 2018–but any number of things could happen before then. Long-standing tensions have reached a point where some fear a civil war may be imminent.

Under Chávez, the PSUV dominated every aspect of Venezuelan politics. While critics often called Chávez a dictator and decried his authoritarian style, the popular support for the socialist leader was undeniable. Maduro, the heir to Chávez’s throne, does not enjoy this level of popularity. Maduro is simply incapable of filling the seat Chávez left behind. Many of the systemic issues that plague Venezuela pre-date Maduro’s presidency, but his approach to the role has only aggravated an already disgruntled, disenfranchised, and disenchanted public.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Turmoil in Venezuela: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

He is often caricatured as an iron-fisted, shirtless, horseback-riding, murderous regime-supporting paragon of machismo. But Russians also have a sense of humor. So in 2013, during gay rights protests, an image of Russian President Vladimir Putin made up as a clown with mascara, long eyelashes, and lipstick became a popular symbol of resistance.

On Wednesday, Russia officially banned the image, calling it a form of “extremism.” It is illegal to share the image on the internet, because it implies “the supposed nonstandard sexual orientation of the president of the Russian Federation.” Naturally, Twitter had a field day:

Sharing this illegal picture of Putin as a gay clown. #ThingsIWontApologizeFor pic.twitter.com/KiaIbJW6nX

— Allensaurus Rex (@allenrw81) April 6, 2017

Oh no! It’s Putin the Gay Clown!!! Why doesn’t Putin like this image, he looks so pretty!#theresistance #russiagate pic.twitter.com/dVf75py21c

— Queen du Tout (@Gravityisback1) April 6, 2017

It is now illegal in Russia to share an image of Putin as a gay clown.

Guess what motherf*ucker America is still a free nation… for now. pic.twitter.com/xsG0Nma7KA

— Impeach Donald Trump (@Impeach_D_Trump) April 6, 2017

In the summer of 2013, Russians took to the streets to protest Russia’s homophobic laws and repression of the gay community. Wielding the Putin-as-a-pretty-clown meme, protesters opposed Russia’s new laws banning the propagandizing “nontraditional sexual relations” to children. Russian officials beat and arrested scores of protesters.

The LGBT community in Russia suffers from a variety of oppressive, draconian laws. In January 2015, a law passed that made it illegal for transgender people, or others with “disorders,” to operate a vehicle. In October of that year, the Russian government proposed a law that would deem public displays of non-heterosexual orientation–kissing or holding hands, for instance–a criminal act.

While the new Kremlin directive does not explicitly name a single image, it casts a wide net, banning pictures of a Putin-like figure “with eyes and lips made up.” One Russian news outlet suspects a meme of Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, both with make up, clutching a bouquet of flowers, is the banned image:

В РФ признали экстремистским плакат с накрашенными Путиным и Медведевым https://t.co/HhJvROd6Bl

— Gordonua.com (@Gordonuacom) April 5, 2017

To clear up any confusion, this Twitter user compiled all of the potentially banned images in one handy tweet:

Did anyone get the meme-o on which gay-clown images #Putin has banned in Russia? Was it any of these? #stophomophobia pic.twitter.com/ljrUm7Pmo8

— Jason ’Toole (@jayrotoole) April 6, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Outlaws Images Depicting Putin as a Gay-Friendly Clown appeared first on Law Street.

Gibraltar, British Overseas Territory in Spain’s southernmost tip, could prove a sticking point in the UK’s exit negotiations with the European Union. Over the weekend, European Council President Donald Tusk published a letter containing the bloc’s guidelines for the split with Britain, or Brexit, a process that could take as long as two years. The letter contains a passage that quickly angered the British government and the leader of Gibraltar, which Britain captured in 1704:

After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the UK may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the kingdom of Spain and the UK.

In the days since the letter’s publication, the governments of Britain and Gibraltar reacted strongly to the EU’s concession to Spain, which is an EU member. In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Gibraltar’s chief minister, Fabian Picardo, said the passage was “clear Spanish bullying.” He added that Tusk “is behaving like a cuckolded husband who is taking it out on the children.”

The spat has even led a former MP to suggest that British Prime Minister Theresa May was willing to go to war to defend the territory of 30,000 people. In response to the strong reactions, Spain’s Foreign Minister Alfonso Dastis said his government “is a little surprised by the tone of comments coming out of Britain, a country known for its composure.” But May insists there will be no military conflict, and that further negotiations will smooth out any concerns. “We want to negotiate the best possible deal for the UK and the best possible deal for Gibraltar,” she said.

Britain’s exit from the EU, which 52 percent of the country supported in last June’s referendum, officially began last week, when May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Many expect the divorce to be a painful one, and Britain’s waning influence in Europe was evident with Tusk’s mention of Gibraltar in his guidelines for the split.

Gibraltar overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU (98 percent), but it has also repelled Spanish attempts at governing the “Rock,” as it’s affectionally nicknamed. In a 2002 referendum, 98 percent of the populace voted against a proposal for joint British-Spanish sovereignty. According to British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, a vocal proponent of the Leave campaign last summer, the territory’s status will not change anytime soon. “The sovereignty of Gibraltar is unchanged and is not going to change,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Gibraltar Derail the Brexit Negotiations? appeared first on Law Street.

On March 3, the State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and its pointed critique of India’s human rights record has raised some eyebrows. The report is particularly critical of India’s history of state violence and the country’s criminal justice system in general. While one might expect the State Department’s findings to influence talks during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impending visit to Washington, the matter will likely be ignored.

Accusations of State Violence

“Instances of police and security force abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape; corruption” are cited as the most significant examples of human rights violations in India. While an investigation by India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed examples of arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings throughout the country, the State Department report said, data from the Institute for Conflict Management suggests a concentration of killings in northern states, particularly along the Indian-Pakistani border.

While state violence is identified as a primary concern, injustices are believed to extend to almost every aspect of India’s criminal justice system. Here are some examples:

• According to the report, police and government officials have consistently denied claims of hundreds of unresolved disappearances, and have supposedly demanded bribes from people hoping to learn whether or not their family members are currently detained.
• According to the National Law University in Delhi, 216 of the 270 death row inmates they interviewed had been tortured.
• Investigations by NHRC revealed numerous cases in which police officers raped detainees and NGOs argued the government agency underestimated the figures.
• Research indicates that activists and “economically vulnerable” people are at a much greater risk of being arbitrarily detained and subjected to cruelty. Torture is often used to force false confessions.
• Judicial corruption is believe to be widespread and, according to the Supreme Court, 43 percent of the country’s high court positions are vacant.

The report suggests India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is a major contributing factor to state violence and arbitrary detention. Though there are multiple iterations, the act grants security forces special powers in areas the government has determined to be “disturbed.” These “special powers” include, but are not limited to, the right to use deadly force against anyone who is in violation of the law, and to arrest anyone “who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence” without a warrant.

Security forces also have the right to enter and search property without a warrant. While there are numerous Islamic and Maoist insurgent groups operating in the “disturbed areas,” critics argue the decades-long enforcement of AFSPA has only escalated violence carried out by the government with impunity.

A White House Response?

In a press briefing on Friday about the upcoming visits of the leaders of Jordan and Egypt, a senior White House official said that human rights were “first and foremost in our discussions [with foreign leaders],” but that the Trump Administration plans on approaching “these types of sensitive issues in a private, more discreet way.” This approach however, makes it difficult for the public to know whether matters of human rights are discussed with foreign leaders at all. If existing information is anything to go by, trade, not human rights, will be the topic of choice during Modi’s visit.

By all accounts, President Donald Trump and Modi enjoy a warm relationship. Five days after his inauguration, Trump called the prime minister, expressed his support for Modi’s economic reforms, and invited Modi to the White House. Trump called Modi again last Tuesday to congratulate him on his party’s victories in state-level elections. After the call, the White House confirmed Modi would be visiting Washington sometime this year. No date has been set.

When Trump called Modi in January, “the two discussed opportunities to strengthen the partnership between the US and India in broad areas such as the economy and defense,” according to the White House. While campaigning, Trump expressed support for Modi’s plan for economic growth. In an interview with The Times of India, former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns suggested that a bilateral investment treaty would likely be a priority for both countries when Modi visits. It is safe to assume that the topic of trade will take precedence in any upcoming discussions between the U.S. and India.

Trump is unlikely to address the matter of human rights, even “in a private, more discreet” setting. After the two leaders spoke in January, a Trump spokesperson noted that they had agreed to “stand shoulder to shoulder in the global fight against terrorism.” India has long used terrorism as the justification for AFSPA and state violence at large. In spite of the fact that the State Department identified state violence as one of the most flagrant examples of human rights violations in India, the “law and order president” is unlikely to condemn the hardline policies believed to be motivating the violence.

While the scathing human rights report carries Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s signature, the endorsement is only a formality. Trade will likely be at the forefront during Modi’s visit and any future discussions between the two countries.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump Mention India’s Human Rights Abuses in His Meeting with Narendra Modi? appeared first on Law Street.

In his first visit to Turkey as America’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson zeroed in on the country’s vital role in supporting the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He largely skirted the more divisive issues, such as Turkey’s concern for the U.S. backing of Kurdish fighters in the region, a potential flashpoint that could endanger the relationship: Turkey views the Kurdish fighters as terrorists. Tillerson did say that “difficult choices” have to be made.

“We look to Turkey as a key partner for stabilization effort in areas once held by ISIS and for ensuring our NGO and UN partners can continue to provide humanitarian relief services inside and outside of Syria,” Tillerson said in a press conference in Ankara, the capital, on Thursday. “We commend Turkey for its efforts to find a peaceful solution to the nearly six-year Syrian conflict.”

The U.S. leans heavily on its NATO ally in the battle against ISIS on two fronts–in Mosul, Iraq and the group’s de facto capital in Raqqa, Syria. For one, U.S. airstrikes in Syria are launched from the Incirlik Air Base, not far from Turkey’s southern border with Syria. But it’s the most potent fighting force on the ground, the Kurds, that could create a wedge in the U.S.-Turkey partnership.

Known as the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Kurdish militia benefits from generous U.S. support, both financially and militarily. But Turkey sees the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which it designates a terrorist group. Still, Tillerson pledged there is “no space between Turkey and the United States in our commitment to defeat” ISIS.

This week presented another challenge to the relationship. A day before Tillerson’s visit, Turkish officials alleged that the U.S., in the days following last July’s coup attempt, contacted one of the suspected architects of the plot, Adil Oksuz. The U.S. Embassy in Ankara claims it called Oksuz to alert him that, at the behest of Turkish authorities, his visa had been revoked. Turkey was unconvinced of that explanation. “We are expecting better cooperation,” said Tillerson’s Turkish counterpart, Mevlut Cavusoglu.

In the land of conspiracy theories, the allegation did little to placate Turkey’s fears that the U.S. had a hand in the deadly coup attempt. Furthering Turkey’s suspicions, Fethullah Gulen, the Muslim cleric and former politician that Ankara is convinced orchestrated the coup, lives in Pennsylvania. Turkey has repeatedly called on the U.S. to extradite Gulen, but the U.S. has refused to do so, saying there is not sufficient evidence of his alleged crimes.

Turkey’s relationships with other western allies, like the Netherlands and Germany, have also frayed in recent weeks. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan–whose crackdowns on the press and political dissidents after the July coup has worried leaders around the world–is attempting to expand his powers in a referendum next month.

His campaign has spilled into Europe, where millions of Turks live and are able to vote in the referendum. But the Netherlands, Germany, and others have barred Turkish ministers from traveling to Europe to drum up support for the referendum; Erdogan has likened the European leaders to Nazis. Tillerson left Turkey without a mention, publicly at least, of Erdogan’s escapades in Europe, and his tightening grip at home.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rex Tillerson Faces a Tall Task with his First Visit to Turkey appeared first on Law Street.

Paraguay’s Senate recently took a step toward amending a constitutional rule that restricts presidents from holding more than one five-year term in office. President Horacio Cartes has long been pushing for the amendment and has formed a pluralistic coalition with some of his traditional political rivals.

Nonetheless, many in Paraguay’s Congress and a vast majority of the public oppose the amendment for fear that it might allow yet another dictatorship to take hold of the country. While unpopular, the amendment seems inevitable, though the political consequences of the change are unknown.

Of Paraguay’s 45 senators, 25 met for Tuesday’s charged special session in which they pushed through procedural changes that will make it easier to amend the constitution. President of the Senate Roberto Acevedo was not present at the meeting. Instead, a pro-Cartes senator took to the microphone, declared himself Senate President, and called for a vote.

By a show of hands, legislators lowered the number of votes needed before proposals could be put before Congress and restricted the Senate President’s power to strike down legislation. These procedural changes come seven months after the legislature successfully defeated a bill that would have ended the one-term limit.

As legislators met inside the El Cabildo, Paraguay’s congressional building, riot police mobilized outside and protesters amassed in the streets. Numerous politicians, including many from the president’s own Colorado Party, denounced the proposed amendment as well as the irregular means by which legislators have pursued the proposal.

Paraguay’s Catholic Bishops came out against the Senate’s vote, arguing it demonstrated an “absolute lack of consideration and respect for the democratic institution.” Though the clergymen urged Paraguayans to “reflect, calmly and reasonably, on what happened,” many fear the country might once again fall under dictatorial rule. This concern is justified considering Paraguay’s history with authoritarian rule.

A New Era of Dictatorship?

After regaining power from the Liberal Party in 1947, the Colorado Party ruled Paraguay as a one-party dictatorship for six decades. While opposition parties were technically legalized in 1962, Alfredo Stroessner led the party and country as a military dictator until 1989, when a faction of the Colorado Party staged a coup and implemented reforms.

In spite of these reforms, the right-wing party retained power for another two decades until Fernando Lugo won the presidency in 2008. Now, a Colorado president and the man who ended six decades of Colorado rule are working together to amend the constitution with the intention of facing off against one another in the 2018 elections.

The highly controversial battle does not fall along party lines. Supporters for the amendment include members from all three major parties. Pro-Cartes members of the right-wing Colorado Party have aligned with a faction of the center-right Liberal Party and the bulk of the center-left Frente Guasú party. Though this three-party coalition is working to pass the same constitutional amendment, their motivations differ.

The pro-Cartes faction of the Colorado Party hopes to see the current president re-elected. Some lawmakers in the Frente Guasú party want to amend the constitution so former President (and leader of Frente Guasú) Lugo can run against Cartes in 2018. Lugo was impeached in 2012, and under the current constitution, is barred from running again.

Despite its wide congressional support, the amendment is extremely unpopular among Paraguayans. A recent poll shows that 77 percent of Paraguayans oppose the amendment. Aside from the fact that many feel the government’s fixation with amending the constitution has distracted from more important issues, Paraguayans seem to recognize the term limit is intended to safeguard against the re-occurrence of a Stroessner-style regime.

Could Lugo Win Again?

Though the public overwhelmingly opposes the amendment, polls show that were the election held tomorrow, Lugo would win over 50 percent of the vote, while Cartes would win less than 12 percent. Lugo is the only candidate to defeat the Colorado Party in decades and remains popular with the electorate. Were Lugo to run in 2018, his win could potentially weaken the Colorado Party’s traditional hegemony and embolden voices opposed to the status quo.

While allowing Lugo to run again could help normalize the peaceful exchange of power between parties, the strength of the Colorado Party must not be underestimated. While Lugo won the presidency in 2008, he did not complete his term. A year before his term expired, Colorado and Liberal members of Congress formed a coalition and impeached Lugo. The conditions for his impeachment where somewhat dubious and many Latin American leaders condemned the decision. Unless Lugo’s Frente Guasú is able to secure a strong contingency in Congress, there is no guarantee that his prospective second term won’t end up like his first.

Recent developments seem to suggest a constitutional amendment allowing multiple terms is inevitable. While the amendment could see a popular opposition voice return to the highest office in the land, it may also reopen a door that was locked shut, bringing a new era of dictatorship to Paraguay.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Paraguay on the Verge of Becoming a Dictatorship? appeared first on Law Street.

At a convention center on the banks of the Jordan side of the Dead Sea on Wednesday, leaders of 21 Arab states reaffirmed their commitment to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 28th Arab League Summit had a simple, unifying message: ties with Israel will not be fully normalized until a peace deal with the Palestinians is reached.

As the Arab world deals with a coterie of conflicts–civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya; Islamic State and other terror groups; Iran’s proxy adventures and missile program–leaders showed the decades-old conflict still serves as a unifying force in the region.

The summit meeting comes as the Trump Administration mounts an aggressive campaign to strike a peace deal. President Donald Trump has not thrown his whole weight behind the two-state option, instead opting for whatever approach “both parties like.” And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has broadened his language as well; in recent speeches, he eschews the “two-state” label while still saying he supports peace.

Trump is set to meet with a trio of Arab leaders–Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas–in the coming weeks. Trump’s envoy for the conflict, Jason Greenblatt, was an observer at Wednesday’s gathering. A statement from the U.S. Embassy in Jordan said Greenblatt “listened to their views and ideas, and held a round of bilateral meetings with Arab leaders and other foreign delegations to discuss U.S. perspectives and policies.”

“He reaffirmed President Trump’s personal interest in achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and his belief that such a peace agreement is not only possible, but would reverberate positively throughout the region and the world,” the statement added.

Affirming their support for normalizing ties with Israel in exchange for a sovereign Palestinian state, the Arab leaders referenced the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for a future deal. That initiative calls for a “just and comprehensive peace,” including “full Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since” the Six Day War in 1967, in which Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem.

Israel has rejected the initiative, because it fails to recognize the Jewish people’s ties to east Jerusalem, which contains the religion’s holiest site, the Temple Mount complex. Jordan is a custodian of the fiercely contested site; Jews are currently allowed to visit, but not pray at the site. The initiative also failed to include land swaps for areas of the West Bank inhabited by Israeli settlers, which lay beyond the pre-1967 boundary, a condition Israel says is a pre-requisite for any peace deal.

But for Arab leaders, the West Bank settlements are illegal intrusions on Palestinian land. “Israel is continuing to expand settlements and undermining the chances of achieving peace,” Jordan’s Abdullah said at the summit. In their closing statement, the Arab leaders seemed to recognize the importance the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has for region as a whole, saying “peace is a strategic option” for Arab nations.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arab Leaders Throw Support Behind Two-State Solution for Israel-Palestine appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official: the process for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, known as Brexit, has begun. Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty Wednesday afternoon, starting a two-year window of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU. If two years pass without a deal, an unlikely but plausible scenario, Britain would not be allowed back in to the bloc, which now consists of 27 member states.

Britain’s ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow, hand delivered a letter, May’s official invocation of Article 50, to European Council President Donald Tusk in Brussels. The letter outlines the UK’s goals moving forward:

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats.

After receiving the six-page letter, Tusk said the goal moving forward for the EU is “to minimize the cost for EU citizens, businesses and member states.” Faced with the unenviable task of negotiating what is sure to be an uncomfortable divorce, Tusk added: “There is no need to pretend that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels or in London. After all most Europeans, including almost half the British voters, wish that we would stay together not drift apart.”

Within 48 hours, Tusk said, the European Council will draft guidelines for Britain’s withdrawal, effectively setting the parameters in which the negotiations will take place. In April or May, leaders from the remaining 27 EU states will meet to finalize the guidelines, after which negotiations will officially begin. Negotiations will feature a range of thorny issues, including immigration, the UK’s access to the EU trade market, and the status of EU citizens living in the UK.

A final agreement must pass two EU bodies before the separation can be chiseled in stone. First, the European Parliament, the bloc’s lawmaking arm, will vote. A simple majority is needed to advance the resolution to the Council of the European Union, where 20 of the 27 members must approve the agreement for it to pass.

According to a recent poll, the British public–at least in England, which decidedly voted “leave” in the June referendum–still supports the break with Europe. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said the Brexit should move forward, and 48 percent said that May has done a good job since the referendum. But not everyone is happy. Scotland, a semi-autonomous region of the UK for over 300 years, might seek a second referendum on its independence from the UK, chiefly because it would like to remain part of the EU. In fact, a majority of Scots–62 percent–voted to “remain” with the bloc.

Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon announced her intention to pursue a second independence referendum–in 2014, voters elected to remain a part of the UK–in a speech earlier this month. On Tuesday, the Scottish Parliament voted in favor of holding another referendum, but a vote cannot commence until the British Parliament supports it as well. May recently said that will not happen until the uncertain Brexit process is complete. May, in remarks after she triggered Article 50, articulated what all parties involved in the Brexit process likely are feeling: “This is a historic moment from which there can be no turning back,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May Triggers Article 50, Kicking Off Brexit Negotiations: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Prosecutors in Seoul said on Monday that they would pursue an arrest warrant for former South Korean President Park Geun-hye, who was unseated from office earlier this month by the Constitutional Court. The Seoul District Court will examine the prosecutors’ request in a hearing scheduled for Thursday morning. If the request is granted, Park, 65, would be the first president to be jailed since the 1990s, when the former military dictators Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were arrested on charges of sedition and mutiny.

Impeached in December and formally removed from office on March 10, Park is accused of bribery, extortion, and abuse of office. In a statement, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office said Park “abused the mighty power and position and president to take bribes from companies and infringed upon the freedom of corporate management and leaked important confidential official information.”

Last fall, hundreds of thousands across the country began demanding Park’s ouster, as she was accused of conspiring with her longtime friend Choi Soon-sil to extort millions of dollars from South Korea’s largest business conglomerates, including Samsung, in exchange for political favors. Choi, an unelected, largely secretive presence inside Park’s inner circle of advisers, is in custody, along with the Samsung executive Lee Jae-yong. Both are being investigated on charges of corruption.

Park has publicly apologized for the allegations against her, but has consistently denied any legal wrongdoing. The prosecutors’ office, in its statement on Monday, said “there is a danger of her destroying incriminating evidence if she is not arrested.”

As president, Park was immune from a criminal investigation, but now, as a private citizen, she does not enjoy the same protection. If the judge in Seoul grants the prosectors’ request, Park will be held behind bars for up to 20 days, during which time the prosecutors will continue the investigation. A spokesman for Park’s Liberty Korea Party called the prosecutors’ request for an arrest warrant “regrettable.” The main opposition faction, the Democracy Party, called it “historic.” An early election will take place on May 9.

South Korea is facing a critical time in its young democracy: North Korea is firing off ballistic missile tests every few weeks, and relations with China are declining because of a defense shield the U.S. began deploying to South Korea earlier this month. Beijing views the missile defense system, or THAAD, as a threat to its own missile program. Park, for her part, is steadfast in denying any wrongdoing. “It will take time, but I am sure that the truth will be known,” she said a few days after her ouster from office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Korean Prosecutors Seek Arrest Warrant for Former President Park Geun-hye appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of people fanned out across cities in Russia to protest corruption on Sunday, the largest public demonstrations in five years. Hundreds were arrested, including Russian and foreign journalists and scores of young people. While the protests broadly targeted government corruption, there were few direct displays of dissent against President Vladimir Putin, who throughout his nearly 17-year rule has kept a tight grip on protests and opposition.

From Vladivostok in the east to Kaliningrad in the west to Moscow, protesters waved Russian flags and wielded banners and signs, chanting: “Russia without Putin,” and, in Moscow, “this is our city.” A spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, called the protests a “provocation and a lie” and said young people were “promised financial rewards in the event of their detention by law enforcement agencies.”

Aleksei Navalny, an increasingly influential and strident opposition politician, called for the protests weeks ago. His Foundation for Fighting Corruption organized the demonstrations. Navalny, who ran for mayor of Moscow in 2013, was arrested in Moscow on Sunday while protesting. While some see him as a viable Putin opponent in the 2018 elections, he is widely expected to lose. In February, a Kremlin-backed court found him guilty of fraud (he denied the charge), further derailing his chances.

Unprecedented number of young Russians who’ve known no president but Putin came to protest him today. This looks like being the iconic shot pic.twitter.com/noRLeNNxDu

— max seddon (@maxseddon) March 26, 2017

Regardless of his political future, Navalny, who also helped organize the protests that followed tainted elections in 2011 and 2012, is hitting a nerve across the country. Sunday’s protests in Moscow were the most visible and received the harshest crackdown from authorities. Protesters were met with riot police and surveillance helicopters. The Moscow Police Department said “around 500” people were detained for an “unapproved public event.” A group that monitors arrests, OVD-info, said the number of arrests was closer to 1,000.

In the U.S., the White House response was muted; some lawmakers were vocal about the Kremlin’s swift response to the protests. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NB) said in a statement: “Putin’s thugocracy is on full display. The United States government cannot be silent about Russia’s crackdown on peaceful protesters. Free speech is what we’re all about and Americans expect our leaders to call out thugs who trample the basic human rights of speech, press, assembly and protest.”

And while President Donald Trump–who is currently under investigation by the House and the Senate for his communications with Russia during the election–was silent on the issue, Mark Toner, the acting spokesman for the State Department said the U.S. “strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout Russia on Sunday.” He added: “Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an affront to core democratic values.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hundreds Arrested in Anti-Corruption Protests Across Russia appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Stories of frostbitten immigrants crossing into remote, unmarked border towns this winter garnered international attention and set conservative Canadians on the warpath, demanding stricter regulation of the border. But the rise of illegal immigration has also led to calls for alterations to (and even the repeal of) the Safe Third Country Agreement, which states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in. Many immigrants who were hoping to seek shelter in the U.S. are crossing into Canada illegally because they believe their asylum claims will be denied in the U.S. but upheld in Canada. If the act was repealed or suspended, immigrants could request asylum at official border crossings and enter the country legally.

In the Justin Trudeau era, Americans tend to glamorize Canada as the last moral outpost on the continent but the nation is not quite the united front we assume it to be. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week, nearly half of respondents want to send illegal immigrants crossing the Canadian border back to the U.S. and a similar number of respondents disapprove of how the government is handling illegal immigration. The subsets that were most in favor of deportation were men, adults without a college degree, higher income individuals, and older individuals. This is by no means a perfect representation of Canadian attitudes. Yet in an era where xenophobia is encouraged and even enshrined by executive orders, it’s important to keep an eye on shifts in public opinion.

The U.S.-Canada border has historically been a “soft” one but as illegal immigration rates climb, Canada appears to be moving slowly toward a more hardline stance. Trudeau has defended proposed legislation that would allow U.S. customs agents to question, search, and detain Canadians on Canadian soil. Trudeau publicly stated in February that the government would not take steps to quell irregular migration–yet by giving more power to U.S. customs agents, he is essentially passing the buck. Policing the border is a cooperative effort between the two countries and if Trudeau steps away from that responsibility, he will be enabling the Trump Administration.

Trudeau met with Trump earlier this year in a carefully coordinated encounter that let Trudeau hold strong on all of his positions without actively attacking Trump. While it is diplomatic common sense not to antagonize an ally, Trudeau could take a stronger stand against the Trump Administration through legislative action–such as scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement. Trudeau has done outstanding work with the Syrian refugee population, striving to fast-track their entry into Canada so that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have now been granted asylum in Canada–but can he keep it up?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada appeared first on Law Street.

On March 29, Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50 and initiate the United Kingdom’s official withdrawal from the European Union. Once EU officials receive notice of the UK’s intention to leave, the two parties will be able to formally negotiate the terms under which it will leave, and how it will interact with the union going forward. Much has been made about the likelihood that EU negotiators will be keen to make an example of the United Kingdom so as to send a message to other member states who may be eyeing an exit. However, if Theresa May’s political history is anything to go by, a comprehensive split with the European Union will suit her government just fine.

Following the referendum, there was much debate over whether May’s government ought to pursue a “soft Brexit,” which would have allowed Britain to stay in the Common Market, or sever all existing ties with the European Economic Area and undertake a “hard Brexit.” Polls released the day before May’s speech on her plan to leave the EU showed that more Britons supported either remaining in the European Union or at least the Common Market. May ultimately committed to a “hard Brexit,” claiming that remaining within the single market “would, for all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all.”

Controlling immigration has long been the priority for the former Home Secretary, which is a key factor in why she was elevated from her position to prime minister in the wake of a referendum result that was largely motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. In the run up to the referendum, May backed the Remain campaign but her support was unenthusiastic; she rarely spoke in favor of EU membership. On a rare occasion May did speak, she still expressed her distaste for freedom of movement. During her time as home secretary, May put forward a number of hardline immigration policies that were criticized by many as being overtly harmful to immigrants and their families.

Considering May’s feelings on immigration, it is no surprise she opted to pursue a “hard Brexit” plan that would allow Britain to have absolute control over immigration policy. Wishing to avoid a domino-like collapse of the union, EU negotiators would have likely rejected a plan that allowed the UK to remain within the Common Market. However, considering that a “soft Brexit” would have carried provisions for the freedom of movement of people, it is unlikely May would have gone for these terms anyway.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are likely somewhat tense. Once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations begin, both sides will be trying to score political points. May’s government will hope to convince the British public and the world that the United Kingdom would be better off outside of the EU. The EU will be aiming to stem the tide of euro-skepticism by demonstrating value of EU membership and the cost that exiting the union incurs.

While the two parties have distinct goals, their plans for achieving their respective objectives appear to be largely the same: pursue a definitive break. In her speech announcing a “hard Brexit,” May declared that she would not be bullied by the EU claiming that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” In October, President François Hollande said that “there must be a price” for leaving the EU and that Britain cannot expect to “to enjoy supposed benefits [of EU membership] without downsides.”

Both the UK and the EU have drawn lines in the sand. As of now, a “hard Brexit” appears to be the mutually agreeable course of action, but only time will tell whether both, neither, or just one of the parties were well advised in pursuing such a conclusive break.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UK and EU Both Seem to Want a “Hard Brexit,” but for Different Reasons appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Mexican presidential hopeful Andrés Manuel López Obrador submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) accusing President Donald Trump of persecuting migrants. The petition could indicate a swelling international resistance to Trump.

In a press conference at the National Press Club, López Obrador and his team announced that the petition challenged Trump’s anti-immigration executive orders. While the petition lists 30 specific cases involving Mexican and Guatemalan citizens, López Obrador’s team claimed to be acting on behalf of immigrants around the world.

Signed by over 12,000 Mexican and American citizens, the petition will be placed under initial review. If the IACHR allows it proceed, the case could go before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, even if the court denounces the U.S., such a ruling would have little, if any, effect.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are components of the Organization of American States, and collectively uphold the American Convention on Human Rights. While the U.S. signed the convention in 1977, it did not ratify it. Therefore, the U.S. is under no legal obligation to accept rulings issued by the Inter-American Court. Furthermore, Trump has regularly expressed his contempt for international organizations and would most certainly dismiss any ruling that denounced his policies.

It is unlikely that López Obrador submitted the petition with the intention of mounting a genuine legal challenge. He will be well aware that U.S. is not beholden to IACHR rulings. However, by submitting the petition, the left-wing politician has cast himself as a determined political opponent of Trump. Though candidates for the Mexican presidential race are not expected to file until the summer, López Obrador has been working to drum up early support and currently leads opinion polls.

While the extremely unpopular Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto received an outpouring of support  after he canceled a meeting with Trump, his approval rating has since dropped to a record low. López Obrador is promising a platform that stands to the left of the president’s Institutional Revolutionary Party.

Speaking at the National Press Club, López Obrador said he was “disappointed” with how Peña Nieto handled early conversations with Trump. He accused the Mexican president of “submitting” to the U.S. by agreeing to avoid publicly discussing Trump’s proposed border wall and immigration policies. López Obrador declared that Mexico “is not a colony” and that the two countries “need a relationship based on respect not force.”

Riding the same wave of anti-establishment sentiment that propelled Trump to the White House, López Obrador is a refreshing alternative to many who are tired of the status quo. Though largely symbolic, López Obrador’s petition sends a clear statement of intent to both those in Mexico and those in the U.S.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican Presidential Hopeful López Obrador Accuses Trump of Human Rights Violations appeared first on Law Street.

Saudi Arabia marked the week following International Women’s Day with a historic event–the country’s first ever girls’ council, convened in the province of Qassim. The council is a small part of the sweeping Vision 2030 plan, a set of goals for the kingdom that includes creating a more tolerant and inclusive atmosphere for women. Yet the council has now become a viral joke rather than an important turning point for the country, after photos from the convening of the council revealed that it was entirely comprised of men.

Some women apparently do sit on the council, but the gender segregation codes of Saudi Arabia meant that they had to sit in a separate room, connected to the main conference by video link. In a country where women quite literally cannot get a seat at the table, what can the girls’ council accomplish?

Qassim Governor Prince Faisal bin Mishal bin Saud, who hosted the conference, framed the council as important because “we look at women as sisters to men.” This is far from a rallying cry for gender parity, but it may be the best we can expect from Saudi Arabia. Life for girls and women in the Kingdom is dictated entirely by their male guardians, who are able to control where they go, who they see, and what they do with virtually every moment of their day. Women are not treated as legal adults, which means even as progress slowly trickles into the country, they are still denied basic legal rights and protections.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, it is always wise to temper expectations and remember that the Vision 2030 goals may not actually be reached by 2030. Women’s rights are not the only issue on the table–poverty, youth unemployment, a lack of affordable housing and a clearly defined racial hierarchy that has been reinforced over the years by the wealthiest Saudi families preserving the status quo.

These civil rights issues are inextricably linked to the oil economy, which has concentrated wealth in certain pockets and has left the rest of the country out in the cold. Vision 2030’s mission requires an overhaul of every part of Saudi life–and it may be impossible to successfully implement the changes that must be made unless the government is willing to relax the ties between its extreme interpretation of religion and rule of law.

The Qassim girls’ council has already been turned into a meme, being compared to the photo of an all male Trump Administration team reinstating the Mexico City Policy (also known as the global gag rule) by executive order this year. Western news outlets picked up the images from Qassim, pointing out the absurdity of a girls’ council without any women present. Still, the criticism has not moved the Saudi organizers to change the make-up of the council or let the female advisers participate alongside their male counterparts.

I sincerely hope that the girls’ council does not fade into the background, and that it does receive the necessary funding and attention to advance gender equality. Yet, at this moment, it seems like a mere publicity stunt gone wrong: an attempt to showcase the Vision 2030 goals that revealed exactly how far Saudi Arabia still has to go.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Saudi Arabia Isn’t Going to Hit its 2030 Goal appeared first on Law Street.

Turkey on Tuesday warned it might impose economic sanctions against the Netherlands, as a diplomatic rift between the two countries intensifies. The ongoing spat comes at a time of political uncertainty for both countries: anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise in the Netherlands, which held an election on Wednesday, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan faces a referendum vote next month that could greatly expand his powers. Here is what you need to know about the deepening conflict, and what it could mean for the future.

Roots of the Conflict

Last weekend, Erdogan dispatched members of his cabinet to the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium, European countries with high numbers of Turkish migrants, to stir up support for next month’s referendum. A “yes” vote in the referendum would broaden his already considerable governing powers. Turkish ministers planned to fly to Rotterdam to give a speech to Turkish migrants living in the Netherlands, hoping to galvanize support for Erdogan in the weeks before the vote.

But on Saturday, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte blocked Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu from flying to Rotterdam. “This decision is a scandal and unacceptable in every way,” Cavusoglu said. Pro-Turkish protesters swarmed the country’s consulate in Rotterdam soon after, hurling stones and bottles; police were seen beating some protesters with batons. “To all Turks in the Netherlands who agree with Erdogan: Go to Turkey and NEVER come back!!” Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right candidate whose anti-Muslim rhetoric has influenced Dutch politics, tweeted on Saturday.

Rhetoric Heats Up

On Sunday, after the barring of Cavusoglu, Erdogan, who is accused of jailing dissidents and journalists, responded by comparing the Dutch to Nazis and fascists. “Listen Netherlands, you’ll jump once, you’ll jump twice, but my people will thwart your game,” he said, warning that Turkey would respond in the “harshest ways.” Erdogan added: “They don’t know diplomacy or politics. They are Nazi remnants. They are fascists.”

In retaliation to Cavusoglu’s ban, Turkey blocked access to the Dutch embassy in Ankara and its consulate in Istanbul. On Monday, Turkey officially severed high-level diplomatic relations between the two countries. And on Tuesday, the deputy prime minister suggested that Turkey might impose economic sanctions on the Netherlands in the near future.

Broader Consequences

As Europe deals with a number of consequential elections this year, the last thing it needs is a spat with its neighbor, and aspiring European Union member, Turkey. The conflict has soured quite quickly. Yet deeper, more wide-ranging consequences could follow in the coming months. Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Switzerland have all followed the Netherlands in blocking rallies related to Turkey’s referendum.

Germany might have the most to lose. Turkey recently agreed to a deal with Germany, which has also barred Turkish ministers from giving political speeches, to stop migrants from the Middle East from entering Germany. Turkey could pull out of the deal if the row with the Netherlands and Germany worsens. In fact, on Wednesday, Cavusoglu suggested as much, saying, “we are evaluating the refugee deal.” With an election in September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel can’t afford to lose Turkey’s cooperation in stemming the migrant flow, which has fueled the anti-immigrant message of her opponents.

Meanwhile, Erdogan, whipping up support back home, is posturing himself as being cornered by Europe’s bullying, which could underscore his anti-western and, many observers say, anti-democratic governing style. As he seeks to strengthen his power in next month’s referendum vote, Erdogan’s aggressive actions in Europe could bolster his standing at home, but weaken ties with Europe at a time when cooperation is more vital than ever before.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What you Need to Know About the Netherlands-Turkey Standoff appeared first on Law Street.

Private employers in European Union member-states can now legally ban employees from wearing head scarves or other religious garb, the bloc’s highest court ruled on Tuesday. The European Court of Justice’s ruling comes at a time of creeping anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment across Europe, most notably in France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Head scarves are not the only targeted religious ornaments; the ruling could affect Sikh men who wear turbans or Jews who wear yarmulkes, for instance. Applying only to the workplace, the ban is binding for EU member-states, as all ECJ rulings are. Some European politicians who are bracing for heated elections later this year welcomed the ruling. Francois Fillon, the scandal-plagued presidential candidate in France, called the ruling an “immense relief,” and said it would be “a factor in cohesion and social peace.”

France’s far-right candidate, Marine Le Pen, has built her campaign around anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-Muslim, policies. She is expected to advance to the second round of voting, which will take place on May 7. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany party is seeking to supplant Chancellor Angela Merkel in an election in September, though the party has recently dipped in the polls. The party’s Berlin leader, Georg Pazderski, applauded the ECJ’s ruling, saying it “sends out the right signal, especially for Germany.”

The ruling was based on two separate cases brought to the court by France and Belgium. In the first case, Samira Achbita, who worked for a security company in Belgium, was fired when she refused to remove her head scarf while at work. The ECJ ruled that Achbita had not been discriminated against because her workplace’s ban of religious attire applied to all religions, not just Islam.

“An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination,” the court said, adding that the rule “treats all employees to the undertaking in the same way, notably by requiring them, generally and without any differentiation, to dress neutrally.”

In the second case, Asthma Bougnaoui was fired after a customer of her France-based IT consultancy firm complained that her head scarf was “embarrassing.” The ECJ ruled that she had, unlike Achbita, been discriminated against, because a customer complaint does not justify the firing of an employee. But that does not mean an employer cannot have a policy that employees are forbidden to wear religious attire in the workplace. The ECJ ruling allows for such a policy, which many religious and civil rights groups worry could lead to discrimination, specifically against Muslim women.

“It will lead to Muslim women being discriminated in the workplace, but also Jewish men who wear kippas, Sikh men who wear turbans, people who wear crosses,” said Maryam H’madoun of the Open Society Justice Initiative. “It affects all of them, but disproportionately Muslim women.”   

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post European Court of Justice Rules That Employers Can Ban Religious Attire appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Scotland could be headed for a second independence referendum on its continued membership in the United Kingdom as early as next year, according to Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon. During an impassioned speech Monday at Bute House, Sturgeon’s residence in Edinburgh, the First Minister announced plans for Scotland to chart its own path forward.

“At times like these, it is more important than ever to have a clear plan for the way ahead–to try, as far as is possible, to be in control of events and not just at the mercy of them,” she said.

Last June, while the majority of Britain voted to leave the EU, Scotland did not–62 percent of voters backed remaining in the 28-nation bloc. During its first independence referendum in September 2014, Scotland decisively voted (54.2 percent to 45.7 percent) to remain a part of the United Kingdom, a union that has been in place since 1707.

Sturgeon believes the time is ripe for a second referendum, as Britain’s future is uncertain and Scotland cannot simply tag along for the ride.

“As a result of the Brexit vote we face a future, not just outside the EU, but also outside the world’s biggest single market,” Sturgeon said, adding that her attempts to negotiate a special trading relationship for Scotland and the EU with British Prime Minister Theresa May have also failed.

“Our efforts at compromise have instead been met with a brick wall of intransigence,” she said.

Shortly after Sturgeon delivered her speech, May responded in an interview with the BBC, in which she said that a referendum would set Scotland “on a course for more uncertainty and division.”

“Instead of playing politics with the future of our country,” May said, “the Scottish government should focus on delivering good government and public services for the people of Scotland. Politics is not a game.”

The British Parliament would have to grant Scotland permission to hold an independence referendum–known as a Section 30 order. Sturgeon said she would seek the order next week. If the British Parliament agrees to the request, the Scottish Parliament would need to do the same before a vote date is set.

With the prospect of a “hard Brexit“–a clean break from the EU that would have Britain completely abandon the single-market of the EU–looming, Sturgeon believes Scotland cannot just hope for the best. It must act.

“By taking the steps I have set out today, I am ensuring that Scotland’s future will be decided not just by me, the Scottish Government or the SNP,” Sturgeon said using the initials for her Scottish National Party. “It will be decided by the people of Scotland.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Scotland Headed for a Second Independence Referendum? appeared first on Law Street.

In a passing-of-the-torch meeting weeks after the election, President Barack Obama warned then-President-elect Donald Trump of the gravest threat facing America today: North Korea. Not a belligerent China. Not an adventurous Russia. Not terrorism. But North Korea, a tiny, starved nation led by a portly 33-year-old who launches ballistic missiles every now and then. 

A few months after Obama and Trump met, the North Korean threat remains as stark as ever: Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, claims his country will soon have the capacity to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon; on Monday, North Korea tested four ballistic missiles simultaneously; and China, North Korea’s longtime security blanket, is wavering in its support. As North Korea continues to pursue nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S., South Korea, and Japan, a dark cloud is slowly expanding over the Korean Peninsula, and the looming threat of potential conflict grows with each passing day.

Missile Tests

For the past year or so, North Korea has been flaunting its military capabilities for all the world to see. It tested a nuclear missile last January, and again in September. It has unleashed a flurry of medium and intermediate-range missile over the past few months. And on Monday, the North sent four missiles east toward Japan; they fell into the Sea of Japan, three of them dropping within the boundaries of Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called Monday’s test a “new stage of threat.” According to Abe, he spoke with Trump for 25 minutes to discuss a response to the threat. Last week, the North warned a test was on the horizon: “New strategic weapons of our own style will soar into the sky,” read a piece in the North’s state-run newspaper. Monday’s missile launch was a response to the annual joint-exercise between U.S. and South Korean military forces, a show of force that often draws an aggressive response from the North.

America’s Response

On Wednesday, Nikki Haley, the U.S ambassador to the U.N., said Kim Jong-un is “not a rational person.” Speaking after an emergency U.N. meeting on North Korea, Haley hinted the U.S. might be considering a military response to the North’s latest missives. “All the options are on the table,” she said. Sanctions imposed by the international community, while crippling for North Korea’s economy, have not had much success in reigning in its nuclear program.

The U.S. has already responded more forcefully to the North’s threat, deploying its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (Thaad) system to South Korea months ahead of schedule. Mounted on the back of a truck, Thaad detects incoming missiles and intercepts them mid-air. While the move might placate South Korea’s and Japan’s fears, it has heightened tensions with China, who sees Thaad as a check on its own missile launches.

China’s Response

China, for decades, has been the linchpin to North Korea’s survival. Beijing’s support for Pyongyang could be wavering, however, as it recently announced a year-long freeze on imports of North Korean coal. But while China traditionally responds to North Korean missile launches with a gentle “don’t do that again,” it has yet to show the appetite for anything stronger. On Wednesday, China issued its sternest warning to date, advising the North to cease its missile and nuclear launches in order to “defuse a looming crisis.”

In exchange, however, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi suggested the U.S. and South Korea could end their joint-exercises. Both sides have balked at that suggestion, citing past failures in trying to engage North Korea diplomatically. What happens next is anyone’s guess–will China retaliate for the Thaad deployment? Will South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. preemptively strike North Korea’s nuclear facilities? What Obama told Trump in that private meeting in January may be slowly shifting from prophesy to a concrete global reality.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the U.S. Considering a Military Response to North Korea? appeared first on Law Street.

This week, India’s National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) imposed measures that significantly cut the prices of a variety of “essential” drugs, including drugs that treat cancer. These price controls are by no means unprecedented. For decades, the Indian government has worked to keep drug costs low, which has often meant bucking international drug patenting and pricing norms. In doing so India nurtured and developed a massive generic drug industry. While the Indian government must not be admonished for keeping drug costs low, its longstanding obsession with cheap drugs may distract from broader health care accessibility issues.

In 1970, India passed a newly revised Patents Act, which upended the Indian pharmaceutical industry. The act stipulated pharmaceutical patents would only be issued to drugs that exhibited “one or more inventive step(s).” While this language seems relatively innocuous, it totally changed the way in which pharmaceutical corporations conduct business.

Drug patents allow holders to charge high prices because patents ensure market exclusivity for a given period of time. However, in order to maintain market exclusivity, drug companies engage in a practice known as “evergreening.” In most countries, patent laws are such that pharmaceutical companies are able to extend patents and maintain monopolies by making trivial modifications to an already patented product. According to the American Medical Association, these slight alterations allow patent holders to claim they are releasing a new, innovative drug and extend their exclusive rights over said drug “despite the absence of any compelling pharmacologic difference.” In the United States, companies do all sorts of things to “evergreen” drugs including “obtaining additional patents on other aspects of a drug, including its coating, salt moiety, formulation, and method of administration.”

The language in India’s 1970 act is such that companies selling drugs in India would no longer be able to get a patent unless they were offering a new and “inventive” drug. Companies would no longer be able to patent known drugs in an attempt to extend a market monopoly. As a result, a drug that might have enjoyed patent protection elsewhere, would not be protected under Indian patent policy. Soon after this policy shift, India’s generic drug industry exploded, and domestic drug prices plummeted. Before long, India became one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical exporters.

India has made changes to its patent policy over the years, but its generic drug industry continues to operate and thrive under legal conditions set in motion by the 1970 act. Ironically, India’s largest manufacturers are beginning to push back against price-oriented policies that brought them into existence.

While India’s patent polices undermined evergreening practices, price controls were instituted as an additional means of keeping drugs affordable. The creation of a generic drug industry worked to cut costs by undermining market monopolies but, as time went on, India’s most prominent manufacturers of generic drugs were able to brand their products and charge premiums. Price controls were used to ensure these premium prices were not excessive compared to the average cost of other generics.

Whereas India’s patent laws prevent multinational corporations from charging exorbitant prices in monopolized markets, India’s price controls prevent domestic manufacturers of generic drugs from charging more for a drug that bears their brand. Just as multinational corporations argued India’s patent policies stifle innovation, domestic manufacturers arguing that price control affect their ability to operate. In 2012, the government even went as far as suggesting “a future where we will not issue any brand or trade names.”

India’s government should not be criticized for ending price gouging tactics. Multinational corporations should not be able to exclude swaths of people from access to drugs by manipulating patent policy and extending market exclusivity, and cheap generics are crucial in a country where around 78 percent of the population pays for health care out-of-pocket. However, while access to cheap drugs is vital, the government’s health care policy is largely defined by its longstanding obsession with the generic industry and domestic drug prices.

Decades of policies ensuring cheap and readily accessible drugs have helped improve access for many but may have distracted from more holistic attempts at improving health care accessibility. Yet, notwithstanding cheap drug prices, studies have show health care costs are responsible for half of all Indian households falling into poverty. This most recent round of price controls on essential generic drugs came as no surprise, and that might be an issue. India’s pushback to the international patent regime is commendable but cheap drugs should not be treated as the end all be all of health care accessibility.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post India’s Low Drug Prices: Do They Lead to a Struggle for Health Care Accessibility? appeared first on Law Street.

Today is international women’s day, and one of the biggest topics of debate is equal pay for equal work. Well, Iceland is about to take steps to make sure that becomes less of a concern in the small European country. Today, the Icelandic government announced that it will introduce a law that will require all companies with 25 employees or more be able to prove that they practice pay equality.

Iceland is hoping that this measure will eliminate the pay gap in the country by 2022. And it’s not just about the gender pay gap. The law mandates that public and private companies pay employees equally “regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality, or nationality.”

Icelandic Equality and Social Affairs Minister Thorsteinn Viglundsson says that it’s time that the country do something “radical” about the issue. He stated: “Equal rights are human rights. We need to make sure that men and women enjoy equal opportunity in the workplace. It is our responsibility to take every measure to achieve that.”

The proposed law has received some criticism–mostly concerns that it will become burdensome for companies and slow down the pace of business, as it requires that any company with over 25 employees obtain a certificate from the government.

There are a lot of arguments about how large the gender pay gap actually is in individual countries. Iceland is often cited as one of the best nations for equality, but according to a study from Expert Market, a UK-based data firm, Icelandic women earn 14 percent less than their male counterparts. In October 2016, Icelandic women protested the pay gap by walking out of work.

Way to go women of Iceland! Yesterday they protested 14% pay gap by leaving 14% early from work at 2:38pm! https://t.co/fGE9zByatE pic.twitter.com/fx1xjuJznI

— Women Thrive (@WomenThrive) October 26, 2016

Certain nations have policies that involve equal pay certificates. And in Minnesota, “certain contractors must provide equal pay certificates in order to conduct business with the State of Minnesota or certain governmental agencies.” But Iceland is believed to be the first nation to try to implement a law that mandates proof of equal pay.

Iceland is a very small country, so if this measure succeeds it may not be too useful of a model for other nations. But it’s nice to see a country making an effort to advocate for equal pay. After all, we still live in a world where op-eds are published about how women shouldn’t be paid equally. So, carry on, Iceland, and happy International Women’s Day!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iceland Proposes Law to Mandate Equal Pay for All by 2020 appeared first on Law Street.

A hastily organized family planning conference in Brussels raised nearly $200 million in donations on Wednesday to counter President Donald Trump’s international abortion ban.

The impressive testimonials by women from all over the world, convince us even more to keep fighting for women’s rights. #SheDecides pic.twitter.com/GCGgDEeWFK

— Belgium MFA (@BelgiumMFA) March 2, 2017

A total of 57 nations attended the one-day conference, called She Decides, pledging 181 million euros ($190 million) to help bridge the gap created by the Trump Administration. Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands contributed 10 million euros each.

The total was boosted by Sweden, Canada, and Finland each promising 20 million euros ($21 million). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also provided $20 million.

According to conference host and Belgian Deputy Premier Alexander De Croo, one anonymous U.S. donor committed $50 million to the staggering total.

The result after just 5 weeks, minister #Ploumen on #SheDecides at the end of the Brussels conference pic.twitter.com/wwit5ATG5z

— Netherlands MFA (@DutchMFA) March 2, 2017

During his first week in office, Trump reinstated the expanded global gag rule (a.k.a the Mexico City Policy), effectively banning foreign NGOs who perform, promote, or even discuss abortions from receiving U.S. foreign aid.

The policy has yo-yoed between party lines with each changing administration–Reagan enacted it in 1984, Clinton rescinded it in 1993, and Bush reinstated the order in 2001 before Obama rescinded it again in 2009. In other words, it came as no surprise to Democrats when Trump copied his Republican predecessors.

According to Reuters, the policy will cause a global funding shortfall estimated at $600 million.

“I hope that he now sees that everybody is steadfast in its support for the rights of women and girls,” said Dutch Development Minister Lilianne Ploumen, who came up with the idea for the She Decides conference.

At EU headquarters, half a dozen anti-abortion activists were protesting with a banner: “Abortion: Not with my taxes.”

However, the conference stressed that abortion was only a small part of the family planning resources offered by many of these NGOs in developing countries. Campaigners discussed how girls in these nations are being forced to have children in their early teens as a result of sexual abuse, forced marriages, or a lack of access to sex education and contraception.

The U.S funding ban “threatens to suspend a large number of projects helping to defend the health of millions of girls, even helping to save their lives,” Finnish Development Minister Kai Mykkanen said. “We respond to the situation fraught with distress by investing in the improvement of women’s and girls’ rights even more than before.”

If fact, many believe that Trump’s ban will actually result in the opposite of its desired effect. Denying funding to these programs will only increase the amount of unwanted pregnancies, Ploumen argues.

“The number of abortions will not fall, they will rise,” say Ploumen.

While the conference fell short of drumming up enough money to finance the entire $600 million, organizers said they were confident they would be able to bridge the gap soon.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Pledges Nearly $200M to Counter Trump’s Abortion Funding Ban appeared first on Law Street.

He is running on a nationalist, anti-Islam platform. Yet his mother’s family is from Indonesia, the largest Muslim country on the planet. He fashions himself a political outsider. Yet he has spent his entire career in politics. Meet Geert Wilders: the 53-year-old paradox vying to be the next prime minister of the Netherlands.

Wilders has been called the “Dutch Donald Trump.” For one, his hair, dyed blonde and coiffed, is central to his image. But it goes a bit deeper: he has proposed banning the Quran. He would like to see all mosques in the Netherlands shuttered. And, like his populist peers in the rest of Europe, has promised a “Nexit” (a referendum vote for the Netherlands to exit the European Union) if he wins the March 15 election.

At a political rally three years ago, Wilders led an exchange that underscores his anti-Islam, and anti-immigrant views. “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this country?” he asked the crowd, which replied: “Fewer, fewer, fewer!” Wilders, then a member of parliament, smiled and said: “Well I’ll arrange for that then.”

There are a few qualities that distance Wilders from the popular perception of other far-right political candidates in Europe. He supports gay marriage. He supports drug legalization and legalized prostitution. And his supporters see him as a protector, not an opponent, of the Netherlands’ liberal ethos, unlike France’s Marine Le Pen and the nationalist candidates in Germany. In Wilders’s world, Islam is the enemy of liberal values, not of orthodox conservative values or values steeped in Christianity.

By most accounts, his extreme stance against Islam began in 2004. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh made a film that was critical of Islam. Soon after its release, Van Gogh was killed by a Muslim extremist. This ignited millions of people to take to the streets in the name of free speech. Wilders, a member of parliament at the time, was a vocal opponent of Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Dutch officials discovered plots to take his life, and Wilders has been living a reclusive lifestyle ever since.

He lives in a safe house. His office at the Dutch parliament is on a different floor than his fellow MPs, and is heavily guarded. He has rarely made public appearances in the weeks and months leading up to the March 15 election. And as befits a man often compared to Trump, Wilders uses Twitter to directly communicate with his followers.

His message is resonating with a large swath of Dutch voters; his Party for Freedom is leading most national polls. But the Dutch governing system is ruled by a coalition of parties–usually four or five–with a prime minister usually, but not always, coming from the party with the most seats in parliament. Other party leaders, including current Prime Minister Mark Rutte, have said they will not govern with Wilders at the helm. Whether or not he becomes the prime minister, Wilders has surely nudged the government to the right, and his message will influence the future leader.

During a recent interview, Wilders summed up his governing philosophy: “I’m a patriot, and I believe there’s a ‘Patriotic Spring’ going on in the world today, in the Western world,” he said. “Donald Trump did the job in America, and I hope that here in Europe, we will see a patriotic spring in Holland but also in Germany, France — many other countries where parties like mine are getting stronger every day.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet Geert Wilders, the “Dutch Donald Trump” appeared first on Law Street.