#Expert Civil Lawyer | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

qqueenofhades · 3 months ago

Note

Having seen what's currently happening in Venezuela, I feel so terrible for everyone to tried to vote Maduro out, and I worry about the US election. Will Trump and the GOP be able to do the same thing??

I agree that what's happening in Venezuela is bad and scary, but it's also not unexpected (unfortunately), and it doesn't correlate to the US election. It is very much a cautionary tale for us, but in the case of what could happen, not what has happened yet (and which we could and MUST still avoid). Here's why I think that.

First, Maduro is the heir of 25+ years of dictatorship (first the Chavez regime and then his), and that political machine has had a full generation to fix/control everything in Venezuela just as they want it. They've collapsed the economy, driven mass emigration/purges/brain drains, installed corrupt systems and destroyed civil society, staffed the government with cronies who will only ever do what Maduro personally says -- etc. In other words, exactly what Trump and the Republicans aspire to do here in America, but with 25 years' head start, so all those fixes are well entrenched. Outside observers were also warning well ahead of the Venezuelan vote that even an overwhelming majority for the opposition candidate might not be enough, because Maduro and co. can just fix the result however they want with imaginary fantasy numbers. (See Putin's "win" in the Russian presidential "election.") Because dictators all draw from the same playbook regardless of their professed ideological temperament, they always use the same tools.

Next, voting in Venezuela is all-electronic, which is obviously the easiest kind of voting to jigger, and which means that whatever the people actually select has little to no relevance to what gets published, recorded, or proclaimed. Now, despite the Republicans' constant screaming about ELECTION FRAUD, the 2020 elections in America were widely hailed as the safest, most accurate, and fraud-free in the nation's history. (For that matter, multiple investigations afterward have re-confirmed this, and the tiny handful of cases of election fraud that were found were committed by, you guessed it, Republicans.) This did not happen because of the Orange Fuhrer and co., who were busy trying to commit election fraud on their own behalves, but because America, however flawed, is still a participatory liberal democracy and citizens have the right to engage and to do so in a meaningful fashion. We had the entire investigation about how Russia meddled with the election in 2016, and changes were made. Cybersecurity experts were brought in; redundancies and failsafes were introduced; etc., and even the Russian campaign focused on psychological influence rather than actually, physically changing already-cast votes, because that is very, very hard to do in America. We are not an all e-voting nation; there are paper trails, hard-copy ballots, hand recounts, poll observers, election lawyers, and multiple other safeguards that exist. The Republicans have been attacking them as hard as they can, but they're still there.

Thirdly, the Evil Orange tried to fix the elections when he was the sitting president (don't forget the infamous "find me 11,780 votes" phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State that got him slapped with felony charges), but he couldn't do it even then. He also tried a coup as the sitting president, with full discretion as to whether, for example, the National Guard should be deployed to the Capitol on January 6, and that didn't succeed. As such, when he's a disgraced jobless felon who is not the commander-in-chief of the American military and holds no official or political role, he's definitely not getting it done now. There were reforms made to the Electoral Count Act to prevent another January 6, Biden and not Trump would be the president at any other attempted attack on the counting of electoral votes, and I can guarantee Biden would not sit around for three hours watching Fox News and cheering the rioters on if such a thing happened again. Trump has been threatening violence again because that's the only move in his playbook, and he wants to intimidate people into voting for him out of fear that he'll attack them if they don't give him what he wants, like any other psychopathic bully. But that does not mean he actually has the tools to successfully carry it off, and honestly, motherfucker? Try it one more fucking time. I double fucking dog dare you. Biden has 6 months left in his term and total immunity, according to your own SCOTUS. So.

Basically, Venezuela has already been a banana republic for 20+ years, the dictator has had a full generation to destroy it/remake it/turn it into his personal fiefdom, he allows elections only because he already knows they won't change anything or actually remove him from power, and that is precisely what Trump wants to do in the US -- but, and this is crucial, has not done yet. Which is why it is so, so important to Orange-Proof America and get rid of him once and for fucking all on November 5th. We can do it. So yes.

#aquitainequeen #ask #politics for ts #the giant orange monster

125 notes · View notes

myemuisemo · 4 months ago

Text

In approaching the first chapter of The Hound of the Baskervilles in this week's Letters from Watson, I initially felt that I was sort of cheating as I know I've read this more recently than middle childhood. Then I read the first chapter and realized my memory of the story consists of a vague impression that it has a moor and a dog. Oh well.

Mortimer's staff being referred to as a "Penang lawyer" reminds us that when you live in a colonialist society, the mindset is everywhere. The staff is presumably made from Licuala acutifida, a sort of cane native to China, southeast Asia, and Pacific Islands. By 1889, when the novel is set (five years after the date on the walking stick), British Malaya had been under direct crown rule for a couple decades. The Brits had owned Penang since at least the secret Burney Treaty of 1826.

Dr. Watson's initial wrong guesses provide a window into his world and preconceptions. My first reaction was "how did he think hunt rather than hospital when he himself has medical training?"

Growing up in the genteel countryside would explain "hunt." But Charing Cross Hospital, then located just off the Strand, would have been only about two miles from Baker Street. How do you miss a large hospital?

There might be a titch of snobbery in play, as Watson did his residency at much, much older Barts (St. Bartholomew's). Barts dates from the 12th century, while Charing Cross Hospital was an early 19th century upstart. Watson also went for additional training at the military hospital at Netley.

Watson really puts up with a lot, though.

James Mortimers' publications focus on the idea that illness stems from throwbacks to a more primitive state, an idea also applied to criminology of the day. Through 2024 eyes, this is unlikely to be a good thing, but let's see where Doyle goes with it. I have faith in Holmes due to his love of that book that attributes much of human civilization to non-white world cultures. (Coveting Holmes' skull reeks of phrenology, but I can't believe this was meant as an appealing trait.)

After being informed that Sholto was based on Oscar Wilde, I'm wondering which of Doyle's acquaintances was the pattern for James Mortimer (who is not addressed as "doctor" because he's a surgeon; it's a British thing).

While Holmes describes Mortimer as "amiable" before meeting him, he does not find being described as "the second highest expert in Europe" all that simpatico. There's some impatience in Holmes' chapter-ending request that Mortimer explain why he's there.

At this early stage, I dislike James Mortimer. It's partly the nature of his publications, but also the false humility of calling himself a "dabbler in science" when he in fact has publications, an award, and a degree. It's dabbling to collect bones or bugs or whatever and be perpetually working on a treatise that never gets finished or published. It's not dabbling when you have official recognition within your chosen career for your research.

So what is Mortimer here about?

#sherlock holmes #letters from watson #the hound of the baskervilles #hound of the baskervilles

44 notes · View notes

mightyflamethrower · 9 months ago

Text

25 reasons Trump won’t pay a dime to E. Jean Carroll

That eye-popping $83 million judgment will not survive an appeal. A proper settlement would subtract at least $82,972,000.

In 2019, a strange woman named E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of raping her in a changing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Midtown Manhattan. Trump called her crazy, and a jury found him liable for both sexually abusing her and defaming her with the “crazy” talk. Last week, a New York jury decided Carroll deserves $83 million for defamation.

Here are 25 reasons why that’s nuts.

1) Carroll has said rape is “sexy”

She backs up this insane statement with, “Think of the fantasies” (which my wife and I can’t stop saying to each other). For the record, having someone forcibly violate you against your will is the exact opposite of “sexy.”

2) She’s already bragging about shopping sprees

Remember in “Goodfellas” when that idiot shows up at the party with his wife wearing a $20,000 fur coat and De Niro tells him to “bring it back”? When you run a scam, you need to lay low for a while. Carroll, conversely, is making appearances on national television telling Rachel Maddow she’s going to buy her a “penthouse in Paris” as well as fishing gear and a motorcycle for her counsel (could she pick weirder presents?). Her lawyer awkwardly murmured, “Uh, that’s a joke.”

Yeah, this whole thing is a joke.

3) The scenario she described came from her favorite TV show

She is a self-described “Law & Order” fan, and there is an episode wherein a man muscles his way into a changing room at Bergdorf Goodman and sexually molests a woman. This is likely where she got the idea. She’s also a big fan of “The Apprentice.” Would you like to watch your rapist on TV?

4) She didn’t want to press criminal charges

Being on the cover of New York magazine is one thing, but taking your BS story into an actual courtroom is a whole other level of fraud. When Bill de Blasio said he would change the law to make the case admissible, Carroll kept awkwardly repeating, “The experts told me … the time has passed.”

5) They changed the law

The case had no merit because the statute of limitations on civil action had passed. So what happened? The New York State Legislature changed the law. Is there anything that screams “witch hunt” more than that? What are we, Zimbabwe?

6) The man who backed the lawsuit is a major DNC donor

Leftist activist billionaire Reid Hoffman is the money behind this operation. His motive is obviously to bankrupt Trump so he can’t run again. Carroll denied this at first because she’s a liar, but her lawyer was forced to come clean.

7) The whole thing was George Conway’s idea, apparently

Though she denies it, it’s clear this entire plan was concocted by “conservative lawyer” Conway at a radical leftist cocktail party in Manhattan.

8) Carroll’s lawyer is desperate to fix her reputation as a rape-enabler

Roberta Kaplan was supposed to champion victims of sexual assault with her #TimesUp movement, but she used it instead to run cover for perverts such as Andrew Cuomo. She got caught and she got fired. Her comeback included representing Ashley Biden (A Biden lawyer going after Trump? Is anyone surprised?), but this case could permanently rescue her Google results.

9) Carroll’s dress didn’t exist back then

Carroll said the rape happened in the early 1990s. We just learned the particular dress she said she was allegedly wearing did not exist at the time.

10) She cannot remember when the rape happened

We’re not talking about the exact date. She can’t tell us if it was 1993 or 1995.

11) She won’t let anyone test her coat for DNA

Carroll calls the dress her “bad luck dress” and told CNN she will never make a talisman out of it — as though the idea had occurred to anyone. Why did she keep it around? This could be the left’s Monica Lewinsky dress, but she refuses to let anyone analyze it.

12) She doesn’t know if Trump ejaculated

I don’t know if anyone reading this has engaged in sexual intercourse, but evidence of the male orgasm is almost impossible to hide.

13) She is a serial accuser

Despite being a 3.5, she has claimed men have sexually assaulted her at least a half-dozen times. This isn’t proof of Trump’s innocence in and of itself, but it becomes relevant when surrounded by 24 other points.

14) She said it wasn’t sexual

Carroll has said pretty much everything that you could say about this encounter, from “it was not sexual” to “it was the definition of rape.” She said she would not press charges, however, because it would trivialize the experience of illegal aliens who are being “raped around the clock.”

15) She’s not his type

Trump is into elegant Slavs. This woman is like that hysterical chicken lady from “The Kids in the Hall.”

16) The judge and Carroll’s lawyer are pals

We’re told Judge Lewis Kaplan was Roberta Kaplan’s (no relation) mentor back when they both worked at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Roberta Kaplan denies this, but it can’t be denied they worked at the same firm at the same time. That alone is a conflict of interest.

17) Carroll didn’t talk to anyone about the alleged assault, until she did

If a woman is sexually assaulted, she is morally obligated to report it immediately, so the rapist doesn’t do it again. Carroll did not do this. What’s more, she didn’t talk to any of her friends about it. At least not at first. This is peculiar behavior for a blabbermouth.

18) Even if it’s all true, the settlement would be tiny

Carroll alleged that Trump cost her a columnist job at Elle, but the magazine made it clear it ended her contract as an advice columnist based on nothing more than lack of interest. But let’s assume Elle fired her because Trump wrote a mean tweet. A good price for an advice column would be a couple of hundred bucks per piece. That’s $2,000 a year for Elle. Assuming Carroll lives as long as “Dear Abby” columnist Pauline Esther Friedman, who died at 94, that would be a whopping total of $28,000 (Carroll is 80).

So, we’re off by about $82,972,000.

19) She said women “love” being abducted

She told Charlie Rose (remember him?) in 1995 that women love the idea of a caveman knocking them unconscious with a club and then dragging them — by their hair — back to the cave. I’m no feminist, but I’m pretty sure the cerebral contusions from this kind of violence are not a turn-on.

20) She said it wasn’t a big deal

“I’m a mature woman,” she said. “I can handle it.” OK, then why does she need $83 million to recover? That’s four times the amount of money you get when your kid is decapitated.

21) She lives in a Mouse House

Anyone who doubts this lady’s mental state needs to check out her house. She calls it “The Mouse House” because it’s infested with rodents (to whom she has given individual names, such as “Terbrusky”). She has painted the trees blue. She has printed out 27 years of advice column questions and stacked them all over the place. Yes, writers can be weird. But it is impossible to look at her place and not think, “This is nuts.”

22) She is a hoarder

Hoarding is a mental disorder. You can’t sue someone for calling you “crazy” if you have a mental disorder.

23) Her cat is called “Vagina” — seriously

E. Jean Carroll is obsessed with sex and her vagina. She said she lives in the woods because if she lived in the city, she’d have 16 boyfriends. She’s 80, remember?

Her dog “Tits” has blue hair, and her cat is named “Vagina.” The left-wing media thinks this is irrelevant. “Among the stranger complaints made by the former president … was that the jury wasn’t informed about the name of his accuser’s cat: Vagina T. Fireball.” Uh, when the charge is “calling a sane woman crazy,” Vagina T. Fireball matters.

24) She writes notes to herself

Wait, doesn’t everyone do that? Not like this. “The Mouse House” is festooned with bizarre messages. Her microwave says, “Burn Baby Burn.” Her bookshelf says, “Always amused never angry.” And, in a moment of deranged honesty, she taped a note to a lamp that says, “Hold your nerve. Pursue your radical options to the bitter END!”

25) Carroll said she wanted to “rape” Trump

Apparently, she thought having rough sex with him in the changing room would make for a “funny story.” (Wait, I thought she didn’t tell anyone about what happened to her out of fear.) She also suggested she’d do it for $17,000 if he was unable to speak. Sounds awfully rapey, doesn’t it?

Anyone who takes this case seriously and doesn’t see E. Jean Carroll as a complete basket case is a complete basket case.

63 notes · View notes

ireallyamabear · 1 year ago

Text

Aldhani heist modern AU for Andor Appreciation Week 2023 - Day 3: Favourite Arcs ##

(Coruscant/Aldhani Valley) Vel Sartha, society girl, implicated in last year’s Aldhani Bank heist

Leaked documents from the Security Bureau allege collaboration of political and criminal elements on a not yet seen scale.

An investigation into the claims of Security Bureau agent Lt. Dedra Meero, who assembled the leaked file using confidential security documents, has been started. Experts doubt the validity of her claim that a yet unnamed leader, code name “Axis”, orchestrated the attack - in which eight bank employees and security officers lost their lives - with the goal to raise funds to establish a broad revolutionary alliance.

The investigation into the heist, in which over 12 tons of gold and an unknown amount of legal tender was stolen, has notoriously been kept under wraps, with no official suspect being named by Aldhani Valley Police as of yet. A political dimension had not been part of the conversation about the motive for the heist up until the leak. Some of the file was assembled from confidential sources, including a politically highly incendiary illegal missive by the SB about Sarthas’s cousin, Senator Mon Mothma. Parts of the document seem to come from redacted files and sources, with no explanation how Meero has obtained these. According to inside sources, intra- and interorganizational security leaks in the Bureau are already being investigated. The document claiming to identify the perpetrators and their motive was leaked online by a yet unnamed person, going by “A friend of Lt. Meero”, who claims to “not longer be able to sit idly by while a good officer who knows the truth gets no recognition for her work”. Meero’s lawyers maintain that she herself has not broken confidentiality and did not leak the document herself. Whoever leaked the documents faces charges for disseminating confidential SB information. The file also names Karis Nemik, founding member of the Alliance of Socialist Students (ASS) and a former officer of the Imperial Army, identified only as Lt. Gorn as co-conspirateurs. Also named are Cinta Kaz and Taramyn Barcona, two veterans of private security outfits that have served in multiple military tours overseas, as well as two more men, Cassian Andor and Arvel Skeen, who have minor criminal records. There are no current criminal investigations into any of the seven suspects. Besides Sartha, none of the accused have been present in the public or on social media in the last year. Unsourced rumors that at least the accused Lt. Gorn was actually one of the bodies found at the scene have yet to be confirmed.

Meero draws alleged connections between the suspects foremost through photographic evidence. Most of this evidence is already under scrutiny by officials and a vocal crowd online, with claims of image manipulation already going viral.

Various civil rights attorneys and organizations have already spoken up about the political dimension in the accusations against Sartha - especially because of her connections to the current senate - and Nemik, who has been an outspoken political activist in recent years.

Members of the Mothma Senatorial office and Vel Sartha’s PR team have yet to comment.

Meanwhile, Sartha shared a cryptic post with the caption “Throwback to last year - I had been camping all spring!” on her various social medias.

## @andorappreciation

#andorappreciation2023 #andor #halfway through this edit i thought i bit off more than i can chew #hope you like it!#i could play in this sandbox forever...#guess who the friend of lt. meero probably is :P #andor modern au #aldhani #cassian andor #vel sartha #cinta kaz #taramyn barcona #lieutenant gorn #karis nemik #arvel skeen #dedra meero #my fics #sort of #mp

97 notes · View notes

simply-ivanka · 8 months ago

Text

Letitia James Turns the Screws on Trump

The inflated $464 million bond required to appeal effectively denies him due process.

By The Editorial Board

Wall Street Journal

March 18, 2024

New York Attorney General Letitia James’s use of lawfare to take down Donald Trump is getting uglier by the day. She is now threatening to seize the former President’s assets after effectively denying him the ability to appeal the grossly inflated civil-fraud judgment against him.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote Monday in a court filing that they’ve been unable to obtain a bond to guarantee last month’s $464 million judgment. Defendants are required to post bonds to appeal verdicts. Mr. Trump’s lawyers say securing the full bond would be “impossible” since most of his assets are illiquid.

One way to satisfy the bond would be to borrow against his real-estate holdings. But Mr. Trump’s lawyers say that only a handful of insurance companies have “both the financial capability and willingness to underwrite a bond of this magnitude,” and “the vast majority are unwilling to accept the risk associated with such a large bond.”

What’s more, his lawyers say that none of the insurers that Mr. Trump’s team approached “are willing to accept hard assets such as real estate as collateral for appeal bonds.” This isn’t surprising given the recent write-downs in commercial real estate and enormous uncertainty about their valuations, especially in places like New York. Insurers may also fear Ms. James’s legal retribution if they provide the bond to Mr. Trump.

Thus in order to appeal the judgment, Mr. Trump could have to unload property in a fire sale. If he were later to win on appeal, his lawyers rightly argue that he would have suffered an enormous, irreparable loss.

Ms. James no doubt knows she has Mr. Trump in a bind. She and courts have opposed his requests to reduce the bond even though a court-appointed independent monitor overseeing his businesses eliminates the risk he could dispose of or transfer his assets to make the judgment harder for the state to enforce.

As we wrote last month, the judgment is overkill. None of Mr. Trump’s business partners lost money lending to him or claimed to have been deceived by his erroneous financial statements. No witness during the trial said his alleged misrepresentations changed its loan terms or prices, and there was no evidence that he profited from his alleged deceptions.

Nonetheless, state trial judge Arthur Engoron ordered him to “disgorge” $355 million in “ill-gotten gains.” This sum was based on the interest-rate savings that a financial expert retained by Ms. James estimated Mr. Trump netted from his legerdemain. But this calculation seems dubious since banks said they didn’t alter their loan terms.

The judge also tacked on profits that Mr. Trump putatively made on properties for which he submitted false financial statements without demonstrating that the latter enable the former. He also added “pre-judgment interest” dating back to the day Ms. James launched her investigation in 2019. This makes Mr. Trump liable for alleged wrongdoings before he was even charged. All of this provides plausible grounds for appeal.

Whatever his transgressions, defendants are entitled to due process, which includes the right to appeal. Ms. James is trying to short-circuit the justice system to get Mr. Trump, as she promised she would during her 2018 campaign. Anyone who does business in New York ought to worry about how Ms. James could likewise twist the screws on them.

#trump #trump 2024 #ivanka #americans first #america #america first #repost #president trump #donald trump #democrats #wall street journal #New York #Democrat Corruption

47 notes · View notes

collapsedsquid · 8 days ago

Text

I think the plan is to steal the Electoral College outright by getting states Trump loses to refuse to certify the results of their election. That’s because the 12th Amendment provides that the president is the person who wins the majority of the “whole number of Electors appointed.” That “whole number” is supposed to be 538. But one potential reading of the amendment is that Trump doesn’t have to win 270 Electoral College votes but just a majority of however many electors show up. Trump’s goal, I believe, is to decrease the number of electors appointed until he wins. This reading is untested. Nobody has yet tried to win an election with fewer than a majority of the Electoral College votes by decreasing the overall number of electors appointed after the election. But it’s an argument the Trump team could put forward, and it’s an argument Democratic lawyers and experts are preparing for. The first step in such a process is to get Republicans in states Trump loses to contest the certification of their own elections. In 2020, Trump and his team illegally tried to get slates of alternate electors submitted in states where Republicans control the state legislatures. They could try that again, but for this scheme to work, they don’t even have to get “fake” electors submitted but just to convince Republican state legislatures or Republican governors not to submit their valid slates of electors before statutorily imposed deadlines. All slates of electors are supposed to be certified by December 11. Those electors are then supposed to vote and submit their results by December 25. [...] If enough states refuse to certify the results of the election and submit a slate of electors—with the Supreme Court’s blessing—the math is not actually hard for Trump. Let’s say Vice President Kamala Harris wins the bare majority of Electoral College votes necessary, 270, but the Republican legislature in Wisconsin refuses to submit the state’s 10 electors by the deadline. In this scenario, the new total number of electors becomes 528, not 538—and Trump needs only 264 electoral votes to “win.” If you take Wisconsin and Nevada’s six electors out of the mix, Trump needs only 262 electoral votes to “win.” He’ll likely achieve those numbers without having to win one of the “blue wall” states.

[...]

And this is where Speaker Johnson becomes critical to the whole “secret” plan. In 2020, Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House. If states had tried to get cute and not submit their electors by the December 11 deadline, Pelosi would just have extended the deadline. But Speaker Johnson surely won’t. If electors are not submitted by December 11, he’ll likely declare the process “over” and say that the electors appointed by that date are the only ones allowed to vote for president.

Like to consider these strategies in terms of "Is this going to cause a civil war(or honestly more realistically a 'general strike')" with the idea that if it will then he's not going to get people to go along with it. I feel just rejecting the votes outright without a pretext or just empty claims that some people may have voted illegally, you're talking something that won't be acceptable. You would have to destroy a good number of ballots or something.

18 notes · View notes

artielu · 5 months ago

Text

A few people have expressed confusion about my tags saying that Trump is not going to jail despite the fact that he's been convicted of 34 felonies.

The reason he isn't going to jail is not because he's a slippery fucker with a stacked deck.

It's because he's a first time convict and the felonies are only class E nonviolent. While the sentencing guidelines are for up to four years jail per conviction, the guidelines are a *range*. For a first time conviction, it would be extremely rare to get jail time, especially if the convicted felon is not black and poor (hi systemic racism, I see you're still fucking here).

This guy is white, old, has at least some money to pay lawyers to appeal (allegedly - his lawyers keep not getting paid and getting sanctioned and/or disbarred), and it's a first time conviction and for a nonviolent felony.

Note that if he had been convicted previously of other felonies or any violent felonies, this would be a different conversation, fucking looking at you, Republican senators who refused to impeach for Jan 6 or trying to get zelynsky to manufacture dirt on Biden.

So. You still gotta vote. You gotta vote for Biden and straight Democrat for Congress. If you don't, Trump can seriously still win the election and be back in the white house with the nuclear codes and a chance to put several more bigoted, ultra conservative people on the Supreme Court bench. You think our civil rights are fucked now with a 6-3 majority? Watch what happens if it's a 6-3 majority where the conservative justices are all in their 50s and will be on the Court for the next 30 years. That's another generation of Americans under Christofascist rule.

You don't have to love Biden. You just need to hate trump more than you dislike/hate Biden. Surely, surely you prefer Biden to Trump.

And I like Biden. He's done a lot of good things, and some things I don't like. But I like him. And I really hate Trump.

You need to vote blue. Nothing else matters if we lose the white house and congress again.

#vote blue every time #we can win if we all show up and vote blue #fuck Trump #surely surely you have a preference between a felon fascist bigot and a generally decent human being who has done good things #being a lawyer

27 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 11 months ago

Text

Since we're heading into winter...

The Supreme Court of Texas narrowly decided Friday that sovereign immunity, which largely shields government agencies from civil lawsuits, also protects the operator of the Texas electric grid.

The 5-4 opinion will likely free the nonprofit corporation from lawsuits filed by thousands of Texans for deaths, injuries and damages following the deadly 2021 winter storm, unless lawyers find another way forward.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the power supply for most of Texas, qualifies for immunity because it “provides an essential governmental service,” Chief Justice Nathan Hecht wrote in the majority opinion. State law intended for ERCOT to have the power of an “arm of the State government,” Hecht wrote. If anyone is going to hold ERCOT accountable for its actions, Hecht wrote, it should be state regulators or the Legislature, not the courts.

Freezing temperatures gripped the state during the 2021 winter storm, straining the power supply so much that ERCOT called for cutting power to millions of homes and businesses to prevent the grid’s collapse. More than 200 people died. Experts estimated afterward that financial losses totaled between $80 billion and $130 billion, including physical damage and missed economic opportunity.

Thousands of residents accused ERCOT, power companies and distribution companies of failing to prepare for the freezing weather.

Lawyers expect the high court’s decision will allow ERCOT to be dismissed from the litigation, although it does not shield other defendants.

Attorney Mia Lorick, who represents some of those plaintiffs, said she sees only a slim possibility that lawyers could keep claims against ERCOT alive by arguing that their cases have differences that somehow skirt the sovereign immunity finding.

Majed Nachawati, whose firm is representing other plaintiffs in the related cases said, “The Texas Supreme Court’s decision is disappointing to say the least. People lost their lives and the only recourse to the citizens of Texas is to be able to go through the judicial process, and the judicial system, to try to remedy or right the wrong that occurred in this case. And if you can’t count on our judiciary to protect its citizens, I think we’re in a lot of trouble.”

Justices Jeff Boyd and John Devine, along with two others, disagreed that ERCOT has sovereign immunity. Purely private entities are clearly not sovereign, and making them so undermines the public trust, they wrote. The justices argued that “no statute designates ERCOT as a part of the government” and that courts should not be barred from hearing claims against it.

The ruling sprang from two cases filed against ERCOT. San Antonio’s municipally owned utility, CPS Energy, alleged that ERCOT mishandled the soaring price of power during the 2021 winter storm. And private equity investors at Panda Power Funds alleged that 10 years earlier ERCOT issued reports that misled them about how much power the grid needed.

ERCOT spokespersons issued a statement saying that the organization was pleased with the decision. CPS Energy said in a statement that it was disappointed but thankful that four justices agreed with the utility as it sought relief for customers. The utility said the litigation still led to “critical discussions at the highest levels that are necessary to improve our power grid and energy market.”

#us politics #news #texas #texas supreme court #ercot #the texas tribune #2023 #Electric Reliability Council of Texas #Chief Justice Nathan Hecht #Mia Lorick #Majed Nachawati #Justice Jeff Boyd #Justice John Devine #CPS Energy #winter weather #power outages #freezing #winter

46 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 6 months ago

Text

On March 11, Pramila Patten, the United Nations’ special representative of the secretary-general on sexual violence in conflict, presented a report to the U.N. Security Council on her fact-finding mission to Israel and the Palestinian territories regarding the events of Oct. 7, 2023. Her mission, she stated, “threw light on the indiscriminate and coordinated attacks by Hamas and other armed groups against multiple military and civilian targets, aimed to kill, to inflict suffering and abduct the maximum number possible of men, women, and children—soldiers and civilians alike—in the minimum possible amount of time.”

According to the report, Patten and her team “conducted interviews according to UN standards and methodology, with a total of 34 interviewees, including with survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders, health and service providers and others.” Further interviews were conducted with the families of hostages still held in captivity. Patten’s team also met with civil society organizations, went to a military base where bodies of those killed during the attack were brought for identification and release to families, and examined four locations in the Gaza periphery where attacks took place.

Based on this, Patten said in her remarks to the Security Council that her team had found “clear and convincing information” of “a catalogue of the most extreme and inhumane forms of killing, torture and other horrors” and other violations that had occurred, including “sexual violence, abduction of hostages and corpses, the public display of captives, both dead and alive, the mutilation of corpses, including decapitation and desecration of bodies as well as the looting and destruction of civilian property.”

Patten’s report joins an earlier statement made by U.N. human rights experts Alice Edwards and Morris Tidball-Binz that was also sent to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, calling for full accountability for the multitude of alleged crimes committed against civilians in Israel during the Oct. 7 attacks. It also corroborates other reports, most recently by the Association for Rape Crisis Centers in Israel as well as by the New York Times, Washington Post, Human Rights Watch, BBC, and others, regarding allegations of rape and ongoing sexual abuse of the hostages held in Gaza.

In late March, the New York Times published the first survivor testimony of an alleged sexual assault experienced by an Israeli hostage in Gaza. Amit Soussana, a 40-year-old Israeli lawyer held hostage in Gaza, recalled being chained to a bed and fondled by a guard who constantly inquired about the timing of her period. Two weeks after her abduction, she told the Times, she was beaten and groped while naked and held at gunpoint, and the guard, “with the gun pointed at me, forced me to commit a sexual act on him.”

The Israeli government and some Israeli officials, including IDF officers and members of the community volunteer organization ZAKA (the Hebrew acronym for Disaster Victim Identification, Extraction, and Rescue), have also issued statements and made allegations of sexual abuse by Hamas. However, some of that information has been proved to be false, including reports of alleged atrocities that actually never happened. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated and recirculated these tales and the veracity of an earlier New York Times report based on an Israeli soldier’s allegations has since been called into question by the paper’s own reporters.

However, the fact that the Israeli government has disseminated some disinformation about the events of Oct. 7 or misused the suffering of the victims and the hostages for its own purposes does not render all allegations made by Israeli victims and by other sources false.

Many of the acts described in reports by the U.N., rights groups, and media outlets may constitute war crimes, as defined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and subsequent protocols, and crimes against humanity, as defined by the 1998 Rome Statute. In addition, international law forbids the taking of hostages during an armed conflict, as defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross. A war crime is a war crime, and both sides should be held accountable for the crimes and human rights violations they have committed.

More than six months after Oct. 7, some media organizations and international groups remain unconvinced that any sexual violence actually occurred that day. Others issue general statements without specific reference to Hamas and Israel, or provide a reluctant acknowledgement that minimizes the scope and severity of the sexual abuse; others ignore or give only passing reference to the plight of the estimated 134 hostages still held in Gaza, at least 19 of whom are women and children, or issue general statements without specific references to Israel and Hamas.

The Intercept published a scathing critique of the earlier New York Times report, noting that “[r]ape is not uncommon in war.” The Intercept article presented the reporting of the Times article as flawed, noting that “at every turn, when the New York Times reporters ran into obstacles confirming tips, they turned to anonymous Israeli officials or witnesses who’d already been interviewed repeatedly in the press. Months after setting off on their assignment, the reporters found themselves exactly where they had begun, relying overwhelmingly on the word of Israeli officials, soldiers, and Zaka workers to substantiate their claim that more than 30 bodies of women and girls were discovered with signs of sexual abuse.” The Intercept implied that the rapes and abuse perpetrated against Israelis were not a systematic or deliberate act of war.

Elsewhere, Guardian columnist Owen Jones claimed on his YouTube channel that the video he watched, put together by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from Hamas’s own bodycam footage as well as dashboard and mobile phone footage, provided “no evidence” of war crimes.

More recently, articles in both the Grayzone and Mondoweiss analyze Patten’s report and claim, in the words of the latter, that she actually provided “no evidence of systematic rape.” The Grayzone also published a transcript of a discussion between Max Blumenthal and Chris Hedges in which they agree that Israel created a “shock-and-awe campaign of misinformation” in order to create “political space for its brutal assault on Gaza.” Other essays in the Middle East Eye and Zeteo focus primarily on the plight of women in Gaza, glossing over or failing to mention the plight of the Israeli women held hostage. Responses by certain women’s institutions at the United Nations and other feminist groups have also been muted.

On its website, U.N. Women refers to itself as “the global champion for gender equality,” but it has done little to seek justice for murdered Israeli women or resolve the plight of the hostages. In late November, U.N. Women Executive Director Sima Bahous did indeed brief U.N. Security Council members of the “dire situation of women in Gaza and the hostages.” And on Jan. 19, Bahous issued a statement saying, “I call again for accountability for all those affected by the 7 October attacks.” Bahous also condemned “the unparalleled destruction rained on the people of Gaza” along with a call for the release of the hostages.

But the response of U.N. Women as an organization has been less forthcoming. In late November, U.N. Women posted a condemnation of the “brutal attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October,” then replaced it with a statement that dropped the condemnation of the attacks and mention of Hamas, while calling for the release of the hostages. That latter statement was later deleted. Since then, its statements have condemned the deaths of Palestinian women in Gaza without any mention of the Israeli victims or the hostages remaining in Gaza, despite the testimony by released hostage Soussana in the New York Times and Israeli media.

Foreign officials and some advocacy organizations have been similarly equivocal. Interviewed on CNN in January, U.S. House Rep. Pramila Jayapal stated that while rape was “horrific,” it “happens in war situations. Terrorist organizations like Hamas obviously are using these as tools. However, I think we have to be balanced about bringing in the outrages against Palestinians.” (She later issued a statement unequivocally condemning “Hamas’ use of rape and sexual violence as an act of war.”)

In late March, a group of feminists wrote an open letter addressing the Israeli and U.S. governments, claiming that the Israeli government has “chosen to weaponize the issue of sexual violence for political outcome” to shield the IDF’s operations in Gaza amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.

In the eyes of many Israeli women, these institutions and organizations have failed to advocate for Israeli victims of sexual violence and for the safety of the remaining hostages—an abdication of their responsibility to protect the lives of all women everywhere. Their inability to simultaneously condemn the gender-based crimes committed by Hamas and the rampant death and destruction caused by Israel in Gaza raises disturbing questions about their understanding of, and commitment to, their mission—and their future relevance.

The downplaying of sexual violence by Hamas is all the more perplexing given the amount of disturbing material already in the public domain. Some of what is known about the gender-based crimes on Oct. 7 comes from testimonies of survivors, the desperate text messages that the victims sent to their families, and recovered cellphones and cameras. And some was provided by journalists or by the attackers themselves, some of whom broadcast their gruesome acts to entire world in real time.

These images include the picture of Naama Levy, bloodied and bruised, as she was loaded onto a Hamas vehicle; the image of terrified Noa Argamani as she was kidnapped to be brought to Gaza; and the photo of Shani Louk, whose mostly naked, splayed body was driven around Gaza on the back of a pickup truck. It is unknown if Louk was dead or alive in the photo; she was reported dead nearly a month later when IDF troops operating in Gaza identified parts of her body. That photo was the first featured in the winning gallery of the team category of Pictures of the Year competition run by the Missouri School of Journalism.

“This has been one of the most documented atrocities in history,” said Ruth Halperin-Kaddari of Bar Ilan University, an expert in international women’s law who served three terms on the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. The denial of the crimes against women constitutes, she said, “a betrayal of everything that these feminist organizations claim to stand for.”

There are several explanations for why previously respected women’s rights organizations might refuse to publicly admit that Hamas is capable of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, or gloss over these crimes.

Some observers, such the ad hoc group Me Too Unless You’re a Jew, insist that antisemitism is at the heart of the anti-Israel bias. Some academics, such as prominent Israeli sociologist Eva Illouz of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and historian Aviad Kleinberg of Tel Aviv University, argue that academics and human rights organizations—including the U.N.—have been and part of a far broader alliance between religious Islam and what Illouz refers to as the “‘post-colonial’ left” that has divided the world into victims and perpetrators, leading to a simplistic and distorted view of morality, according to which Palestinians can do no wrong—a view that Hamas has aggressively promoted.

One source—who previously held a high-ranking position at U.N. Women and is still employed by the United Nations, and therefore spoke to Foreign Policy on the condition of anonymity—pointed to bureaucratic and logistical issues as the cause of this disparity, rather than antisemitism or politicization. This source noted that unlike the West Bank and Gaza, Israel, the United States, and other developed Western countries are not considered “program areas for U.N. Women. … As a result, the U.N., a cumbersome, bureaucratic organization bound by all sorts of regulations and limitations, finds it difficult to even to really consider that Israel, or even any Israeli, might ever be a victim of the Palestinians.”

Furthermore, the source noted, Israel has often positioned itself as distant or even aloof from the U.N. and other international organizations. Indeed, Israel has long denigrated the U.N. and maintained that it is inherently hostile to Israel; as early as 1955, then-Prime Minister David Ben Gurion derisively used a made-up Hebrew rhyme, “Um-Shmum” to deny that the U.N. has any importance.

“This plays into an already-existing bias against Israel as an occupying country, and as a result, Israel may receive less understanding, compassion, or even attention from the U.N. and its affiliates,” the U.N. source said.

Based on her familiarity with the United Nations, Halperin-Kaddari—the international women’s law expert—also pointed to procedures and other limitations as a difficulty. But she noted that in comparison with other situations, such as the sexual violence in Foca, Bosnia, in 1992—during which large numbers of Muslims and Croats were tortured, disappeared, raped, or executed, and women were transferred to so-called rape camps—the responses of by U.N. Women and similar organizations has been “appalling slow and terribly inadequate.”

Daphna Hacker, a professor at Tel Aviv University’s faculties of law and gender studies and Israel’s current member of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, acknowledged that the evidence from Oct. 7 may not meet the “usual criterion” of U.N. and other international investigations.

“The intensity and manner in which these crimes were perpetrated is unprecedented,” Hacker said. “Hamas murdered or kidnapped most of their victims; the hostages have not been released and, as feminist researchers, we know that if there are surviving eyewitnesses or survivors, they may not come forward for many years, if ever. But the testimony that we do have is horrific.”

Tal Hochman, the director-general of the Israel Women’s Network, Israel’s foremost feminist advocacy organization, also acknowledged that there are numerous difficulties surrounding the evidence. She said that ZAKA, the nongovernmental rescue and recovery organization tasked by the government to recover the bodies after the Oct. 7 attacks, did not prioritize forensic examinations.

“ZAKA gave priority to identifying the bodies and bringing them to rapid burial, which is a holy commandment in Judaism,” Hochman said. “We do not have all of the evidence that we could have had, but I also understand the families’ pain and need for burial and closure.”

In the days following the attack, Hochman added, she volunteered at the Shura military base, the forensic collection center and morgue to which bodies from the Oct. 7 attack were brought. “We did not have enough refrigerators to perform complete forensic examinations of all of the bodies,” she said.

“To honor these women, the U.N. and other organizations cannot hide behind protocols and logistics,” Hacker said. “The organizations must adapt to the reality that the victims suffered, and the hostages continue to suffer, in order to bring them the justice they deserve.”

Orit Sulitzeanu, the director of the Association for Rape Crisis Centers in Israel—which published the first comprehensive report regarding the attacks—noted that the report produced by her organization “meets the highest standards of reporting. It is offensive that are findings are dismissed because of misuse by some Israeli individuals or officials. We are a nongovernmental agency—our report should be judged on its merits as an investigative report.”

Furthermore, she commented on the recent U.N. report: “What about the report by Patten? It is ludicrous to dismiss her report as if she were part of Israeli hasbara.”

Weaponizing the abuse of women and conflict-related sexual crimes to promote other agendas—whether the Israeli government’s or its opponents’—is a deliberate victimization of women and a betrayal of all women, everywhere.

Accusations of sexual-based war crimes must be investigated, no matter who the victim and the alleged perpetrator are. Sexual violence is abhorrent, no matter on which side of the border between Israel and Gaza the victims are and no matter if the victims are Israeli or Palestinian. Justifying or excusing the crimes of Oct. 7 as if they were acts of liberation and resistance implies that Israeli women are in some way complicit in their victimization, or perhaps deserved their fate, because they are citizens of an occupying power.

A position paper published in early December by a coalition of six Arab women’s organizations in Israel takes a more morally upstanding position. The coalition members clearly state that they do not question the reports of sexual assaults against Israeli women and “call upon the women [and] feminist activists … to boldly condemn all violations, including killings, demolitions, and displacements occurring in the relentless war against the Palestinian people, particularly affecting women and children in Gaza. … Our feminist values dictate that we cannot accept any excuses for violating human rights.”

In some future, we in this region will struggle to rebuild and create new societies predicated on freedom, security, and opportunity for all. To do so, we must learn to hold multiple, even contradictory, truths—and to feel pain for ourselves and our enemies simultaneously.

That means recognizing the anguish of the many thousands of women and children in Gaza who have been traumatized by the appalling deprivation, chaos, violence, and death at the hands of the IDF and the Israeli government and—at the same time—demanding justice for all of Hamas’s victims.

Justice is meant to be universal and indivisible. By minimizing the dehumanization of Israeli women and the hostages still in Gaza, many publications and organizations have undermined this crucial, seemingly self-evident axiom. And by denying the universalism of war crimes and crimes against humanity, they have abdicated their basic responsibility.

Instead of assuming positions of moral selectivity, U.N. institutions and all organizations and publications dedicated to human rights can and must apply their prestige, influence, and extensive funding to advocate for all women, investigate all credible allegations, bring all perpetrators to justice before an international court, and provide support for all victims.

27 notes · View notes

fuckterfs-deactivated20221212 · 7 months ago

Text

Huge news for trans people in germany! The old Transsexuellengesetz (TSG, something like "transsexuals' law") has been replaced with the new Gesetz über die Selbstbestimmung in Bezug auf den Geschlechtseintrag (SBGG, something like "law about self decision in regards to the legal gender marker" ), also known as Selbstbestimmungsgesetz ("self decision law")!

"But fuckterfs-deactivated20221212, what are they and why is it great? what changes?"

The TSG from 1980 was the law that determined the process for trans people to legally get their name and gender changed. It needed the individual in question to have been living as "the opposite gender" for several years already and it used to force trans people to get sterilized to get their legal gender and name change. Then you had to go to court and that court would then decide two arbitrary people who would be vague "experts" (read: gatekeepers) to determine whether you're really trans. The process could be as short as a few months or as long as several years, and usually cost several thousand euros. It was common for the gatekeepers to ask invasive questions regarding sexual life and do tests that humiliate and devalue the person, and it was not unheard of for trans people to be denied by these gatekeepers based on whether or not the person wore makeup, what colour their clothes were, or even just how they walked.

I'm talking about the TSG in past tense, but until the SBGG is in effect it's still happening.

Starting in November 2024, trans people can go to the registry office and make a "declaration with self insurance" in which they state that they want to change their name and gender entry in the civil status register. The declaration must contain the new name(s), or declare that they want to keep their old name if it corresponds to the newly chosen gender. The possible gender entries are male, female, diverse, and no entry. It is not possible to change your name without changing your gender based on this new law. There is a span of one year after each gender change but no numerical limit, and the change must be sort of pre-registered three months in advance every time. You can start doing that in August, so that in November the first name and gender changes can begin. After these three months, as soon as you hand in your declaration, the change will be in effect immediately. The once-per-year limit does not apply to minors. That brings me to another thing about this law: the minimum age to make this declaration yourself is 14 years! Legal guardians can do it for you with your approval and with you being present below those fourteen years with a minimum of five. If you are over 14 you need either the approval of a legal guardian or a family court. This is supposed to make sure that teens with transphobic parents can still get their gender change (not a great solution but not too awful either)

I am not a lawyer nor a professional translator, so it is possible there's errors in this post

#trans rights #germany #trans #:3

23 notes · View notes

lessergoodnow · 2 months ago

Text

Attacks against human rights defenders and obliteration of civic space in Gaza unacceptable, says UN expert

16 September 2024

Israeli Defence Forces continue to intentionally starve and kill civilians, while human rights defenders face enormous challenges conducting their peaceful work, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor said today.

In recent months the oldest human rights organisation in Gaza, the Palestinian Human Rights Centre (PCHR), has seen staff members killed and its offices damaged beyond repair in air strikes and ground attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces.

“There is literally no place left for human rights defenders and civil society actors to continue documenting the litany of human rights violations to which Israel is subjecting the people of the Gaza Strip,” the Special Rapporteur said.

Two women lawyers from the PCHR were killed in February 2024. Nour Abu al-Nour died along with her two-year-old daughter, her parents, and four siblings in an air raid on her house in Rafah on 20 February 2024. Two days later, Dana Yaghi and 37 family members were wiped out in an Israeli air raid on a house to which they had relocated for safety in Deir el-Balah, 14 km south of Gaza City.

“It is a terrible tragedy that justice for these two women human rights defenders, their family members and their children, seems so far away. Human rights defenders keep hope alive for justice through their work but are becoming victims themselves. This is why Israeli authorities seem so intent on targeting and silencing them,” she said.

The PCHR headquarters in Gaza City and branch offices in Jabalya, Khan Younis, and Rafah have all been severely damaged in air raids and ground attacks, forcing staff to relocate and rent office space and logistical support at skyrocketing prices, while some international funding has been suspended. They have also been subjected to a vitriolic online smear campaign by the Israeli group, NGO Monitor, which has falsely accused PCHR of being linked to terrorists.

“Human rights defenders have told me that they will continue their work despite this online defamation, which is targeted at drying up their international support and intimidating them,” Lawlor said.

“This organisation continues to bear witness, document and record gross human rights violations and war crimes. Many Palestinians have spoken to them on condition of anonymity. Such is their fear of Israeli repercussions if they are to be publicly identified.”

Recent media reports have highlighted Israeli surveillance of PCHR, and other Palestinian human rights organisations, including Al-Haq and Addameer in the Occupied West Bank, for much of the past decade, in relation to information they were submitting on Israeli human rights violations to the International Criminal Court.

“I repeat my call for human rights defenders to be recognised as essential in times of armed conflict, and to be protected. As independent observers, lawyers and researchers, they document and preserve evidence of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and ensure the possibility of accountability and justice,” Lawlor said.

The physical integrity of Human Rights Defenders should be protected against attacks and harassment, unlawful killings should be promptly and independently investigated in accordance with international law, and measures adopted to protect them against future serious violations, she said.

The expert has previously raised these concerns with authorities in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territory.

8 notes · View notes

zahri-melitor · 3 months ago

Text

More comments for myself on Kate Spencer in Green Arrow - the story pivots VERY fast from the Percy run, where Kate is in a familiar position as a defence attorney for a criminal matter (murder trial), to the Bensons run, where Kate is suddenly...in house counsel for Queen Industries advising on civil and criminal matters?

Within 5 issues of each other.

Now. I'm not going to say that lawyers don't move around jobs, and Kate's had multiple different jobs, but she is classically a federal prosecutor (in LA), District Attorney (in Gotham), and a criminal defence attorney (Dr Psycho, Wonder Woman).

She doesn't do in house work! She's an expert who stands up in court and argues! She works on murder trials! She's primarily the American equivalent of a barrister!

Grumble grumble does anyone writing this understand anything about lawyers grumble.

#z canon read throughs #kate spencer

14 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 19 days ago

Text

If critics are unhappy with surrogacy bans making it harder for gay men to have children because in Italy gay men can only have a civil union and not marriage which makes it harder to adopt then maybe advocates should work on marriage equality and adoption rights instead of......exploiting women

Italy’s new law classifies surrogacy as a universal crime on the same level as terrorism and genocide

Our expectations were low but oh my God.

By Benedetta Geddo Published: Oct 18, 2024 7:13 AM EDT

On Wednesday, October 16, the Italian Senate approved a proposed bill that was already passed last year by the lower house of the Parliament, making surrogacy “a universal crime” punishable according to Italian law no matter where Italian citizens are in the world when committing it.

This new law, whose creation and promotion were carried onwards by members of the Fratelli d’Italia party that is the current government majority, expands on an already existing law dating back to 2004, which bans surrogacy—usually referred to in Italy as “gestation for others” or “renting a uterus”—throughout the country.

The ban is now placed on Italian citizens no matter where they are in the world, and that technically should go for both the aspiring parents seeking surrogacy as well as any medical staff who facilitates it—who would all face steep fines and even jail time. There remains the question of the practical application of several aspects of this new law, which are fuzzy at best according to several legal experts and even some politicians behind the bill and would present quite the challenge for Italian lawyers and judges during a potential court case.

While statistics reported by The Washington Post show that most of the Italian citizens who travel abroad to have a child are heterosexual couples dealing with infertility issues, this new law would disproportionally affect same-sex couples—particularly gay couples, who would have a harder time explaining their return to Italy with a newborn infant than other couples would. Same-sex couples, in general, are already banned from adoption in Italy—and from marriage since the only union available to them is “a civil union”—and this furthers narrows their chances at becoming parents in a feel that feels very much targeted and could very well be.

This new law is one of the West’s most restrictive ones on the matter, even in Europe where surrogacy is much more constricted than in the United States, and it does certainly send a message about the stance Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her party have on “traditional family values” and reproductive issues—which were already quite clear to begin with. Meloni herself called it “a law against the mercification of the female bodies and of children,” in a post shared on her X (formerly Twitter) account.

Then again, this is ultimately yet another step in a considerable effort to control the culture about reproductive rights—something that isn’t exclusive to Italy but is happening all around the world as policies tend to shift towards the right everywhere. While abortion is firmly allowed in Italy thanks to a law that dates back to 1978, accessing it is often a hard, frustrating, and emotionally painful trial thanks in no small part to the intervention of several pro-life groups right down to hospital’s waiting rooms

This law is another signal in that same direction. One that implies that even though the State doesn’t have any rights on a person’s organs even after their death—since organ donation must be agreed upon by either the person who would be doing the donation or their next of kin, in Italy just like in many other countries around the world—the only exception is a woman’s uterus. On that, apparently, the State has every right to interfere. And that is ultimately the real issue, independent of one’s own personal feelings and opinions about surrogacy.

#Italy #International surrogacy is Human Trafficking #No one is entitled to biological children #Surrogacy exploits women #Babies are not commodities

5 notes · View notes