#belgian state in court

[thoughtlessarse]

The Belgian State has been summoned to appear in court to answer for the racial policy it pursued when it had guardianship over Congo (current Democratic Republic of the Congo) between 1908 and 1960. The appeal trial will take place on Monday and Tuesday. Five women, who were victims of the abduction and segregation of very young mixed-race children in Congo, have brought a civil action against the Belgian State. The legal procedure challenges the Belgian State for having organised this violent system of racial discrimination, which had profound consequences for their lives. The case, which is the first of its kind in Europe, was first heard in 2021 by the Brussels Civil Court, which rejected the claim by the five plaintiffs. An appeal was subsequently lodged. The five women, who were born in Congo between 1946 and 1950, are suing the Belgian State for civil liability for crimes against humanity. They are claiming damages for the serious harm caused to them when they were abducted and segregated. The women are the children of Belgian men and Congolese women conceived when Congo was a Belgian colony. They were taken from their home and forcibly placed in orphanages, like most very young mixed-race children. According to official documents from the colonial archives, abductions of mixed-race children were organised by officers of the Belgian State and carried out with the help of the Church.

continue reading

[the-lady-maddy]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Khaled Beydoun (@khaledbeydoun)

[comtessezouboff]

Paintings from Buckingham Palace: part I

A retexture by La Comtesse Zouboff — Original Mesh by @thejim07

100 followers gift!

First of all, I would like to thank you all for this amazing year! It's been a pleasure meeting you all and I'm beyond thankful for your support.

Spread among 13 occupied and historic royal residences in the United Kingdom, the collection is owned by King Charles III and overseen by the Royal Collection Trust. The British monarch owns some of the collection in right of the Crown and some as a private individual. It is made up of over one million objects, including 7,000 paintings, over 150,000 works on paper, this including 30,000 watercolours and drawings, and about 450,000 photographs, as well as around 700,000 works of art, including tapestries, furniture, ceramics, textiles, carriages, weapons, armour, jewellery, clocks, musical instruments, tableware, plants, manuscripts, books, and sculptures.

Some of the buildings which house the collection, such as Hampton Court Palace, are open to the public and not lived in by the Royal Family, whilst others, such as Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace and the most remarkable of them, Buckingham Palace are both residences and open to the public.

About 3,000 objects are on loan to museums throughout the world, and many others are lent on a temporary basis to exhibitions.

-------------------------------------------------------

This first part includes the paintings displayed in the White Drawing Room, the Green Drawing Room, the Silk Tapestry Room, the Guard Chamber, the Grand Staircase, the State Dining Room, the Queen's Audience Room and the Blue Drawing Room,

This set contains 37 paintings and tapestries with the original frame swatches, fully recolourable. They are:

White Drawing Room (WDR):

Portrait of François Salignan de la Mothe-Fénelon, Archbishop of Cambrai (Joseph Vivien)

Portrait of a Lady (Sir Peter Lely)

Portrait of a Man in Armour with a red scarf (Anthony van Dyck)

Portrait of Alexandra of Denmark, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom and Empress of India (François Flameng)

Green Drawing Room (GDR):

Portrait of Prince James Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (John Michael Wright)

Portrait of Frederick Henry, Charles Louis and Elizabeth: Children of Frederick V and Elizabeth of Bohemia (unknown)

Portrait of Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia of Autria and her Sister, Infanta Catalina Micaela of Austria (Alonso Sanchez Coello)

Portrait of Princess Louisa and Princess Caroline of the United Kingdom (Francis Cotes)

Portrait of Queen Charlotte with her Two Eldest Sons, Frederick, Later Duke of York and Prince George of Wales (Allan Ramsay)

Portrait of Richard Colley Wellesley, Marquess of Wellesley (Martin Archer Shee)

Portrait of the Three Youngest Daughters of George III, Princesses Mary, Amelia and Sophia (John Singleton Copley)

Silk Tapestry Room (STR):

Portrait of Caroline of Brunswick, Princess of Wales, Playing the Harp with Princess Charlotte (Sir Thomas Lawrence)

Portrait of Augusta, Duchess of Brunswick With her Son, Charles George Augustus (Angelica Kauffmann)

Guard Chamber (GC):

Les Portières des Dieux: Bacchus (Manufacture Royale des Gobelins)

Les Portières des Dieux: Venus (Manufacture Royale des Gobelins)

Les Portières des Dieux (Manufacture Royale des Gobelins)

Grand Staircarse (GS):

Portrait of Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, Queen Consort of Great Britain (Martin Archer Shee)

Portrait of Augustus, Duke of Sussex (Sir David Wilkie)

Portrait of Edward, Duke of Kent (George Dawe)

Portrait of King George III of Great Britain (Sir William Beechey)

Portrait of King William IV of Great Britain when Duke of Clarence (Sir Thomas Lawrence)

Portrait of Leopold I, King of the Belgians (William Corden the Younger)

Portrait of Prince George of Cumberland, Later King George V of Hanover When a Boy (Sir Thomas Lawrence)

Portrait of Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales (George Dawe)

Portrait of Queen Charlotte at Frogmore House (Sir William Beechey)

Portrait of Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saafeld, Duchess of Kent (Sir George Hayter)

State Dining Room (SDR):

Portrait of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom in Coronation Robes (Allan Ramsay)

Portrait of King George III of the United Kingdom in Coronation Robes (Allan Ramsay)

Portrait of Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, Princess of Wales (Jean-Baptiste Van Loo)

Portrait of Caroline of Ansbach when Princess of Wales (Sir Godfrey Kneller)

Portrait of Frederick, Princes of Wales (Jean-Baptiste Van Loo)

Portrait of King George II of Great Britain (John Shackleton)

Portrait of King George IV of the United Kingdom in Garther Robes (Sir Thomas Lawrence)

Queen's Audience Room (QAR):

Portrait of Anne, Duchess of Cumberland and Strathearn (née Anne Luttrel) in Peeress Robes (Sir Thomas Gainsborough)

Portrait of Prince Henry, Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn in Peer Robes (Sir Thomas Gainsborough)

London: The Thames from Somerset House Terrace towards the City (Giovanni Antonio Canal "Canaletto")

View of Piazza San Marco Looking East Towards the Basilica and the Campanile (Giovanni Antonio Canal "Canaletto")

Blue Drawing Room (BDR)

Portrait of King George V in Coronation Robes (Sir Samuel Luke Fildes)

Portrait of Queen Mary of Teck in Coronation Robes (Sir William Samuel Henry Llewellyn)

-------------------------------------------------------

Found under decor > paintings for:

500§ (WDR: 1,2 & 3)

1850§ (GDR: 1)

1960§ (GDR: 2 & 3 |QAR 3 & 4)

3040§ (STR, 1 |GC: 1 & 2|SDR: 1 & 2)

3050§ (GC:1 |GS: all 10|WDR: 4 |SDR: 3,4,5 & 6)

3560§ (QAR: 1 & 2|STR: 2)

3900§ (SDR: 7| BDR: 1 & 2|GDR: 4,5,6 & 7)

Retextured from:

"Saint Mary Magdalene" (WDR: 1,2 & 3) found here .

"The virgin of the Rosary" (GDR: 1) found here .

"The Four Cardinal Virtues" (GDR: 2&3|QAR 3 & 4) found here.

"Mariana of Austria in Prayer" (STR, 1, GC: 1 & 2|SDR: 1 & 2) found here.

"Portrait of Philip IV with a lion at his feet" (GC:1 |GS: all 10|WDR: 4 |SDR: 3,4,5 & 6) found here

"Length Portrait of Mrs.D" (QAR: 1 & 2|STR: 2) found here

"Portrait of Maria Theresa of Austria and her Son, le Grand Dauphin" (SDR: 7| BDR: 1 & 2|GDR: 4,5,6 & 7) found here

(you can just search for "Buckingham Palace" using the catalog search mod to find the entire set much easier!)

Drive

(Sims3pack | Package)

(Useful tags below)

@joojconverts @ts3history @ts3historicalccfinds @deniisu-sims @katsujiiccfinds @gifappels-stuff

-------------------------------------------------------

[royalchildreneurope]

The Belgian Royal Court shared these new pictures of Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, The Duchess of Brabant, who has recently started a master's in Public Policy at Harvard University (Harvard Kennedy School) in Cambridge, Boston, United States -September 18th 2024.

📷 : Max Bueno/Belgian Royal Palace.

[capybaracorn]

Why has Belgium vowed to back the ICJ’s verdict on Gaza ‘genocide’?

Unlike other European nations, Belgium has said it would support the international court’s decisions on South Africa’s case against Israel.

As the world anticipates a preliminary verdict from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, leaders in the European Union remain divided on how to interpret the decision.

Shortly after the two-day hearing at the world’s top court in the Hague earlier this month, where South Africa told the ICJ that Israel’s actions in the Gaza strip violated the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention, Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic – staunch allies of Israel – rejected these claims. Hungary condemned the case, while Berlin declared that it would intervene on Israel’s behalf at the ICJ.

Last week, France, which is home to Europe’s largest Muslim and Jewish minorities and has been in the headlines for banning pro-Palestine protests since October 7, chimed in, saying Paris also does not support the ICJ case against Israel.

“To accuse the Jewish state of genocide is to cross a moral threshold,” said French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne.

Other EU nations have remained silent on the court case.

Slovenia is an exception, having announced its support for another ICJ case against Israel regarding Palestinian rights.

And, among the bloc’s more outspoken critics of Israel’s military conduct in Palestine, Ireland has adopted a cautious stance. In Spain, the minority left-wing Sumar party in the coalition government backed South Africa’s case.

Last week, in Belgium, socialist politician Caroline Gennez, minister of development cooperation and urban policy, said the country would support to the ICJ’s decision.

“If the International Court of Justice calls on Israel to cease its military campaign in Gaza, our country will fully support it,” she said in a social media post.

At a news conference in Brussels on Friday, Ludivine Dedonder, defence minister, reiterated: “Today, the Belgian government is speaking out in favour of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, and support for the ICJ.”

What’s behind Belgium’s position?

The prevailing European view since October 7 has been that Israel has a right to self-defence against the Palestinian group Hamas, as long as it stays within the boundaries of international law.

But as the latest escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict rages on, some Belgian leaders have been more openly critical of Israel’s actions as the Palestinian death toll mounts.

After Hamas attacked southern Israel in early October, killing 1,139 people, Israeli forces have bombarded Gaza, the densely populated Strip Hamas governs with a pre-war population of 2.2 million people. During air attacks and as part of its ground invasion, the Israeli army has killed more than 25,000 people, among them many women and children, and stands accused of widespread atrocities.

In November, the Belgian government, a coalition of seven political parties, said 5 million euros ($5.4m) from the federal government will be used to support the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to investigate possible war crimes in Israel and Gaza.

Brigitte Herremans, a postdoctoral researcher at the Human Rights Centre at the University of Gent in Belgium, told Al Jazeera the tiny European country traditionally adopts strong positions on international law with regard to the Middle East conflict.

“Observers would say that it also has to do with Belgium’s own history of being occupied historically by foreign powers,” she added.

During both world wars, Belgium was under German occupation.

Herremans said that Belgium’s stance today is similar to its previous positions on other foreign policy issues, such as the Iraq war.

“In general, we always saw Belgium somehow stick to a position that the acquisition of territory by force wasn’t accepted,” she said.

But Marc Botenga, of Belgium’s leftist Workers’ Party and an EU lawmaker, said the government’s support to the ICJ is still limited.

“If you look closely at their statement there is no active attitude to actually support the South African case against Israel. The government just says they will support whatever decision the ICJ takes, which is logical since all member states of the United Nations are supposed to support the institution’s court,” Bottenga told Al Jazeera. “However we have to commend the Belgian public for this stance which other EU nations have not really taken.”

Large protests in different Belgian cities have played a role in pressuring the government to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, he said.

Meanwhile, Belgium has declared its participation in the EU Red Sea Mission against Yemen’s Houthis, the Iran-linked group which says its recent attacks on ships linked to Israel or its allies are aimed at pressuring officials to stop the onslaught of Gaza.

“That’s not the kind of stance we want,” Bottega said of Belgium’s participation.

Herremans said that since Belgium currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union – a decision-making body in which ministers coordinate policies and adopt laws – his country is responsible for developing consensus.

“Belgium has to take into account the position of staunch pro-Israeli countries, so [it] might have to be more cautious and less vocal on international law. But it will not take a fundamentally different position from what it always has,” she said.

Belgium’s position on Israel-Palestine

Historically, Belgium has shown solidarity towards Palestine while also supporting Israel.

At the UN in 2012, it voted in favour of giving Palestine “non-member” observer status. Last year, it supported a UN resolution ordering the ICJ to investigate the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

But discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the Parliament can be difficult, because of diverse views between political parties in the Flanders in the north, Wallonia in the south, and the Brussels region.

Some Belgian sources told Al Jazeera that of the seven coalition partners, the progressives – Greens and Social Democrats – believe concrete measures have to be taken to ensure international law is applied in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank with regard to the ICJ case.

In recent months, the Flemish Liberal Party of Prime Minister De Croo and Flemish Christian-Democrats have also toughened their stance on the situation in Palestine.

In November, the premier described Israel’s campaign in Gaza as “disproportionate” as he condemned the army’s bombing of Gaza refugee camps.

But the French-speaking Liberal Party, to which the foreign affairs minister belongs, has traditionally been pro-Israel.

Elections

Looking ahead, Belgium heads to the polls in June, which could end up shifting the country’s stance if a new government comes into power.

Fourat Ben Chikha, vice president of the senate, the federal parliament’s upper house, told Al Jazeera that even if the current coalition changes, as an international community, de-escalation and respect for human rights and international law should be every Belgian government’s priority.

Willem Staes, senior Middle East adviser at 11.11.11, a Belgian international solidarity organisation which lobbies Belgian and European governments to uphold human rights, said that regardless of the Belgian government’s composition, foreign policy has traditionally focused on fighting against impunity and promoting accountability.

“The current government is consequently applying this logic and leading the way at EU level. So providing support to the ICJ and the ICC, or calling for a permanent ceasefire, is not about being ‘pro-Palestinian’ or ‘anti-Israel’,” Staes told Al Jazeera.

“It’s about common sense and choosing the only logical side, which is the side of international law. The fact that this is considered ‘radical’ by some tells you everything you need to know about the state of European politics.”

[mariacallous]

The imposition of the largest sanctions program since the Second World War in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine remains a key tool for limiting the Kremlin’s war machine. But it has inadvertently also had substantial secondary and tertiary effects, from the rewiring of European energy networks to myriad lawsuits over what insurers should have to pay for the Kremlin’s seizure of over 400 Western aircraft.

These unintended consequences have garnered far less attention than the intended ones, but the former are still multiplying and there are tens of billions of dollars already at stake in them. While sanctions rightfully continue to be tweaked to maximize their impact, policymakers have not paid due attention to the legal spats and sanctions challenges that have already arisen in their wake. Their outcome will greatly determine the effectiveness of the sanctions and the extent to which the Kremlin or the West will bear their cost.

This is not the first time the West has had to deal with such issues. At the outbreak of the war with Japan in 1941, the U.S. seized assets and businesses owned by Japanese nationals on its soil, acting under the Trading with the Enemy Act. These actions, while directed primarily at the war-time adversary, inevitably wrought a lot of collateral damage, as investors in Japanese enterprises, their creditors, or depositors in Japanese-owned banks, were often the American public.

It took years to untangle the resulting mess. And yet, when all was said and done, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress acted to protect the interests of these investors, and ensure both the orderly liquidation and the equitable distribution of proceeds to those affected. Thus, the depositors of Yokohama Specie Bank, had their claims on the “yen certificates” preserved in a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, allowing the certificate holders to recover at least some economic value from proceeds of the bank’s liquidation.

In short, there is a blueprint for handling the legal spats that result from waging economic war. That blueprint, in broad terms, is to act forcefully against the economic interests of the enemy, yet make full use of the institutions of law and justice for the interests of affected parties at home.

Today, as Russia and the West remain engaged in a full-scale economic war, this blueprint seems largely ignored. What we see instead, is perhaps the opposite: The adversary ruthlessly subverting the toolkit of the “rules-based international order” for its benefit with lawsuits that seem to lead Western institutions down the path of treading softly where Russian interests are concerned, while Western investors and, of course, Ukraine take the brunt of the costs and receive little or no protection.

Consider the June G-7 summit, where member states united on a plan for using the returns earned by Russia’s $300 billion in frozen sovereign assets to aid Ukraine, of which $200 billion are held as cash and securities at the Belgian financial company Euroclear. Leaders of the G7 have agreed to effectively monetize the future income flow on the frozen assets, and turn it into an immediate $50 billion in loans to Ukraine. This is as stark an acknowledgement as possible that Russia’s assets will not be returned to it any time soon, even if outright seizure is off the table for now following a chorus of complaints that doing so would not be compatible with international law.

Nevertheless, Brussels has insisted Kyiv will not receive any of the five billion euros that the frozen assets have generated thus far and continues to tread softly against Russia and its proxies. The reason: Euroclear itself is worried about lawsuits brought by Russia over this action and its freezing of other securities affected by the Western sanctions regime.

According to Euroclear, it is facing “a significant number of legal proceedings…almost exclusively in Russian courts,” where “the probability of unfavourable rulings is high since Russia does not recognize the international sanctions.”

This reveals a fundamental flaw in the arguments made by proponents of the so-called “rules-based international order.” Russia can appeal to its structures too—and, slowly but surely, make sanctions even less effective than they already are. Meanwhile in the West, the powers that be continue to dither, and ignore the blueprints for economic confrontation from the past.

Russia’s efforts here are already advancing: thus the suits against Euroclear, and the efforts of Mikhail Fridman—the sanctioned Russian oligarch—to return the nearly $16 billion of his former assets through an arbitration claim under the Soviet-Belgium-Luxembourg Bilateral Investment Treaty. As its name gives away, the pact actually even predates Russia’s establishment as an independent state and was inherited from the Soviet Union. It has not been updated since, but cannot be so easily unwound—its final clause notes that it applies to investments made before its hypothetical abrogation for 15 years thereafter.

It is also this treaty that Russia would ultimately use to try and have its domestic court rulings against Euroclear and other Western institutions enforced. We can be sure that there is more to come: Russia has already promised “endless legal challenges” if its assets or the income on these assets are seized. One of the largest such clashes is likely imminent, and will require politicians decide how to proceed. On 7 June the Permanent Court of Arbitration awarded Uniper, which was taken over after being bailed out by the German state, €13 billion in damages from Gazprom over Putin’s decision to toggle Europe’s gas taps in 2022, which forced Germany to bail out Uniper. A Russian arbitration court, on the other hand, has awarded Gazprom €14 billion from Uniper in the dispute. Berlin aims to re-IPO Uniper but will hardly be able to do so with such an albatross hanging above it.

It is therefore all the more remarkable that Western policymakers have not yet addressed how they intend to overcome such risks, nor why Russia remains permitted to take advantage of Western legal system under circumstances of a full-scale economic warfare.

Potential vulnerability to legal action by Russia and its proxies, and a lack of credible or coherent response by the West appears to have led Euroclear to take a number of actions that are clearly not in the Western interest and are often inconsistent with its past practices.

The clearing house has, for example, refused to label a number of securities as being in default in cases where the underlying entity has chosen to default rather than being forced to into default by sanctions. This has not just affected Russian corporate borrowers but even the debts of the government of neighboring Belarus. Belarus’ sovereign Eurobonds that were due to be repaid in early 2023 and are still unpaid, and thus in “default”; but Euroclear has instead designated these as “matured”. This semantic choice has significant implications, blocking the clearing and settlement of these bonds and thus impacting Western creditors – while Belarus, a key ally to Russia in its war, remains (intentionally or not) shielded from the full consequences of its default.

Good explanations for these actions are lacking, but it does appear that Euroclear has, in effect, accepted Belarus’ purported excuse: that sanctions prevent it from paying. But not all sanctions are a barrier to payment—certainly not those that have been imposed on Belarus. Notably, the Development Bank of Belarus, which faces a similar sanctions regime as the sovereign government, successfully made its coupon payment in November 2022, which was, albeit with delay, passed on to the bondholders by Euroclear. Suspension of payments, then, is simply a policy choice, and indeed, the Development Bank ultimately followed the sovereign and suspended payments as well, and this year failed to repay its Eurobonds at maturity. Euroclear took the same action with respect to the Development Bank’s bonds: they are marked as “matured” instead of “in default”.

This sort of leniency, and, seemingly, a fear of calling a “default” on a Russian ally, is without precedent, and completely at odds with the approaches by rating agencies, investors, the World Bank, the ISDA Determinations Committee (as it relates to Russia) and Euroclear’s own actions as to other sovereigns. In the recent past, the defaulted bonds of Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Zambia are all correctly marked by Euroclear as “in default” and continue to settle.

For Western creditors of Belarus, its Development Bank and the similarly placed Russian corporate borrowers, the block on trading and settlement by Euroclear is clearly harmful. For Russia and its ally, the lack of a “default” label by a key player in the Western financial infrastructure looks oddly protective. It also makes a mockery of the fact that sanctions are meant to constrain the inflow of funds to Russia and its allies instead of limiting their outflow and reducing the resources available to Russia and its allies to pursue an unjust war.

How should Western policymakers respond to these challenges? Firstly, by looking at the existing playbook for economic war, and treating as many claims as standard defaults and bankruptcies as possible. Secondly, by recognizing that the “international rules-based order” is in fact largely a set of established norms, particularly when it comes to creditor disputes, and that Russia has spent at least the last decade seeking to undermine these—beginning with its attempt to muck up Ukraine’s restructuring in 2014, something that continues to wind its way through the English courts.

That is the least that can be done to protect Western interests, free up more funds for Ukraine, and defang the Kremlin’s attempts to weaponize international law and institutions.

[beardedmrbean]

Diane Rwigara, an outspoken critic of Rwandan President Kagame, has been barred from standing in next month’s presidential election.

Only Mr Kagame and two other politicians - Frank Habineza of the Democratic Green Party and independent Philippe Mpayimana - were cleared by the electoral body.

Ms Rwigara, who was also disqualified from the 2017 poll, took to X, formerly Twitter, to express her disappointment to Mr Kagame.

“Why won't you let me run? This is the second time you [have] cheat[ed] me out of my right to campaign,” she said.

The 42-year-old, who is the leader of the People Salvation Movement (PSM), had earlier told the BBC’s Newsday programme that she had hoped to be a able to stand this time round.

"I'm representing the vast majority of Rwandans who live in fear and are not allowed to be free in their own country,” she said.

“Rwanda is portrayed as a country where the economy has been growing. But on the ground, it's different. People do lack the basics of life, food, water, shelter."

But on issuing its provisional list of candidates, the electoral commission said Ms Rwigara had failed to provide the correct documentation to show she had no criminal record.

It also said she had failed to show she had enough support nationwide to stand.

"On the requirement for 600 signature endorsements, she did not provide at least 12 signatures from eight districts," Oda Gasinzigwa, the electoral commission chief, was quoted as saying.

Another reason the commission gave was that Ms Rwigara had failed to prove she was Rwandan by birth. She once held Belgian citizenship but surrendered that in 2017 before her last bid to become a candidate.

But Ms Rwigara has told the BBC that she was born in Rwanda and dismissed all the other grounds for the rejection of her candidacy.

A total of nine applications to stand for president were received by Rwanda's National Electoral Commission. Their final list will be announced next Friday as it still considering appeals lodged earlier in the process – though at this stage it is too late for the PSM leader to appeal.

In 2017 she was barred following accusations of forging the signatures of supporters for her application.

Ms Rwigara was imprisoned for more than a year but acquitted in 2018 over charges of inciting insurrection and forgery. She said the charges were politically motivated.

In March, a Rwandan court blocked efforts by prominent opposition figure Victoire Ingabire to lift a ban on her running in the presidential election.

She was freed in 2018 after spending eight years in prison for threatening state security and "belittling" the 1994 genocide.

In Rwanda, people who have been jailed for more than six months are barred from running in elections.

The two cleared candidates - Mr Habineza and Mr Mpayimana - were also the only candidates approved to stand against Mr Kagame in the 2017 election.

Mr Kagame is running for a fourth term, which could extend his presidency to nearly three decades should he win.

He won the last presidential election in 2017 with nearly 99% of the vote.

The 66-year-old president has faced criticism from rights groups for cracking down on the opposition.

But he has always fiercely defended Rwanda's record on human rights, saying his country respects political freedoms.

[soon-palestine]

Alison Russell, a Scottish-born Belgian citizen and Human Rights Defender, was detained by the Israeli occupation authorities while documenting the demolition of a house in Masafer Yatta, in the South Hebron Hills of the occupied West Bank. She was deported after very perfunctory proceedings at the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court. Israeli police alleged in a public statement that Alison “supported a terrorist organization.” Her attorney pointed out that this claim had no basis. Nevertheless, the presiding judge issued a verdict couched in fiery nationalist rhetoric, claiming that “There are many faces to Hamas terror. There are various kinds of terrorists. Some terrorists wield guns and bombs while others use a computer keyboard”.

In the last month and a half, the charge of being a “supporter of a terrorist organization” has become an excuse for an extensive campaign of political persecution against anyone who dares to post any protest the unfolding genocide in Gaza. This has affected Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship and against Israeli Jews, such as the teacher Meir Baruchin, who was detained for almost a week on completely unfounded charges. In the Gaza Strip, a far more brutal procedure for the same allegations is implemented. A Gazan journalist or political activist accused of “supporting Hamas” may expect to be targeted and/or have their family targeted by a missile from an Israeli warplane. Such was, for example, the fate of Ahmed Abu Artema and countless other Palestinian activists and journalists. Nowadays in Israel, all it takes to be charged with “supporting terrorism” is to express sorrow and pain over the killing of children in the bombing of the Gaza Strip. State Attorney Amit Isman strongly criticized these detentions, but Israel’s police, controlled by Ben-Gvir, persist in carrying out such detentions.  In the case of human rights defender Alison Russell, the far-fetched charges of “supporting terrorism” or “keyboard terrorism” cover up the real reason for her detention and deportation. In court, the state asserted that “she had many times disrupted the activities of the IDF troops, whenever she came in contact with them”. Indeed, it is highly disturbing for the troops to have outside observers and witnesses present where acts of oppression take place, which often constitute blatant violations of International Law. 

The tiny villages at Masafer Yatta in the South Hebron Hills are attacked by settlers on one side and the army on the other: The settlers attack the villages, destroy whatever is at hand and threaten entire communities with murder, and in these criminal acts they enjoy complete immunity from the police and army. For its part, the army arrives to destroy the houses of the villagers, houses which were declared to be “illegal” by the Supreme Court. Alison was detained and deported when she tried to document the destruction of one of these houses. The police had stated “a deportation order from Israel” was issued to Alison, as well as a decree to “prevent her from entering Israel” in the future. We would like to emphasize that Alison never wanted to “enter Israel.” She wanted to come to the West Bank, a Palestinian territory occupied by Israel, by the express invitation of Palestinian residents to document and intervene in human rights abuses and stop an ongoing nakba. In the words of Alison herself, “The UN, created when the world was saying ‘nie wieder faschismus,’ has given up on Palestine. But right now, right here, in a tiny little corner of Palestine, there are a dozen villages that are under direct and immediate threat. When the handful of determined people that are here manage to organize a group to sleep in the hamlets, we delay their expulsion…I’m here ‘cos I really think our action is effective. Please make it more effective by getting involved too.”

[dragoneyes618]

European Jewish leaders have sharply criticized a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR), which upheld a ban on kosher slaughter in Belgium, slamming it as a significant setback for religious freedom across Europe.

Dismissing legal and humanitarian appeals by Belgium’s Jewish community and Jewish leaders worldwide, the seven-judge panel in the Strasbourg court—the EU’s highest judicial body– invoked “the protection of animal welfare” as “an ethical value” that supersedes the Jewish and Muslim religious mandates.

The judges confirmed the ban already in place in Belgium that insists that animals be “stunned” prior to slaughter, regardless of Jewish law and Islamic practice that forbid it.

Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, President of the Conference of European Rabbis and Russia’s chief rabbi, called the ruling “a black day for Europe, when fundamental religious rights are no longer respected.”

“The court’s decision to enforce the ban on ritual slaughter in the Flanders and Wallonia regions of Belgium will be felt by Jewish communities across the continent,” Rabbi Goldschmidt said. “The bans have already had a devastating impact on the Belgian Jewish community, causing supply shortages. And we are all very aware of the precedent this sets in challenging our rights to practice our religion.”

Belgium is home to some 500,000 Muslims and 30,000 Jews. Those who want to observe shechitah and Muslim ‘halal’ must now obtain meat from abroad.

“This distorted verdict implies that the rights of citizens to freedom of religion and worship are of lower importance than the “rights” of animals,” said Rabbi Menachem Margolin, chairman of the Brussels-based European Jewish Association. He warned that the restrictions on Jews practicing their faith will lead to “serious damage to the fabric of life throughout the continent.”

Fearing A Domino Effect

By upholding the Belgian ban, the EU Court of Human Rights has effectively signaled other states within the European Union that they can implement their own laws prohibiting kosher slaughter for Jews and halal slaughter for Muslims, without fear of religious discrimination lawsuits.

The threat of legal consequences has until now acted as a brake on the anti-shechitah movement. But the EUHR ruling has removed that barrier, setting the stage in an expected domino effect for a wave of copycat restrictions on ritual slaughter by European governments.

“We are already seeing attempts across Europe to follow this Belgian ban, now sadly legitimized by the ECHR,” Dr. Ariel Muzicant, president of the European Jewish Congress, said in a statement.

The bans, imposed in the two regions several years ago, were the result of a long-running campaign by animal welfare activists. But they also raised fears among Muslim and Jewish community groups that they were “a cover for nationalist politicians to foster anti-immigrant sentiment,” reported Politico.

Ben Weyts, the Flemish minister responsible for animal welfare, was the first to propose the idea of a ban and expressed satisfaction with the verdict. “Now the door is open for a ban on ritual slaughter not only in Brussels but in the whole of Europe,” Weyts, of the far-right New Flemish Alliance, gloated in a television interview.

Yohan Benizri, president of the Belgian Federation of Jewish Organizations that opposed the slaughter ban, said he was “appalled” by the ruling. “This is the first time that the ECHR decides that protection of animal welfare is a matter of public morals that can trump the rights of minorities,” Benizri told Politico.

Hostility To Shechitah Deeply Rooted in European History

The hostility to shechitah endorsed by the Strasbourg court hardly comes as a shock; that animus has underpinned Belgian society for generations, deeply rooted in a legacy of Jew-hatred that has flourished throughout European history.

Blood libels across the ages have been fueled by malicious portrayals of shechitah as barbaric and cruel. Grotesque carvings on countless medieval church facades depicting Jews in obscene acts with pigs, on display to this very day, continue the tradition of mocking Jewish dietary restrictions.

Several European countries in the 19th and 20th Centuries oppressed their Jewish populations with bans against shechitah. Switzerland did so in 1893 to stop Jews fleeing pogroms from entering their country. Poland enacted a similar ban in 1936, Sweden in 1937.

Germany passed anti-shechitah laws three months after the Nazis came to power in 1933, citing cruelty to animals, and maligning kosher slaughter as a Jewish celebration of animal suffering. One of the first acts of the Nazi regime, the laws banning shechitah were aimed at making Germany unlivable for Jews, forcing them to emigrate.

Legislation prohibiting shechitah often follows the Nazi model, masquerading under the banner of animal welfare, and fueled by the canard that kosher slaughter inflicts undue suffering on animals. This misconception has persisted through generations and continues to resonate in various parts of the world.

In 2009, bowing to pressure from liberals and parties hostile to Jews and Muslims, the EU Council implemented the pre-slaughter stunning law. Following outcries from religious groups, the law made allowances for member States to provide exemptions to accommodate ritual slaughter by Jews and Muslims.

A number of countries including France, Germany, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Spain make use of that exemption. Other European countries refuse to grant any exemptions from the stunning law. These include Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Cyprus, Spain, Slovenia, and now Belgium.

Five Years of Court Battles   

The Strasbourg court’s ruling marked the culmination of legal battles waged by Jewish and Muslim groups, together with seven advocacy groups, against bans enacted in 2017 and 2018 in Flanders and Wallonia against shechitah and Islamic ritual slaughter.

The bans were pushed through the Belgium parliament by an alliance of anti-shechitah forces, animal rights groups and anti-Muslim politicians.

The litigants first brought a religious discrimination lawsuit in a Belgium court, then at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in 2020, and finally the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Their appeals argued that the laws violate guarantees of religious freedom enshrined in EU law; in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; the European Convention on Human Rights; and the Belgian Constitution itself.

The Strasbourg court dismissed their arguments, stating that animal welfare was a component of “public morals” and carried significant weight in modern-day democracies.

Critics have drawn attention to Articles 9 and 14 under the European Convention of Human Rights, formulated in 1953, which protects the political and civil rights of Europeans. Its provisions guarantee freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Muzicant said the Strasbourg court, in upholding the anti-shechitah law, “had violated the very charter” from which it draws its authority.

“We call on the European Commission and European Parliament to enact legislation which truly protects these fundamental rights and to give real meaning to their long-stated claims that they foster Jewish life in Europe,” Muzicant affirmed on the EJC website. “Jewish communities in Europe, now more than ever, need the protection of national governments and pan-European organizations to ensure that thousands of years of Jewish life on this continent do not come to an abrupt end.”

“Restrictions on fundamental aspects of Jewish religious freedom of expression, coupled with a background of massive increases in anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish communities, lead us to seriously consider whether Jews have a future in Europe,” the EJC representative said.

The EU Lowers Its Mask

Commenting on the Strasbourg court ruling upholding Belgium’s anti-shechitah ban, noted British political commentator Melanie Philips mocked the EU for its hypocrisy.

“The European Union likes to pose as the embodiment of tolerance, freedom and all civilized values. Now it has ripped off its own disguise to reveal something rather more ugly,” she wrote in the Jewish Star.

“The idea that stunning is humane is laughable,” Philips elaborated. “It’s often ineffective, causing the animal to be subjected to this assault more than once before it eventually loses consciousness. And even with prior stunning, meat processing plants in Europe are often inhumane places where livestock are factory farmed, pumped full of chemicals and industrially killed.”

So if the requirement for stunning actually has little to do with animal welfare, what’s the real driving force behind it?

At its core, writes Phillips, the law reflects a switch in priorities; animals being given priority over basic human rights, with a corresponding rise in ignorance and hypocrisy over what actually constitutes animal welfare.

“That moral confusion is one of the outcomes of the dogma of secularism, as well as the hostility to religion upon which the EU itself is based,” writes the author. Another key factor contributing to Western decay is its “moral and cultural relativism,” which preaches there are no absolute values.

“All of these [dark forces] have propelled the rise of paganism and the veneration of the animal at the expense of humanity.”

Pitfalls of Stunning an Animal

The practice of “stunning” refers to the methods of rendering an animal or bird unconscious prior to slaughter.

It was originally developed to facilitate the killing of large numbers of animals at once, in factory-like conditions. The main stunning method used for slaughtering cattle and sheep is by captive bolt gun, in which a steel bolt is shot into the skull at the front of the animal’s brain, details the National Institute  Health.

Another method is by electric shock, whereby electrodes are clamped to the animal’s head and heart, electrocuting it.

These methods are contrary to Jewish law which stipulates that an animal intended for food must be healthy and uninjured at the time of shechitah. Stunning injures and sometimes kills the animal, in either case rendering it forbidden for Jews to eat.

Apart from the halachic prohibition, there are other objections to stunning. Despite the rhetoric from animal rights activists, there is no conclusive evidence that stunning an animal renders it insensible to pain, experts say.

Some scientists claim that the animal is often only paralyzed—not fully sedated—and thus prevented only from displaying its pain.

In addition, when the captive bolt method fails, as happens not infrequently, it inflicts considerable suffering and distress on the animal. The conscious animal is left in acute pain as the captive bolt gun is reloaded and reapplied, or the electrical tongs reapplied to re-stun it.

According to Britain’s Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA), stunning is done differently for poultry. “Birds are hung upside down by their legs on metal shackles along a moving conveyor belt,” the RSPCA details.

“They move along the production line to a stunning water bath; when the bird’s head makes contact with the water, an electrical circuit between the water bath and shackle is completed, which stuns the bird. The conveyor belt then moves the birds to a mechanical neck cutter, which cuts the major blood vessels in the neck.”

Shechitah avoids all the technical risks and humanitarian pitfalls of stunning. Yet, in one of the supreme ironies of this world, despite the gruesome, torturous nature of non-kosher slaughter, it is shechitah with its meticulous laws aimed at minimizing animal suffering that is being painted as barbaric and cruel.

*****

Why Isn’t Stunning Required for Animals Killed in Belgian Sporting Events? 

One of the EJC’s earliest legal appeals drew attention to the discriminatory nature of the Belgian anti-shechitah legislation, noting that hunting and killing animals in sporting events are not subject to any of the “humane” regulations that have been imposed on ritual slaughter.

On the contrary, the laws governing the popular activity of game-hunting in Belgium, whether for recreation of food consumption, make no reference whatever to the welfare of animals. The law’s concern instead is over environmental protections.

As a feature article in Flanders Today makes clear, the government’s aims in regulating hunting are purely environmental; to ensure that the region’s wildlife supply is not significantly reduced and that no damage is done to the land.

The article goes on to enthuse about the opportunities for hunting wild game in Belgian resort areas. “Hunting wild game in the winter is a hit among hunters, butchers and consumers,” the article begins, going on to list “deer, wild boar, partridge, ducks and pheasant” as “huntable animals.”

The Jewish community’s appeal challenged the double standard inherent in these hunting laws. It argued that since the law in Belgium permits the hunting and killing of animals at “cultural or sporting events” without prior stunning, how can the same government impose “stunning” requirements on ritual slaughter?

The court’s response exposed its show of caring about animal welfare as empty posturing.

“Cultural and sporting events result at most in a marginal production of meat which is not economically significant,” the court said. “Consequently, such events cannot reasonably be understood as a food production activity, which justifies their being treated differently from slaughtering.”

What does that gibberish mean? What does food production have to do with the obligation to spare an animal from undue suffering?

What the court seemed to be saying was that imposing humanitarian restrictions on game-hunting will make no economic dent on Jewish or Muslim meat-production industries (and by association, on Jewish or Muslim immigration), so why make a fuss over whether hunting game is done humanely?

In other words, hunt and kill for sport however you please, gentlemen, no stunning necessary, because we don’t really care about animals. That was never the point.

*****

Shocking Scenarios of Animals ‘Rights’ Superseding Human Life

“The protection of nature is gradually taking ideological precedence not only over the right to exercise one’s religion but also over the well-being of humans,” Prof. Eric Mechoulan who teaches in Paris, attested in Mosaic Magazine.

The writer describes a trip he took to Denmark a number of years ago, when he was confronted with a real-life scenario in which obsession over animal welfare trumped concern for the health and well-being of thousands of people.

The writer recalls during his trip being “trapped for six hours in a humongous traffic jam on the highway between Copenhagen and the island of Funen.”

“A truck carrying pigs had overturned and the animals had wandered into a field adjacent to a bridge pier,” he recalled “Not only did a crane have to be brought in to get the animals back into their truck, but “a veterinarian had to be called in to catch and kill the injured pigs in the middle of the countryside, as Danish law prohibits the transport of suffering animals.”

“It took [the veterinarian] a long time,” the author writes. “For this reason, a quarter of the country was blocked and tens of thousands of humans, women and children, old and sick, lacking water and washroom facilities, stayed for hours under the scorching sun.”

“The nature-worshippers in Europe wear the mask of progressive ecology and behind it lurks anti-speciesism,” the author scoffs. Anti-speciesism is an atheistic movement, rooted in the 70’s that claims that no species, including the human species, is more important than any other.

Animal Rights Activists Fight Municipal Orders to Kill Marauding Bears

In some parts of the world where sanity still rules, multiple sightings of a bear in populated areas where fatal bear attacks have taken place would naturally spur efforts to kill the animal as a safety precaution.

However, in regions were animal and environmentalists equate animal rights with those of human beings, threats to public safety are not considered valid grounds to end the life of suspected killer bear.

An incident unfolded early this month in Torentino, a northern province in Italy, that highlighted this unhinged mentality. A bear, identified by its collar and ear markings as M90, was sighted on 12 occasions “in residential areas or in the immediate vicinity of permanent dwellings.”

After Bear M90 reportedly stalked people on numerous occasions, terrifying them, he was deemed a danger to public security, tracked to its lair in the forest and killed, the Guardian reported.

Animal and environmental activists were incensed, slamming the action as “shortsighted and hostile to animals” and accusing the municipality of not “protecting biodiversity,” according to the article. The animal-loving activists went on to rally for the welfare of the brown bears in the provincial capital, Trento.

In other headlines from Italy, even after a hiker was fatally mauled by a bear last year in the Italian village of Caldes, and the same bear had previously attacked a father and a son, the order to kill the deadly animal was cancelled by an administrative court after intense lobbying by animal activists, reported the Guardian.

Only after intense counter pressure was brought to bear by influential parties was the order renewed and carried out.

Isolated incidents in Denmark and Italy? Or episodes reflecting something deeper and sicker in the fabric of European society, and in the moral rot lurking behind the EU judiciary’s shameful anti-shechitah ruling.

[humanrightsupdates]

Belgium Overcomes EU Struggles to Send Strong Message on Gaza

Despite the horrific and mounting human costs of the grave violations of international humanitarian law in Israel and Palestine, the 27 EU member states have been unable to reach a unanimous position condemning war crimes committed by all parties and calling for accountability. But the Belgian government has shown that it is possible for individual EU governments to stick to principles and not hide behind a lack of consensus at the EU level.

In a series of public statements, senior figures in the Belgian government, including Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, Deputy Prime Minister Petra De Sutter, Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib, and Development Minister Caroline Gennez, not only condemned the heinous October 7 killings by Palestinian armed groups, but also questioned the legality of some Israeli airstrikes, condemned its collective punishment of the Palestinian population, and called for targeted sanctions and accountability for those responsible. The Belgian government also expressed support for the International Criminal Court’s role and its ongoing investigation on the situation in Palestine, which includes jurisdiction over the current hostilities between the Israeli government and Palestinian armed groups. Also, the Belgian federal parliament has introduced a bill to ban trade with settlements in occupied territories.

EU governments have long been divided on Israel-Palestine. The divide has paralyzed the EU, whose foreign policy has to be unanimously approved by its 27 states, some of which continue to offer seemingly unconditional support for the Israeli government and shield it from accountability. In fact, European diplomats had to fight to secure even basic calls to Israeli authorities to respect international humanitarian law in their response to the October 7 attacks.

[tomorrowusa]

Latvia has sworn in its first openly LGBTQ+ president. Edgars Rinkēvičs is also the first openly gay head of state (as opposed to head of government) in the European Union.

Latvia's long-serving foreign minister Edgars Rinkevics has become the first openly gay head of state of a European Union nation. Mr Rinkevics, who had served as foreign minister since 2011, was sworn in as Latvia's president on Saturday in Riga. Although generally a ceremonial position, Latvia's president can veto legislation and call referendums. The EU has had openly gay heads of governments before, but never a gay head of state. In many countries, the heads of state and heads of government are different people - for example a president and prime minister. Former Belgian Prime Minister Elio di Rupo was the EU's first openly gay head of government. Mr Rinkevics, 49, first came out in 2014 and has been a vocal champion of LGBT rights ever since. Gay marriage is illegal in Latvia, though the country's constitutional court recognised same sex unions last year. In May, Mr Rinkevics was elected by Latvia's parliament to be the country's next president at the third round of voting. On Saturday in his inaugural speech, Mr Rinkevics vowed to continue supporting Ukraine's ongoing war effort against Russia.

President Rinkēvičs, like his predecessor Egils Levits, is a strong supporter of Ukraine in its battle against genocide by Putin's Russia.

At the podium of the Saeima, Latvia's parliament where Rinkēvičs was sworn in, there's a Ukrainian flag as well as a Latvian flag. That's the Latvian presidential flag over his shoulder.

[argyrocratie]

Summary of the discutions on the theme of "political action" at the seventh general congress of the International, in Brussels (1874):

"Frohme and Faust develop the point of view of the German socialists on the political question:

To combat the German State, strongly centralized, an organization equally centralized is necessary. To allow the bourgeoisie to dominate the state completely would be the suicide of the socialist workers' party; the latter must dispute political power with the bourgeoisie, and, when it has conquered it, transform the bourgeois state into a socialist state. The German socialists do not delude themselves that they will achieve this goal peacefully: they know perfectly well that it is only by violence that they will attain this goal, and moreover the government itself sets an example of acts of violence by persecuting the socialist party. But legal and parliamentary political action serves them as a means of agitation and as a guarantee of security. If, when, before the courts, their writings and words demanding collective property are incriminated, they were to say clearly that it is by violence that they want to achieve it, they would fall under the penal code; but, by saying that it is by legal means, they can continue to act and to propagate their principles. As for the value of this means of action from the point of view of propaganda, one has only to judge it by seeing the results obtained. The German workers will not be diverted from political action, any attempt to do so would be childish.

Bastin and Verrycken give an account of Belgian ideas on the political question:

For Belgian workers there can be no question of political action, since they do not possess universal suffrage. They will do nothing to obtain universal suffrage, because they know that it would be of no use to them; they expect nothing from parliaments, and they want to continue to devote all their activity to the organization of workers by trades and federations; the working class will be able, when this organization is more generalized, to make the Social Revolution successfully.

Schwitzguébel:

It was experience that pushed the Jura socialists, although they had universal suffrage, to become abstentionists. At the birth of the international sections, they generally supported the political parties. The question of workers’ candidacies was raised; the bourgeois parties promised concessions, but deceived the overconfident socialist workers. The lesson has been learned; and, since then, the studies on political matters that have been made in the International, have increasingly convinced the Jura internationalists that by leaving the bourgeois parties to their political tinkering, and by organizing themselves outside of them and against them, the workers would certainly prepare a much more revolutionary situation than by negotiating with the bourgeois in the legislative assemblies.

Gomez:

The situation has become so revolutionary in Spain that the expression “political action” is no longer even possible there. In France, in Italy, the situation is becoming like this too. In Germany, government persecutions will end up creating a similar situation. When the big states are in such a situation, the workers no longer have to concern themselves with political action, but with revolutionary action.

The Geneva Propaganda Section had sent its opinion on political action:

A minority wants absolute abstention; the majority wants abstention from state politics, but advocates workers' candidacies in the local elections.

Van Wedemer of the Parisian section had given in these terms, at the private session of Wednesday, the opinion of his constituents on the question:

All those who work must unite, not to conquer any power, but to obtain the negation of all political government, which for us does not only mean oppression, but trickery and lies; our duty is to join forces to create an insurmountable dam to the shameless demands of capital, and we can only achieve this through incessant propaganda among the workers, who must organize themselves for the true social Revolution.

In the private session on Thursday afternoon, a commission had been appointed to draw up a statement summarizing the opinion of the Congress on the question of political action. This commission, composed of Gomez, Cœnen, Frohme and Verrycken, presented, on Wednesday evening, the following draft:

On the question of knowing to what extent the political action of the working classes can be necessary or useful to the advent of the social revolution, the Congress declares that it is for each federation and for the democratic socialist party of each country to determine the line of political conduct which they think they should follow.

This statement was adopted unanimously."

-from James Guillaume's "L’Internationale, documents et souvenirs (Tome III,Cinquième partie)"

[mightyflamethrower]

Denmark passes ban on niqabs and burkas

31st May 2018, 10:59 CDT

Denmark has passed a ban on full-face veils.

It becomes the latest in a number of EU countries to pass such a ban, which mainly affects Muslim women wearing a niqab or burka.

The law was passed by 75 votes to 30 in parliament on Thursday and will come into force on 1 August.

Those violating the ban will be forced to pay 1,000 kroner (£118; $157), with fines ten times higher for repeat offenders.

The wording of the new legislation does not specifically mention Muslim women but says that "anyone who wears a garment that hides the face in public will be punished with a fine".

Speaking about the law, Denmark's Justice Minister Søren Pape Poulsen said: "In terms of value, I see a discussion of what kind of society we should have with the roots and culture we have, that we don't cover our face and eyes, we must be able to see each other and we must also be able to see each other's facial expressions, it's a value in Denmark."

Amnesty International has described the Danish vote as a "discriminatory violation of women's rights".

But the European Court of Human Rights last year upheld a Belgian ban on full-face veils, saying that communal harmony trumped the individual's right to religious expression.

Where else in Europe has similar laws?

France was the first European country to ban the full-face veil in public places in April 2011, seven years after it introduced a law prohibiting conspicuous religious symbols in state schools.

It was followed a few months later by Belgium, which outlawed any clothing that obscures a person's identity in a public place.

Full or partial bans have since been passed in Austria, Bulgaria and the southern German state of Bavaria, with the Dutch parliament agreeing a ban in late 2016, pending approval from the country's higher chamber.

[oediex]

Belgium’s contemplation of recognizing the state of Palestine as a means to achieve long-term peace and security in the region is a significant development in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The country’s Minister of Development Cooperation, Caroline Gennez, has emphasized the need for both Palestinians and Israelis to have the right to live in peace and security. This stance reflects a growing sentiment within Belgium and other European countries, such as Spain, where similar considerations are being made.

In addition to the potential recognition of Palestine, Belgium is also planning to allocate an additional €5 million to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for independent research into the events in Gaza.

Brussels, Belgium – Belgian politicians and officials are increasingly questioning the scale and legality of Israel’s offensive in Gaza, as more civilians are killed and a humanitarian disaster unfolds in the densely populated enclave.

On Monday, at a conference in Brussels, Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, a liberal democrat, described Israel’s campaign in Gaza as “disproportionate”.

He did also say "Belgium will not take sides" but what else can you expect from a bloody liberal.

On Wednesday, Belgium’s deputy prime minister made a rare European call for sanctions against Israel. “It’s time,” Petra De Sutter, a Green party politician, told the Flemish newspaper Het Nieuwsblad. “The rain of bombs is inhumane.”

(note: Petra De Sutter is one of seven deputy prime ministers, so she's not "the" deputy prime minister of the Belgian government. There is one for every party that makes up the current government, which is a coalition of 7 political parties (though only 4 political families).)

(Also worth noting - Petra De Sutter is the first trans minister within Europe, something that went almost unmentioned in news headlines, because nobody cared - a rare and welcome sign of progress. She's also a gynaecologist, a part-time professor in gynaecology at the university of Ghent, and has been Head of the Department of Reproductive Medicine at Ghent University Hospital in the past. She's a very important voice of the trans movement in Flanders. I was very grateful that she was one of the women I was able to vote for in the European elections (I can't vote for her in federal or Flemish elections because we're in different electoral districts).)

A day later, Caroline Gennez, Belgium’s minister of development cooperation, suggested that the government was considering recognising the state of Palestine. “This is necessary to achieve peace in the long term,” she told Al Jazeera.

And Fourat Ben Chikha, vice president of the Senate of Belgium – the federal parliament’s upper house – told Al Jazeera on Friday that “You don’t need to be a human rights professor or international lawyer to understand that international law is no longer being respected in this war.” He said progressive parties like the Greens, to which he belongs, have begun raising their voices in support of Palestine to build political pressure.

After De Sutter called for sanctions against Israel, German politician Reinhard Bütikofer wrote on X: “That is not the position of the European Greens.” “The German Greens in particular totally oppose such a move that would blame Israel for the crimes of Hamas who are using civilians as human shields.”

Well, fuck you, sir.

Abdalrahim al-Farra, Palestine’s ambassador to the EU, Belgium and Luxembourg, said he has witnessed “a clear change in the position of the Belgian government”. “We sensed this from the principled and moral stance of Minister Caroline Gennez and Minister Petra De Sutter,” he told Al Jazeera. “Their calls came as a countermeasure to Israel’s violation of international law and international humanitarian law, and the collective punishment on Palestinians.”

Discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issue can be difficult in Belgium, because of the varying views between political parties in the Flanders in the north, Wallonia in the south, and the Brussels region.

Peter Mertens, general secretary of the Workers Party of Belgium (Partij van de Arbeid van België) [the communist party, the ONLY political party that is united across the different language communities], said the Belgian government “really has problems” speaking clearly on this matter “because they are being lobbied by Israel, and the lobbying from Washington is even bigger with institutions like NATO headquartered in Belgium.” He said the public and media have been pressuring the government to take a tougher stance against Israel “as the relentless bombardment of Gaza and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians continue”.

The Workers Party is the marxist party in Belgium.

Belgium is a very divided country politically, our current federal government is a coalition of the liberals, the social democrats, the greens, and the christian democrats. It excludes the party that, actually, got the most votes within Flanders in the latest elections. And thank fuck, because they are vile and there are people within that party with ties to Israel.

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 7.15 (after 1900)

1910 – In his book Clinical Psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin gives a name to Alzheimer's disease, naming it after his colleague Alois Alzheimer. 1916 – In Seattle, Washington, William Boeing and George Conrad Westervelt incorporate Pacific Aero Products (later renamed Boeing). 1918 – World War I: The Second Battle of the Marne begins near the River Marne with a German attack. 1920 – Aftermath of World War I: The Parliament of Poland establishes Silesian Voivodeship before the Polish-German plebiscite. 1922 – The Japanese Communist Party is established in Japan. 1927 – Massacre of July 15, 1927: Eighty-nine protesters are killed by Austrian police in Vienna. 1941 – The Holocaust: Nazi Germany begins the deportation of 100,000 Jews from the occupied Netherlands to extermination camps. 1946 – The State of North Borneo, now Sabah, Malaysia, is annexed by the United Kingdom. 1954 – The Boeing 367-80, the prototype for both the Boeing 707 and C-135 series, takes its first flight. 1955 – Eighteen Nobel laureates sign the Mainau Declaration against nuclear weapons, later co-signed by thirty-four others. 1966 – Vietnam War: The United States and South Vietnam begin Operation Hastings to push the North Vietnamese out of the Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone. 1971 – The United Red Army is founded in Japan. 1974 – In Nicosia, Cyprus, Greek junta-sponsored nationalists launch a coup d'état, deposing President Makarios and installing Nikos Sampson as Cypriot president. 1975 – Space Race: Apollo–Soyuz Test Project features the dual launch of an Apollo spacecraft and a Soyuz spacecraft on the first Soviet-United States human-crewed flight. It was the last launch of both an Apollo spacecraft, and the Saturn family of rockets. 1979 – U.S. President Jimmy Carter gives his "malaise speech". 1983 – An attack at Orly Airport in Paris is launched by Armenian militant organisation ASALA, leaving eight people dead and 55 injured. 1983 – Nintendo released the Famicom in Japan. 1996 – A Belgian Air Force C-130 Hercules carrying the Royal Netherlands Army marching band crashes on landing at Eindhoven Airport. 1998 – Sri Lankan Civil War: Sri Lankan Tamil MP S. Shanmuganathan is killed by a claymore mine. 2002 – "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh pleads guilty to supplying aid to the enemy and possession of explosives during the commission of a felony. 2002 – The Anti-Terrorism Court of Pakistan sentences British born Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to death, and three others suspected of murdering The Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl to life. 2003 – AOL Time Warner disbands Netscape. The Mozilla Foundation is established on the same day. 2006 – Twitter, later one of the largest social media platforms in the world, is launched. 2009 – Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 crashes near Jannatabad, Qazvin, Iran, killing 168. 2009 – Space Shuttle program: Endeavour is launched on STS-127 to complete assembly of the International Space Station's Kibō module. 2012 – South Korean rapper Psy releases his hit single Gangnam Style. 2014 – A train derails on the Moscow Metro, killing at least 24 and injuring more than 160 others. 2016 – Factions of the Turkish Armed Forces attempt a coup. 2018 – France win their second World Cup title, defeating Croatia 4–2.

[microcosme11]

A Meeting with Napoleon

   Mme la Marquise de la Tour de Pin’s husband had just been dismissed as minister of something or other in Brussels. This was a catastrophe because marriage negotiations were being finalized for their daughter with a rich Belgian. Madame rushed to Paris to intercede with Napoleon. (P.S. She was Fanny Bertrand’s half-sister)

I had to wait ten minutes in the salon which preceded the one where Napoleon received. I was very glad to find no one there for I had need of this moment of solitude to arrange my thoughts. A conversation en tête à tête with this extraordinary man was an event of great importance in my life, and nevertheless I declare here in all the sincerity of my heart, perhaps with pride, that I did not feel in the least embarrassed. The door opened; the usher, by a gesture, made me a sign to enter and then closed the double door behind me. I found myself in the presence of Napoleon. He advanced to meet me and said with quite a pleasant air:    "Madame, I am afraid that you are very much displeased with me.”    I inclined my head in sign of assent and the conversation began. Having lost the notes which I wrote of this long audience which lasted fifty-nine minutes by the clock, after the lapse of so many years I am not able to remember all the details of the interview. The Emperor endeavored, in short, to prove to me that he had been forced to act as he had done. Then I pictured to him in a few words the state of society at Brussels, the consideration which my husband had acquired there compared with all the preceding préfets, the visit of Réal, the stupidity of General Chambarlhac and of his wife, a religieuse défroquée, and so on. All this was recited rapidly, and, as I was encouraged by his air of approbation, I ended by announcing to the Emperor that my daughter was going to marry one of the greatest seigneurs of Brussels. Upon which, he interrupted me, placing his beautiful hand upon my arm, and said:    "J'espère que cela ne fera pas manquer le mariage, et, dans ce cas, vous ne devriez pas le regretter." Then while promenading the length of the large salon, while I followed, walking at his side, he pronounced these words (and it is perhaps the only time in his life that he ever said them and the privilege was reserved for me to overhear him):    “I have made a mistake, but what can I do?”    I replied, “Your Majesty can repair the error.”    Then he placed his hand on his forehead and said: “Ah! they are at work upon the prefectures; the Minister of the Interior is coming this evening." Then he mentioned the names of four or five departments and added: “There is Amiens. Will that suit you?”    I replied without hesitation: “Perfectly, Sire.”    “In that case, it is arranged,” said he. "You can go and notify Montalivet."    And with that charming smile of which so much has been said: “A présent, m'avez-vous pardonné?”    I replied to him in my best manner: “J'ai besoin aussi que Votre Majesté me pardonne de lui avoir parlé si librement."    “Oh! vous avez très bien fait." I made a curtsy and he went to the door which he opened for me himself. --LATER-- At this time there was an Assembly at Court and I went with Mme. de Mun. I was dressed very simply, without a single gem, contrary to the custom of the ladies of the Empire who were covered with jewels. I found myself placed in the last row in the Throne Room where I was a head taller than two little women who had placed themselves unceremoniously before me. The Emperor entered. He glanced his eyes over the three rows of ladies, spoke to several with an inattentive air, and then having perceived me, he smiled in that manner which all the historians have endeavored to describe and which was truly remarkable, from the contrast it presented to the usual expression of his face which was always serious and often severe. But the surprise of my neighbors was great when Napoleon, still smiling, addressed to me these words: "Êtes-vous contente de moi, Madame?” The persons who surrounded me then withdrew to the right and left, and I found myself, without knowing how, in the front rank. I thanked the Emperor in an accent of very sincere gratitude. After several very amiable words, he passed on. This was the last time I saw this great man.

-----

Recollections of the revolution and the empire, by La marquise de La Tour du Pin, edited and translated by Walter Geer. [There is an audiobook of this entire book on librivox.org and the narrator is good.]

Source