#ministerial challenges

[townpostin]

Saryu Roy Challenges Food Supply Minister Banna Gupta over Alleged Dept Misconduct

Former minister accuses current official of potential grain misappropriation MLA Roy calls for vigilance in food distribution, citing concerns of black market diversion. JAMSHEDPUR – Jamshedpur East MLA Saryu Roy has launched a scathing attack on Jharkhand’s current Food Supply Minister, accusing him of potential misconduct and issuing a bold challenge. In a press release, Roy alleged the…

[easterneyenews]

Sunak and Starmer launch ‘personal attacks’ in final debate

PRIME MINISTER Rishi Sunak and Labour leader Keir Starmer went head-to-head on Wednesday (26) in their last debate before an election next week, with both launching highly personal attacks over their and their parties’ credibility.With Sunak’s Tories trailing Labour by around 20 points in the polls, the prime minister went on the attack, accusing Starmer of not being straight with the country on migration, tax and women’s rights, and urging voters not to “surrender” to the Labour.Starmer responded that Sunak was too rich to understand the concerns of most ordinary Britons. A snap YouGov poll said the debate had been a tie, with both on 50%.

[floral-ashes]

Canada’s First Trans Healthcare Ban

Alberta’s anti-trans bills have dropped. A few observations. 🧵

The first thing I notice, and which is cause for hope, is that the bills do not invoke the notwithstanding clause. They can thus be challenged in Court, and struck down as unconstitutional. 

The healthcare ban is worse than they announced, at least in its present form. They ban all gender-affirming surgeries until 18, as expected. They also ban puberty blockers and hormones for minors. So far, the same as we expected. 

However, the bill is set up so that the ban is total for all minors *unless* the Minister creates an exception for some. This means that even 16-17 year olds whose parents consent cannot receive puberty blockers or hormones. They may plan to allow it, but it’s not in the law. 

There is also no clause that allows youth who are alreadyon puberty blockers or hormones to continue. This is especially concerning because it means they’ll lose access if there’s any delay with planned Ministerial orders—if they even plan to make an order. 

Unsurprisingly, it seems that the law wasn’t drafted by someone who is knowledgeable about trans realities. As a result, transition-related surgeries are defined as those that “treat gender dysphoria or gender incongruence.” 

While the loophole is unlikely to work, a literal reading would allow transition-related surgeries that are motivated by gender euphoria, framed as cosmetic, or understood through a depathologizing lens. The fact slightly amuses me, but again it’s unlikely to actually help. 

The name and pronouns policy is as expected. Trans minors will be forcibly outed to their parents if they request a change of name or pronouns that is related in some way to their gender identity. Parental consent isn’t required for those aged 16-17, but they still get outed. 

There is no exception to the outing requirement, even if it poses a grave risk. All it says is that schoolboards must give counselling or other assistance before outing the kids, in such a case. 

This creates a small loophope—willing schools could delay outing for some time and argue that it still respects the law. However, they still can’t respect under-16 trans youth’s name or pronouns without parental consent, and they must still out them eventually. 

If the law is applied negligently or unreasonably, and a child ends up seriously hurt or dead? Too bad—the law strongly protects people from liability if they believe they’re applying the law and are doing so in good faith. 

For an overview of why these rules are dangerous and unconstitutional, here is my recent Alberta Law Review article on the topic:

How about sexual education? Well, it’s basically dead. The law makes it mandatory for schools to receive Ministerial approval for any material primarily and explicitly related to gender identity, sexual orientation, or human sexuality. 

In addition to the material needing approval, any third-party who delivers the material must be separately approved by the Minister. 

Even if the material is approved, teachers must (a) notify parents at least 30 (!) before teaching it, and (b) ensure alternative instruction for students whose parents didn’t consent. 

This isn’t really an opt-in system. While it’s superficially opt-in, the requirements are so absurdly onerous that nobody will teach materials related to gender identity, sexual orientation, or human sexuality.

It’s as simple as that—sexual education is dead in Alberta. 

The only small comfort is that only regulating materials “primarily and explicitly” about these topics could serve as a good loophole for rebellious teachers. Incidental and indirect discussions of gender identity, sexual orientation, and human sexuality are expressly allowed. 

Lastly, the sports ban. To my surprise, there’s actually no ban on trans women in sports. One less thing on my plate!

Now there is indeed a law about sports, it just doesn’t quite reach the level of a ban. Instead, the bill tells schools and sports bodies to create a policy on fairness and safety in sports, including eligibity requirements and procedures for verifying eligiblity. 

The law also creates a mandatory reporting mechanism for any complaints related to that policy or to (more or less) trans inclusion in sports. This is unsurprisingly hypocritical—conservatives love surveillance states as much as they love to complain about ‘big government.’ 

This bill doesn’t so much ban trans women from sports as provide a cover for any organization that wants to do so. That they should ban trans people is a thinly-veiled subtext, but it’s legally-speaking only a subtext. 

The law also includes broad protection from liability for mostly anyone—including sports participants—who is trying to implement the act ‘in good faith.’ If racists decide to harass a Black woman and claim that she’s not a woman, as we have seen all-too-often in elite sports? If an adult decides to do ‘genital verifications’ on a child? They’re effectively protected from civil liability, so long as they claim it’s in good faith. Scary stuff...

That’s a wrap, but I’m happy to answer any questions about the bills!

[sayruq]

Wallonia has issued a ban on the transit of all arms from its territory towards Israel, the region's Minister-President Elio Di Rupo (PS) confirmed to Le Soir. The decision followed an investigation by Belgium's francophone national news channel RTBF, as well as Le Soir and De Morgen, which revealed that 70 tonnes of munitions and explosives had transited via Liège airport to Israel since Hamas attack on 7 October. This was despite a commitment made in February by the Walloon government to prevent lethal weapons from passing via the region to the Jewish State. The media investigation revealed that a legal loophole had allowed arms transit to continue, with the military material sent from New York and stopping in Liège en route to Tel Aviv. Shipments were handled by Challenge Airlines, an airfreight logistics company which operates predominantly via transit hubs in Israel, Malta, and Belgium. The company's CEO, Yossi Shoukroun, is himself an Israeli national.Commenting on the details of the cargo, Wies De Graeve of Amnesty International in Flanders confirmed that the material was "military equipment from the US passing via the Israeli-American airfreight company Challenge". The airline was able to exploit a legal blind spot by transiting via Liège without transferring goods between aircraft. Until now, planes did not require a licence to make a short stop in Wallonia airports providing that cargoes were not moved from the aircraft. But on Monday, Di Rupo's office signed a ministerial decree forbidding all transit of arms towards Israel, regardless of whether the cargo leaves the aircraft or not.

[vote-democrat-president-congress]

In Plain Sight, Republicans Are Still Trying to Undermine the Election

Some of the most important and alarming reporting during the 2024 election cycle has centered on what used to be one of the sleepiest and least divisive corners of election administration — the vote certification process. Specifically, the nationwide effort by Republicans to install state election officials who are prepared, if not motivated, to undermine and possibly block the certification of vote totals. If that were to happen in the right counties in the right states, it could tip the outcome of the entire election.

Republicans are not being secretive about this. According to an investigation by Rolling Stone, nearly 70 battleground-state election officials have openly “questioned the validity of elections or delayed or refused to certify results.”

Certification has long been a routine ministerial task, unencumbered by partisanship, as the investigation points out. Increasingly, though, that’s not the case in the Trump era, now that Republicans have reprogrammed themselves to believe that it is impossible for them to lose any election except by fraud.

The danger comes not only from isolated kooks who get their news from Rudy Giuliani news conferences. Last week in Georgia, the Republican-controlled state election board approved a measure that could unleash local election officials to do their own research and delay certifying vote counts (those that Trump doesn’t win outright, anyway).

Put aside for the moment that this new rule appears to be in conflict with longstanding Georgia law that requires certification in absence of a court challenge. The bigger problem here is in how we choose our president — via the Electoral College — and how much power that winner-take-all system gives a single state to influence the outcome of the entire election.

Americans experienced this firsthand in 2000, when the quirks of Florida’s ballot design allowed George W. Bush to win the whole state — and with it the White House — by a mere 537 votes. In 2016 and 2020, battleground states like Arizona and Georgia were decided by extraordinarily tight margins; as Trump’s threatening phone call to the Georgia secretary of state demonstrated, a swing of just a few thousand votes would have shifted all 16 of the state’s electoral votes from Joe Biden to him.

Thankfully, key election officials that year put their civic obligations above their partisan preferences, ensuring that the vote count in 2020 was reliable. Today, most local election officials and poll workers are still honest, hardworking citizens doing a thankless job. But as political rhetoric becomes more toxic and infused with partisanship, many of those workers are leaving or being driven out, replaced by single-minded people with a partisan agenda instead of a patriotic spirit.

None of this would be an issue under a national popular vote. Biden eked out his 2020 win in the Electoral College, but all together he won seven million more votes than Trump. A few dozen or hundred or even a few thousand well-placed votes would not have made any difference. In 2000, 2016 and 2020, of course, they made all the difference.

Jesse Wegman, NYTimes Editorial Board Member

[xhxhxhx]

It's December 4, 2024.

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a challenge to Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care. The specific question presented is whether Tennessee's ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The challenge is to Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1). That is, it's a challenge to a bit of Tennessee's Annotated Code. Title 68, Chapter 33, "Prohibited Medical Procedures for Minors."

I don't have anything to say about Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care. Nor do I have anything to say about how the Court will treat the case. Not yet, anyways.

But I have something to say about the Code.

I.

Tennessee's laws are compiled by its code commission.

Under state law, the commission is a five-member body, consisting of the state's chief justice, attorney general, and counsel for the legislature, along with another two members appointed by the chief justice. Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-1-101(a).

The code commission supervises the official publication of the state's statutes, codes and session laws. § 1-1-105(a). The commission is empowered to commission to contract with publishers to that end, § 1-1-106(a), and obliged to inspect and certify their work. § 1-1-110(a).

When its work finished, the commission puts its certificate of approval in each volume and pocket supplement. § 1-1-110(c). But their first certificate, the one they leave with the secretary of state, § 1-1-110(b), is what gives the code the force of law. § 1-1-111(a).

Beyond that, the commission's work is ministerial. It cuts and pastes. "[T]he commission shall not alter the sense, meaning or effect of any act of the general assembly, but shall copy the exact language of the text of the statutes, codes and session laws." § 1-1-108.

The commission may "rearrange, regroup and renumber" the laws; change their "section headings"; "correct manifest misspelling[s] and typographical errors"; and "omit enacting clauses, repealing clauses, severability clauses, conditional clauses, preambles, [and] captions", § 1-1-108—and not much more.

II.

Tennessee leaves the work to Lexis, a private publisher.

Lexis's product, the Tennessee Code Annotated, is not eligible for copyright. Public.Resource.Org v. Matthew Bender & Co., No. M2022-01260-COA-R3-CV, slip op. (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2023). But it is not subject to compulsory disclosure, either.

Under current law, according to the state's intermediate appellate court, the Tennessee Code Annotated in the hands of Lexis is in the hands of a private contractor, not the State.

If Lexis had been the functional equivalent of a government entity, contracted to "perform a governmental or public function," it would be subject to the State's public records law. *8. But it's not.

That's what the state's intermediate appellate court says, at least. But its reasoning is less than persuasive.

III.

Lexis is merely a contractor. The commission specifies the work, and Lexis does the work. The commission may be exacting, but it isn't controlling. *9.

That's the court's argument, at least. But that strikes me as a less than complete account of the commission's duties under State law, which must inform any characterization of its contracts.

Under State law, the commission is "authorized and directed to" control each dimension of the compilation, Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-1-105(a), and must

supervise the execution of plans for the compilation, arrangement, classification, annotation, editing, indexing, printing, binding, publication, sale, distribution and the performance of all other acts necessary for the publication of an official compilation of the statutes, codes and session laws of the state of Tennessee

The commission's contractual powers, set out in the subsequent section, § 1-1-106, are an incident to its primary authority and duty to "formulate and supervise" the compilation. § 1-1-105(a).

The commission's primary authority and duty to prepare the compilation is plain on the face of the law. Under State law, the compilation is the commission's work, down to the copying and pasting, § 1-1-108(a):

In preparing the manuscript of the revised compilation (including pocket supplements and replacement volumes) for publication and distribution, the commission shall not alter the sense, meaning or effect of any act of the general assembly, but shall copy the exact language of the text . . .

This is more than the relationship suggested by the court. It's more than control over the product. It's control over production, the work of "preparing the manuscript."

To the extent that Lexis is doing the work, "preparing the manuscript," and "copy[ing] the exact language of the text," it is performing the commission's functions.

The court says "Lexis is not a stand-in for government." But that's exactly what it is. The commission is a government body. And Lexis is doing the commission's work.

That seems like a governmental function to me.

[soon-palestine]

The report, “Handcuffed like dangerous criminals”: Arbitrary detention and forced returns of Sudanese refugees in Egypt, reveals how Sudanese refugees are rounded up and unlawfully deported to Sudan – an active conflict zone – without due process or opportunity to claim asylum in flagrant violation of international law. Evidence indicates that thousands of Sudanese refugees have been arbitrarily arrested and subsequently collectively expelled with the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) estimating that 3,000 people were deported to Sudan from Egypt in September 2023 alone.

“It is unfathomable that Sudanese women, men and children fleeing the armed conflict in their country and seeking safety across the border into Egypt, are being rounded up en masse and arbitrarily detained in deplorable and inhumane conditions before being unlawfully deported,” said Sara Hashash, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

“Egyptian authorities must immediately end this virulent campaign of mass arrests and collective expulsions. They must abide by their obligations under international human rights and refugee law to provide those fleeing the conflict in Sudan with safe and dignified passage to Egypt and unrestricted access to asylum procedures.”

For decades, Egypt was home to millions of Sudanese people studying, working, investing or receiving healthcare in the country, with Sudanese women and girls, as well as boys under 16, and men over 49 exempt from entry requirements. Around 500,000 Sudanese refugees are estimated to have fled to Egypt after the armed conflict erupted in Sudan in April 2023. However, in the following month, the Egyptian government introduced a visa entry requirement for all Sudanese nationals, leaving those fleeing with little choice but to escape through irregular border crossings.

The report documents in detail the ordeals of 27 Sudanese refugees who were arbitrarily arrested with about 260 others between October 2023 and March 2024 by Egypt’s Border Guard Forces operating under the Ministry of Defence, as well as police operating under the Ministry of Interior. It further documents how the authorities forcibly returned an estimated 800 Sudanese detainees between January and March 2024 who were all denied the possibility to claim asylum, including by accessing UNHCR, or to challenge deportation decisions.

The report is based on interviews with detained refugees, their relatives, community leaders, lawyers and a medical professional; as well as a review of official statements and documents and audiovisual evidence. The Egyptian ministries of defence and interior did not respond to Amnesty International’s letters sharing its documentation and recommendations, while the Egyptian National Council of Human Rights, the national human rights institution, rejected the findings claiming that authorities comply by their international obligations.

The spike in mass arrests and expulsions came after a prime ministerial decree issued in August 2023 requiring foreign nationals in Egypt to regularize their status. This was accompanied by a rise in xenophobic and racist sentiments both online and in the media as well as statements by government officials criticizing the economic “burden” of hosting “millions” of refugees.

It has also taken place against the backdrop of increased EU cooperation with Egypt on migration and border control, despite the country’s grim human rights record and well-documented abuses against migrants and refugees.

In October 2022, the EU and Egypt signed an €80 million cooperation agreement, which included building up the capacity of Egyptian Border Guard Forces to curb irregular migration and human trafficking across Egypt’s border. The agreement purports to apply “rights-based, protection oriented and gender sensitive approaches”. Yet, Amnesty International’s new report documents the involvement of the Border Guard Forces in violations against Sudanese refugees.

A further aid and investment package, under which migration is a key pillar, was agreed in March 2024 as part of the newly announced strategic and comprehensive partnership between the EU and Egypt.

“By cooperating with Egypt in the migration field without rigorous human rights safeguards, the EU risks complicity in Egypt’s human rights violations. The EU must press Egyptian authorities to adopt concrete measures to protect refugees and migrants,” said Sara Hashash.

“The EU must also carry out rigorous human rights risk assessments before implementing any migration cooperation and put in place independent monitoring mechanisms with clear human rights benchmarks. Cooperation must be halted or suspended immediately if there are risks or reports of abuses.” Arbitrary arrests from streets and hospitals

The mass arrests have mostly taken place in Greater Cairo (encompassing Cairo and Giza) and in the border areas in the governorate of Aswan or inside Aswan city. In Cairo and Giza, police have conducted mass stops and identity checks targeting Black individuals, spreading fear within the refugee community leaving many afraid to leave their homes.

Following arrest by police in Aswan, Sudanese refugees are transferred to police stations or the Central Security Forces camp, an unofficial detention place, in Shallal region. Those arrested by Border Guard Forces in Aswan governorate are detained in makeshift detention facilities including warehouses inside a military site in Abu Simbel and a horse stable inside another military site near Nagaa Al Karur before being forced into buses and vans and driven to the Sudanese border.

Conditions in these detention facilities are cruel and inhumane, with overcrowding, lack of access to toilets and sanitation facilities, substandard and insufficient food, and denial of adequate healthcare.

Amnesty International also documented the arrest of at least 14 refugees from public hospitals in Aswan, where they were receiving treatment for serious injuries sustained during road accidents on their journeys from Sudan to Egypt. Authorities transferred them – against medical advice and before they had fully recovered – to detention, where they were forced to sleep on the ground after surgery.

Amira, a 32-year-old Sudanese woman who fled Khartoum with her mother was receiving treatment at an Aswan hospital following a car crash on 29 October 2023 that left her with fractures to the neck and the back. Nora, a relative of Amira, told the organization that the doctors told her she would need three months of medical care, but after just 18 days police transferred her to a police station in Aswan where she was forced to sleep on the ground for around 10 days. Cold and rat-infested detention facilities before collective expulsions

Amnesty International’s Evidence Lab reviewed photos and verified videos from January 2024 of women and children sitting on dirty floors amidst rubbish in a warehouse controlled by Egyptian border guards. The former detainees said the warehouses were infested by rats and pigeon nests and those detained endured cold nights with no appropriate clothing or blankets. Men’s warehouse conditions were overcrowded, with over a hundred men crammed together and limited access to overflowing toilets, forcing them to urinate in plastic bottles at night.

At least 11 children, some under the age of four, were detained with their mothers at these sites.

Israa, who has asthma, told Amnesty International that guards at the overcrowded horse stable near Nagaa Al Karur village ignored her request for an inhaler, even when she asked to buy one at her own expense.

After periods of detention ranging from a few days six weeks, police and Border Guard Forces handcuffed males and drove all detainees to the Qustul-Ashkeet border crossing and handed them to Sudanese authorities, without individualised assessment of risk of serious human rights violations if returned. None was given the opportunity to claim asylum even when they had registration appointments with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), asked to speak to UNHCR or pleaded not to be sent back. Such forced returns violate Egypt’s international obligations under human rights and refugee law, including the principle of non-refoulement.

Border Guard Forces expelled Ahmed, his wife and two-year-old child together with a group of roughly 200 detainees, on 26 February 2024, after detaining them for six days in Abu Simbel military site.

Since the conflict in Sudan began, Egyptian authorities have failed to provide statistics or acknowledge their policy of deportations.

[mariacallous]

The Catholic Church in Hungary has been engulfed by a series of high-profile sex scandals and child abuse investigations. The situation isn’t just a crisis for the church, but also a challenge for Viktor Orban’s Christian-nationalist government.

“Perhaps we should not refer to these merely as ‘scandalous cases’, but rather as the painful, inhumane, traumatizing injuries suffered by minors, which go far beyond ‘scandalous news’,” read a statement on December 4 by the editors of the independent Hungarian religious affairs magazine Szemlelek, reflecting on a crisis that has recently engulfed Hungary’s Catholic Church.

Since September, a series of scandals relating to sexual misconduct, pedophilia and cover-up in the Catholic church has wrecked the public reputation of five high-profile clerics and occasioned the suspension of a rising, but as-yet unconfirmed, number of their colleagues. Some see echoes of the crisis in the US Catholic church sparked by the 2002 Boston Globe ‘Spotlight’ investigation into child abuse in the city’s archdiocese – a story (and later movie) that plunged American Catholicism into a crisis from which it’s still recovering.

The close government ties of the priests implicated heighten concerns about overlaps between political power, religious networks and child sexual abuse in Hungary. These concerns were first raised earlier this year in February, following the exposure of a successful intercession by Reformed Church bishop (and former Fidesz cabinet minister) Zoltan Balog with then-president Katalin Novak, a fellow Calvinist, to pardon a church member convicted as a pedophile accomplice. News of the pardon led to Novak’s resignation.

Attention is now turning away from the Reformed community and towards the Catholic Church.

From local to national

In early September, the storm started rumbling with the public disgrace of Father Gergo Bese, a priest of the Kalocsa-Kecskemet archdiocese and a prominent social media influencer identified with the governing Fidesz party via its satellite KDNP (Christian Democratic Peoples’ Party). In 2022, Bese conducted a ‘house blessing’ of Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s office in the former Carmelite monastery beside Buda Castle.

On September 6, Hungarian outlet Valasz Online revealed that Father Bese, a vocal supporter of Fidesz’s anti-LGBTQ+ agenda, had been living a double life as a gay porn movie actor. He was also (against church law) receiving a stipend from the KDNP for communications work without permission from his bishop. He is now under disciplinary suspension.

While Father Bese’s activities involved only consenting adults, their discovery, however, prompted revelations about other forms of misconduct by Kalocsa priests, including those involving minors. Two clerics – Gabor Ronaszeki and Robert Hathazi – both with strong ties to Hungary’s ruling parties, are now being prosecuted by secular authorities for alleged child molestation.

In 2023, Ronaszeki underwent a church disciplinary process during which he admitted the offences, and was removed from the priesthood. He’s understood to have offered money and gifts in exchange for sex to underage boys attending his Religious Education group over a three-year period.

Ronaszeki is the brother-in-law of former Fidesz MP and ministerial commissioner Monika Ronaszekine Keresztes, as well as being an associate of the KDNP leader Zsolt Semjen, who is currently serving as the deputy prime minister and minister for church affairs in the Orban government.

Hungarian media reported that Semjen had been a personal guest at Ronaszeki’s remote “recreational farm” near the small town of Janoshalma in Southern Hungary. Responding to the reports, Semjen claimed that “to the best of my recollection” he has not “visited the place in question”.

Handing matters over swiftly to police and prosecutors reflects improvements in practice following recent reforms across the Catholic world. Even so, the scandal has continued to grow numerically and geographically.

In a November 15 interview with Valasz Online, the archbishop of Kalocsa-Kecskemet, Balazs Babel, said public awareness of the two court cases had led to more complainants bringing allegations against other clerics.

“In recent months, the Archbishop’s Office has received many more reports than before,” he admitted, adding that several other Kalocsa priests have now been suspended pending investigation.

Major Pajor problem

The issue has morphed from a diocesan scandal into a national crisis. That’s partly because the outcry about Kalocsa was heard from early on in the national media, and partly because first central church institutions and then other dioceses became implicated in related misconduct stories.

First came the resignation on October 25 of the national Bishops’ Conference Secretary Father Tamas Toth, amid allegations of serious impropriety in mishandling communications relating to Kalocsa.

And then on December 5 the scandal reached the archdiocese of Esztergom-Budapest, led by Hungary’s primate, Cardinal Peter Erdo.

On that day, news broke of canonical and police investigations into Budapest priest Father Andras Pajor, a prominent face of Fidesz’s ‘political Christianity’. In 2023, Father Pajor received Hungary’s Knight’s Cross of the Order of Merit from Deputy Prime Minister Semjen for his “role in youth education”.

Father Pajor has repeatedly urged Christians to vote for Orban. He has also, latterly, become notable as a spreader of Russian propaganda, claiming in a YouTube video about the Ukraine war that, since 2022, some 35,000 Russian children had been kidnapped “for pedophiles in the West”.

Former altar boys from his parish, speaking anonymously to Valasz Online, tell a rather different story, however. They claim Father Pajor himself frequently made them strip naked, inspected their genitals intimately with his hands, and gave them full body massages.

Anticipating the next day’s announcement concerning Father Pajor, on December 4 the Bishops’ Conference finally acknowledged the pedophilia issue as a national problem in a statement: “The scandalous news concerning our Church in recent months has caused many to feel uneasy and disappointed… for sins committed, we must pray, fast and make atonement.”

The text continued: “The Catholic Church stands with the victims and communities affected. We pray for them and support their healing.”

Political reverberations

In a letter to fellow bishops obtained by the independent news outlet Telex, Archbishop Babel observed that the impact of the successive scandals was greater “because they are interwoven with politics”.

The political dimension magnifies the spotlight on the church, but the connection of religion and pedophilia is a huge challenge for Fidesz – a party that portrays itself at home and abroad as a protector of family values.

The party’s domestic alliance with historic churches long predates its international communication about Hungary as a bulwark of Christian civilisation against Muslim migration and rising woke-secularism.

Churches have vigorously supported government messaging regarding the supposed dangers that, Fidesz alleges, the LGBTQ+ community poses to children, especially ahead of 2022’s ‘child protection’ referendum, which was timed to boost turnout at that year’s general election. Around 75 per cent of Hungary’s state-funded children’s homes are run by churches.

“Orban’s government constantly seeks endorsement from the churches for its Christian credentials,” religious affairs commentator Janos Reichert tells BIRN. This is because, Reichert continues, there are three overlapping themes closely connected in the minds of many Hungarians: “Hungarian nationalism, anti-Communism and Christianity”.

These three motifs organically support each other such that, Reichert says, “criticism of any one of them cannot be tolerated by Fidesz for fear of danger to the other two”.

Thus, anyone who criticises even one of them is “attacking the ideological basis of the regime”, he adds.

Reichert’s take is shared by political journalist Balazs Gulyas. The government’s flagging support amid economic turbulence and the rise of opposition challenger Peter Magyar means that, in his view, Fidesz is paradoxically more, not less likely to double down reflexively on its traditional talking points, including political Christianity.

“Hungary’s governing parties are grappling with a sharp decline in popularity, making it politically expedient for them to cling to their (overstated) role as the primary political patrons of the churches,” Gulyas tells BIRN. “I find it highly unlikely that they’d abandon the program of political Christianity.”

Such views seem to be borne out by the government’s responses to the crisis to date. Far from distancing itself from the churches, Fidesz has rushed to their defence.

In November, the left-wing opposition party DK proposed a parliamentary motion calling for Hungary to follow the example of Ireland and Australia in establishing an independent enquiry into child sexual abuse in the church. The government used its parliamentary super-majority to defeat the proposal.

And addressing parliament’s justice committee on November 14, Deputy Prime Minister Semjen, speaking in his capacity as minister for church affairs, dismissed suggestions that the situation in the churches represented a particular concern. “The number of church cases is a hundredth of the number of secular cases, there is no reason to single out the church world,” he declared.

[thatssosussex]

Columbia Day 1- At the last event of the day, Prince Harry and Meghan participated in the Responsible Digital Future Summit at the Universidad EAN, one of the top-ranking universities in Latin America. A central focus of the summit was the urgent need to highlight online safety in the Global South. Despite the majority of research on the mental health effects of social media being conducted in the Global North, 88% of the world’s population and most adolescents reside in the Global South. This region faces particular challenges, with Latin American teenagers checking social media an average of 67 times a day, compared to the global average of 45 times.

The summit addressed these issues by exploring innovative solutions and strategies to ensure that technology serves the common good, particularly in regions that are often underrepresented in global tech dialogues. The conversation highlighted how The Archewell Foundation’s extensive global reach and unique programming are well-positioned to influence cultural and policy changes, especially in anticipation of the country’s Global Ministerial Conference scheduled for November. (8/15/24)

[saintmeghanmarkle]

This post is SPITTING FACTS about what titles KC can remove from Harry. FACT: KC can strip Harry of Prince and HRH. This is not a youtube opinion but the informed opinion of a highly credentialed professor emeritus of public law by u/Positive-Vibes-2-All

This post is SPITTING FACTS about what titles KC can remove from Harry. FACT: KC can strip Harry of Prince and HRH. This is not a youtube opinion but the informed opinion of a highly credentialed professor emeritus of public law I had it up to my wazoo reading and hearing conflicting opinions of what KC is able to do regarding titles so I went searching for a rock solid answer."Master Graham Zellick is a Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader, is emeritus professor of public law and former Principal of Queen Mary & Westfield College, sometime Vice-Chancellor of the University of London, a former editor of Public Law, and was Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, President of the Valuation Tribunal for England and a member of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. He is an Honorary Fellow of Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge and of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies."In no uncertain terms, Zellick states that KC can remove HRH and Prince"....The title of Prince is likewise in the gift of the Monarch. As with ‘HRH’, it is usually acquired by coming within a class or category stipulated in letters patent, but it can also be done individually.....There is no reason why the Sovereign cannot remove these titles, a decision which again could not be challenged in the courts, since the royal prerogative in relation to honours and titles is said to be unreviewable or ‘non-justiciable’. The exercise of prerogative powers is in principle subject to supervision by the courts in the same way that statutory powers are – as Boris Johnson discovered in 2019 when his attempt to prorogue Parliament was annulled by the Supreme Court – but powers exercised by the Monarch personally otherwise than on ministerial advice or in relation to honours fall into the non-justiciable category. "​imho It would be more fitting and send a stronger message and cut deeper to strip the title Prince then stripping Harry of his Dukedom which as Zellick explains at the link would need to be done by parliament. Harry is the one who should bear the brunt of responsibility, he has been the traitor to his family, he is just as responsible as Markle for employing scum like Boozy and other sugars to name just two instances of his treachery.​https://ift.tt/36MDgNh'. post link: https://ift.tt/zNryWkq author: Positive-Vibes-2-All submitted: August 18, 2024 at 10:23PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[waitmyturtles]

From The New York Times: [Thai] Lawmakers Block Prime Minister Candidate From New Vote, Drawing Protests

[July 19, 2023: Pasting here to bypass the NYT paywall. I thought this was an excellent overview of the recent history of Thai elections, and how the Senate confirmation process works. Again, remember: references to what’s happening politically will likely make it into the dramas we watch later this year and next. By Mike Ives and Muktita Suhartoto.] 

Protests erupted in Bangkok on Wednesday, hours after Thailand’s conservative establishment suspended a progressive leader and lawmakers denied him the chance to stand for a second parliamentary vote for prime minister.

The candidate, Pita Limjaroenrat, leads a party that won the most votes in a May election after campaigning on an ambitious reform platform that challenged the country’s powerful conservative establishment. He lost an initial parliamentary vote for prime minister last week.

Late Wednesday, lawmakers voted to deny Mr. Pita, 42, the chance to stand for a second vote on the grounds that Parliament’s rules do not permit a “repeat motion.” Mr. Pita’s supporters see that as a not-so-subtle move to keep him out of power.

The mood in Bangkok, Thailand’s muggy capital, was anxious as protesters hit the streets on Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Pita’s supporters have been expressing outrage online toward an establishment that often pushes back against Thailand’s democratic process.

“In my heart, I knew this would happen, so it didn’t come as a shock,” said Wichuda Rotphai, 41, one of hundreds of people who gathered outside Parliament on Wednesday to support Mr. Pita’s doomed bid for premier. “But I’m still disappointed, and I can’t accept it.”

Here’s what to know.

What does Pita Limjaroenrat stand for?

Mr. Pita’s party, Move Forward, has proposed ambitious policies for challenging Thailand’s powerful institutions like the military and the monarchy. The party won 151 seats in Parliament, the most of any party, and 10 more than Pheu Thai, the party founded by the exiled populist Thaksin Shinawatra, whose influence still towers over Thai politics.

Mr. Pita’s party has formed an eight-party coalition, which nominated him for prime minister last week. He came up short in the first vote because the Senate is controlled by military-appointed lawmakers who oppose his candidacy and the Move Forward platform.

I’m confused. Why are senators so tied to the military?

Becoming prime minister requires a simple majority of the 500-seat House of Representatives and the 250-seat Senate.

But the rules governing Senate appointments were drafted by the military junta that seized power from a democratically elected government in a 2014 coup. They effectively give senators veto power over prime ministerial candidates.

Last week, Mr. Pita won only 13 votes from the 249 senators who voted for prime minister. Mr. Pita acknowledged in an Instagram post on Wednesday afternoon that he was unlikely to become prime minister.

“It’s clear now that in the current system, winning the people’s trust isn’t enough to run the country,” he wrote.

Why was it such an uphill battle?

Mr. Pita had faced a slew of challenges even before Parliament denied him a chance to stand for a second vote.

The Constitutional Court said on Wednesday morning, for example, that it was suspending Mr. Pita from Parliament until a ruling is made in a case involving his shares of a media company. Investigators are trying to determine whether Mr. Pita properly disclosed owning the shares before running for office, as required by Thai law.

The court’s ruling forced Mr. Pita to leave the chamber. It would not necessarily have prevented his coalition from nominating for a second time. But Parliament saw to that on its own.

Mr. Pita’s supporters have said the investigation is one of many ways that the establishment has been trying to unfairly derail his candidacy.

So who will be prime minister?

Before the drama on Wednesday, Mr. Pita had said if it became clear that he could not win, his party would allow its coalition partner, Pheu Thai, to nominate its own candidate.

Pheu Thai probably will do just that, but is also likely to form a brand-new coalition, one that is more palatable to conservative lawmakers who cannot stomach Mr. Pita and Move Forward.

Pheu Thai’s candidate would likely be Srettha Thavisin, 60, a property mogul with little political experience. If a new coalition materializes, he could be voted in as prime minister as early as this week.

Mr. Srettha would immediately present a sharp contrast to the current prime minister, former Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, who led the 2014 military coup.

A more remote, but not impossible, scenario is that Pheu Thai allows a party from the conservative establishment to nominate a candidate as a condition for joining a new coalition. That candidate could be Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan, 77, the deputy prime minister in the current government.

What would a Srettha victory represent?

Many would see it as a triumph for the democratic process in Thailand, a country with a long history of mass protests and military coups. Some foreign investors would also see a potential boost for a sluggish, coronavirus-battered economy.

But many of Move Forward’s progressive supporters would be angry about the establishment blocking their party from forming a government. On Wednesday evening, a demonstration reflecting that anger was taking shape at the city’s Democracy Monument.

The size of the protests over the next days or weeks will likely depend on who becomes prime minister. If it’s Mr. Srettha, demonstrations could be sporadic and modest. If it’s General Prawit or another military figure, they could be sustained and intense.

Ms. Wichuda, the protester, was one of hundreds who gathered outside Parliament on Wednesday afternoon, peering through its gates at police officers in riot gear. She said that while she did not agree with Mr. Pita’s contentious pledge to revise a law that criminalizes criticism of the monarchy, she still felt he had been “robbed” by politicians who were afraid to give a younger generation the chance to improve the country.

“If they can do such things to people with money and power,” she said, “what will be left for us, the common people, who have no position and no title?”

[beardedmrbean]

Namibia elected its first woman president with Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah winning last week’s presidential elections disputed by technical and logistical issues in the country.

The 72-year-old, the current vice-president of the country, won with 57 per cent of the vote, extending the ruling South West Africa People’s Organisation (Swapo) party’s grip on power since independence from South Africa in 1990.

“The Namibian nation has voted for peace and stability,” Ms Nandi-Ndaitwah said after the final results were announced late on Tuesday.

Her victory defied predictions that she might be forced into a run-off after opposition parties rejected the results after polling had to be extended for three days in some parts of the country following technical and logistical problems.

Her closest rival Panduleni Itula, who got 26 per cent of the votes, had alleged electoral malpractice.

The polling was scheduled to conclude last Wednesday but had to be extended till Saturday in some parts after polling booths suffered shortages of ballot papers and other issues.

The opposition parties said the extension was illegal and boycotted the results announcement on Tuesday, saying that they will challenge the results in court.

Ms Nandi-Ndaitwah is known as a dedicated Swapo loyalist who joined the party at the age of 14 and was part of an underground independence movement against South African rule in Namibia in the 1970s which was responsible for the implementation of apartheid.

Her leadership in Swapo’s Youth League laid the foundation for her political rise, eventually earning her ministerial positions in foreign affairs, tourism, child welfare, and information.

She was promoted to vice president in February after president Hage Geingob died while in office and will become the fifth president of Namibia after independence.

Her victory as the first female president of Namibia adds her to the exclusive club with Tanzania’s president Samia Suluhu Hassan. She, however, took office through constitutional succession and not a popular vote.

"Swapo Wins. Netumbo Wins. Namibia Wins. Now Hard Work," the ruling party posted on its official account on social media site X.

Mr Itula, of the Independent Patriots for Change opposition party, won the second-largest number of seats in parliament behind Swapo.

The Independent Patriots for Change have led the criticism of the vote and pledged to lodge a challenge in court, calling the three-day extension for voting unconstitutional.

Swapo maintained a grip on power in Namibian politics for nearly three decades. However, its popularity came under question in the 2019 election when it lost its two-thirds majority, reducing its vote share to 56 per cent from 87 per cent.

It faced challenges of growing unemployment, allegations of corruption on high ranking officials of Swapo and high levels of inequality.

This year in May, South Africa’s African National Congress lost its majority in parliament for the first time since the end of apartheid. The Botswana Democratic Party was also booted out of power after ruling since independence from Britain in 1966.

[darkmaga-returns]

There is a huge potential for the members of the extended Brics group to cooperate in ensuring energy security in their countries, South African Minister of Energy and Electricity Kgosientso Ramokgopa said at the 9th Brics Energy Ministerial Meeting in Moscow.

"We believe that this Brics group of like-minded country members has a huge potential and working together will strengthen this resolve through cooperation on energy security, and also provide an opportunity to join efforts to annihilate the challenges diagnosed during the Brics 2023 Summit held in South Africa, such as addressing the lack or absence of an integrated energy policy framework," Ramokgopa said.

The minister said this meeting came at "a critical phase where our countries are grappling with the challenge of balancing developmental goals with energy transition pathways".

"We must ensure that these transitions safeguard energy sovereignty and security, promote sustainable economic development, facilitate universal access and respond effectively to environmental imperatives, all the while ensuring no one is left behind," he said.

Commenting on the meeting being the first that included the new members of the Brics grouping that joined at the beginning of the year, Ramokgopa said the expansion of the Brics membership was a clear affirmation of the group's growing significance and influence in the global energy agenda.

Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates were admitted as new members to the original Brics grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa in January.

Business Standard

Source: www.business-standard.com

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Marc Elias at Democracy Docket:

Some days are momentous for what occurs on them. Others, for what they represent. Our democracy relies on both. Federal Election Day is set by law as the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November in even numbered years. Each state sets its own dates for elections to be certified. In presidential elections, there are even more specific dates. For example, this year, Dec. 11 was the date by which each state’s governor had to sign the official certificate of ascertainment. The most recent, and most critical of those dates, was last week on Tuesday, Dec. 17. On that one day, presidential electors met in their states to officially select the next president and vice-president of the United States. Before those meetings, Donald Trump was the presumptive president-elect. After that day, it became legally certain that he will be sworn in as the 47th president at noon on Jan. 20, 2025. The rest of it is really all paperwork. By Dec. 25, the electoral votes had to be received by the Senate and national archives. On Jan. 3, the new Congress will be sworn in. On Jan. 6, that new Congress will perform the ministerial task of counting the electoral votes.

This is the pageantry of American democracy. A series of meetings and forms to count and certify the results we already know. In most years it is unremarkable. In 2020, it wasn’t. That is because four years ago, the losing candidate attacked the pageantry of democracy. First in the media, then in court and finally by instigating a violent insurrection. During his presidency, President Joe Biden liked to say: “You can’t love your country only when you win.” Donald Trump proved otherwise. While it may feel like the 2024 election was normal, that is only because Trump won. There were no false claims of fraud, because he won. No election officials were vilified and threatened, because he won. The courts remained free of legal challenges, because he won. On Jan. 6, 2025, there will be no violent insurrection, and Congress will certify the count not because of a new law, but only because Trump won.

[...] What Trump did to our elections he is now doing to the other institutions of our democracy. Trump is infamous for relentlessly attacking his political opponents until they give in. As soon as they praise him, all is forgiven. Trump has, in his own words, “tamed” the legacy media by demeaning and suing them. Once a journalist kisses the ring, Trump stops his attacks. Once a media executive pays tribute, they are his friends.

Marc Elias writes in Democracy Docket that in Donald Trump's perverse world, democracy works when he wins and fails when he loses.

See 2024 v. 2020: 2020 was when he had his unhinged temper tantrum over losing the election that eventually led to the Capitol Insurrection on January 6th.

[racefortheironthrone]

What are your thoughts on Tony Benn? Because much as I admire him in some ways he does come across as a bit impractical in an idealistic way, with his challenge to Healey and describing the 1983 general election as a triumph for socialism.

I'm of very mixed opinions about Tony Benn.

On the one hand, I think he was a very sincere and well-meaning man with fairly laudible beliefs (although he did I think have a problem where he would sometimes prioritize following a consistent ideological line over his personal moral instincts, which I think were more reliable).

On the other hand, I don't think he was very good at his job and would have done better as a social movement organizer than as a politician and government minister - or at the very least, I think he would have been better suited to a ministerial portfolio that spoke to his strengths, which were much more in the area of social policy rather than economic policy.

So as Minister for Technology or as Secretary of State for Industry or Energy, I'm sympathetic to his support for industrial democracy in and out of nationalized industries, but he wasn't ultimately very good at putting worker control into practice. And that's the thing; when you're in government, you have to be able to translate your beliefs into effective public policy.

Likewise, I think his Alternative Economic Strategy was just a bad strategy for achieving left-wing economic objectives:

it focused on the very blunt instruments of direct economic controls on prices and imports and finance rather than more flexible approaches that would have fewer negative side effects.

it had a heavy emphasis on issues that Benn cared about (like nationalization and industrial democracy) but weren't really relevant to how to deal with stagflation in the short term.

meanwhile, it under-emphasized policies to deal with unemployment and ironically relied on a rather standard "commercial Keynesian" solution for reflation rather than more social democratic alternatives.

the anti-European/autarkic emphasis of the AES was profoundly counter-productive, especially for the economic context of Britain in the 1970s.

finally, it really neglected the crucial question of how to develop state capacity. In part because Benn really didn't get along with the Civil Service and viewed them as essentially hostile, the AES didn't spend nearly enough time on how to develop the expertise, coordination, staffing, etc. needed to carry out economic policies that were very heavy lifts.

So yeah, "impractical in an idealistic way" is fair.

[head-post]

Macron urges to “rethink” ties with Russia, new government under pressure

French President Emmanuel Macron stated that it would be crucial to reassess Europe’s relationship with Russia after the war in Ukraine, while the French government faces pressure from the opposition.

Macron made the comments during a peaceful gathering hosted by the Community of Sant’Egidio in Paris on Sunday.

We will have to think about a new form of organisation of Europe and rethink our relations with Russia after the war in Ukraine. This is undoubtedly the greatest challenge of our time, because our current order is incomplete and unjust. It is incomplete because it was conceived at the end of World War II, and therefore did not have in its heart the problems that later emerged and became dominant.

He also noted that “most countries on this planet and many of the most populous countries did not exist when the seats were allocated”. He therefore called for a rethinking of the world order.

Meanwhile, the new government of Prime Minister Michel Barnier is facing pressure from opposition politicians on both sides of the political spectrum amid growing threats of a vote of no confidence in parliament. Barnier is due to present a budget plan for 2025 that takes into account what he called the country’s “very serious” financial situation.

The long wait for a functioning government ended late Saturday night, 11 weeks after Macron called an early general election. Left-wing opposition politicians have already said they will challenge Barnier’s government with a vote of no confidence, with national-oriented politicians also criticising its composition.

Macron argued that the left could not muster enough support to form a government that would not be immediately overthrown by parliament, and rejected the National Rally candidate due to the party’s alleged extremist heritage. Instead, he turned to Barnier to lead the government, relying mainly on parliamentary support from allies.

Shaky government

Negotiations over the allocation of 39 cabinet posts continued until the official announcement on Saturday, insiders said, with moments of sharp tension between the president and his prime minister.

Leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon called the new line-up “a government of the general election losers.” France, he said, should “get rid” of the government “as soon as possible.” On Monday, he responded to accusations against him on X:

On Tuesday, September 24, I have to go and respond to a complaint for insult filed by a Macron minister about my reaction to a banned conference in Lille. On Friday, a Marseille lawyer proclaims herself a “Zionist” and threatens to kill two MPs on a restaurant terrace by exploding their cell phones! Which prosecutor will react? Yet how many people like Rima Hassan and Mathilde Panot have been summoned by the courts for “apology for terrorism”? Is there a difference? Of course. None of them have threatened to kill anyone. So? And the Marseille bar? Silence. Surprising, isn’t it?

Thousands of people took to the streets of Paris and other French cities on Saturday in a left-wing protest to denounce what they called the results of July’s election. Socialist Party chairman Olivier Faure called Barnier’s cabinet “a reactionary government that gives democracy the finger.”

Although Macron’s Renaissance party had to abandon some key positions, it still won a majority of 12 ministerial posts out of 39. However, former French President Francois Hollande called the cabinet “the same as before, but with an even stronger presence of the right.”

A vote of no confidence requires an absolute majority in parliament, which would then force the government to resign immediately. However, this is currently an unlikely scenario, as the right and the left, sworn enemies, would have to vote unanimously.

Read more HERE