Thailand’s complex Senate election at risk as court decision looms | Politics News

Bangkok, Thailand – Thailand’s nearly one-month-long Senate selection process kicked off last week, amid accusations that the system is skewed in favour of the conservative establishment, and as legal threats against the opposition risk derailing tentative steps back towards democracy.

After seizing power in a 2014 coup, the Thai military directly appointed 250 people to the upper house in a move seen as an attempt to stymie meaningful political reform as the country transitioned back to a flawed democracy. After last year’s election, the senators blocked the progressive Move Forward Party (MFP) from forming a government, even though it had won the most seats in parliament and the largest share of the vote.

The Senate’s role in choosing the prime minister was temporary, however, as was its direct appointment by the military. This month a new batch of 200 senators is being selected from the leaders of key industries, in a complicated weeks-long process where only registered candidates are allowed to vote.

Candidates must be over 40 years old, have 10 years of experience in their field, not be a current member of a political party, and pay a registration fee of 2,500 baht ($68). Ten candidates will be selected from 20 occupational groups, including government, law, education, arts and culture, and women’s affairs. The final round of voting is expected on June 26, with results announced on July 2.

“The new lot of senators will have two key roles,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor and senior fellow at the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok.

“Constitutional change requires one-third of the 200 new senators. Equally important, the new senators will have oversight over appointments of the Election Commission and Constitutional Court.”

The current constitution was promulgated under the military in 2017, and calls for it to be amended or scrapped have grown in recent years. Rulings by the Election Commission and Constitutional Court, meanwhile, have seen pro-democracy political candidates and parties dissolved and banned.

Most recently, they have turned their attention to MFP. The Election Commission recommended that the Constitutional Court dissolve the progressive party based on its calls to reform the controversial lese-majeste law, which criminalises criticism of the monarchy. The Constitutional Court is still deliberating and could announce its decision on Tuesday. It previously ruled in January that MFP’s reform attempts were tantamount to attempting to overthrow the monarchy.

Candidates must be checked beforehand to make sure they are over the age of 40 and have 10 years of experience in their field. They must also not be a member of a political party [Sakchai Lalit/AP Photo]

Thitinan said that given the continued importance of the Senate, it was “being contested fiercely”.

“There will likely be moves by the conservative establishment, including the Election Commission, to make sure the Senate does not end up with enough progressive voices to change the constitution,” he said.

Even the constitutionality of the senate selection has been challenged, with the Constitutional Court expected to deliver a verdict on its legality on Tuesday morning.

Ruchapong Chamjirachaikul, a member of the legal advocacy group iLaw, said the process was “neither fair nor democratic” and that was intentional.

“The problems you see in the process are a feature not a bug… a lot of them are by design,” he said, adding that the process should not be called an “election” but a “selection”.

Chamjirachaikul said his team has already received some reports of irregularities, like former generals registering to represent the agriculture sector, or people being offered 10,000 baht ($270) to register and vote for a specific candidate.

‘Tainted’

June, a 26-year-old assistant to progressive candidate Nongyao Nawarat, a retired professor of sociology at Chiang Mai University, said the “unfair selection system” was designed to prevent young people from participating.

She said the approach showed the establishment was scared of younger voters and their demands for reform, and would do whatever it took to block real change. Before the election, progressive activists and candidates activated their grassroots networks, encouraging as many people sympathetic to the movement as possible to register as candidates.

“Of course, conservatives do similar things,” June said. “And they still [have] the advantage of spending more money. But I still believe in the power of the people on our side.”

Because of the way the process is structured, it is impossible to counter conservative organising without encouraging contacts to register with the intention of voting for somebody else. But Chamjirachaikul said the progressive strategy was to be “open and transparent”.

“We have a public event and ask any candidate to come to this event, the press are allowed to be there, and they will introduce themselves in the open,” he said. “You have to say what you stand for – new constitution, amending lese-majeste, democratic principles, are you against another coup?”

The interior of the Thai Senate in session. It is grey. Seats are arranged in a semi circle with two giant screens at the front on either side.
The previous Senate, seen here during an April vote on same-sex marriage, was appointed by the military  [Lillian Suwanrumpha/AFP]

Chamjirachaikul stressed candidates needed to sign up, even if they did not expect or even want to win a seat, in order to vote.

“We don’t pay anyone, we don’t even have the money to pay anyone. But if you’re over 40, have the money, have the time and want to contribute to democracy, you can register and vote for somebody who shares the same vision of democracy for Thailand as you,” he said.

He said the eventual senate will lack representation and accountability, which will further tarnish the body’s reputation, already “tainted” by years of acting as a proxy for the military.

“When you don’t have clear representation you don’t have clear accountability, unlike MPs who would have to be confronted by their own constituencies, but who are these new senators’ constituencies? There’s no one,” Chamjirachaikul said.

However, even with the selection issues, Thitinan said the next senate would “still be more representative of the Thai people compared to the expired 250-member senate which was chosen by the military”.

This is in line with other modest reforms since last year’s election, which saw the moderate pro-democracy Pheu Thai Party form a coalition government with conservative and military-backed parties.

But Chamjirachaikul said it was worth asking why Thailand needed a Senate at all. “We as Thais should be able to debate and discuss on this openly,” he said. “We’ve seen enough of the Senate.”

June said regardless of what the establishment did to hold back the tide, youth activists would continue fighting for change.

“We are the new generation. We will do whatever it takes to change this country for the better. It may not happen in a single session or in a single night. But it will gradually change.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Why four court cases could unleash a new crisis in Thai politics | Courts News

Courts due to hear cases on Tuesday on PM Srettha Thavisin, the Move Forward Party, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra and the Senate elections.

The future of Thailand’s Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin as well as its leading opposition party looks set to be decided this week in four key court rulings that risk triggering a new political crisis.

The courts are due to announce rulings in four cases on Tuesday involving Srettha, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the leading opposition Move Forward Party (MFP), and the election process for a new Senate.

Thailand’s politics has been marred for years by a struggle between its military-backed conservative-royalist establishment, and populist and reform parties such as those backed by Thaksin and MFP, leading to mass protests and military coups.

“These cases highlight the fragility and complexity of Thailand’s political climate,” ANZ Research said in a note, warning of the potential for renewed protests.

What is the prime minister’s case?

Srettha, who made a fortune in property before getting into politics, became prime minister last August after Pita Limjaroenrat, who led MFP to victory in the May 2023 elections, was blocked from forming a government.

On Tuesday, he faces a decision – or potentially another hearing date – from the Constitutional Court on whether he breached the constitution by appointing someone to his cabinet who had a previous conviction.

Srettha, who denies any wrongdoing, could face dismissal if the court rules against him.

If he is removed, his Pheu Thai Party would need to propose a new candidate for prime minister and parliament would need to vote on their appointment.

What is the case against MFP?

A second case could lead to the dissolution of the reformist Move Forward Party, which won the most seats in last year’s election as well as the largest share of the vote.

The Constitutional Court is due to announce its decision on an Election Commission complaint that alleges the party broke the law by campaigning for reform of the royal insult law.

MFP denies any wrongdoing.

The property dropped its calls for reform after the Constitutional Court ruled in January that the call amounted to an effort to overthrow the monarchy.

Its predecessor, the Future Forward Party, was also dissolved by a court ruling after performing strongly in the 2019 election.

What about Thaksin?

Thaksin, the telecommunications tycoon who dominated Thai politics being removed in a military coup in 2006, returned to Thailand last year after Srettha’s government took office.

On Tuesday, a Bangkok criminal court is likely to formally charge him with royal insult in connection with a media interview he gave in 2015.

The court will then decide whether to grant bail to Thaksin, who has said he is innocent. “This case has no merit at all,” he told reporters earlier this month.

Thailand’s lese-majeste law, one of the world’s toughest, carries a maximum jail sentence of up to 15 years for each perceived insult.

The 74-year-old returned to Thailand to a rock star’s reception last August after 15 years of self-imposed exile.

And the senators?

The Constitutional Court will also deliver a decision on the ongoing selection of a new 200-member Senate, after accepting a petition questioning whether parts of the process, taking place over three successive weeks, were lawful.

If the process is cancelled or delayed, it would temporarily extend the term of military-appointed lawmakers who play a key role in forming the government, including last year’s manoeuvre that blocked MFP.

The current upper house was hand-picked by the military following a 2014 coup that removed an elected Pheu Thai government led by Thaksin’s sister, who still lives in self-imposed exile.

The process to pick the next Senate began on June 9 with the third and final stage scheduled for June 23.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US Supreme Court upholds access to abortion pill | Courts News

Biden welcomes ruling and rebukes ‘extreme and dangerous agenda’ attacks on reproductive rights by Republican officials.

The United States Supreme Court has rejected a bid to curb access to a drug used in abortions, ending an attempt by abortion opponents to limit access to the procedure.

In a 9-0 ruling on Thursday, the justices overturned a lower court’s decision last year to limit access to the drug mifepristone, used in more than half of abortions in the country.

The Food and Drug Administration had taken steps in 2016 and 2021 to ease how the pill is prescribed and distributed.

The pill, given FDA regulatory approval in 2000, is used in more than 60 percent of US abortions, according to a recent study.

The conservative-dominated Supreme Court in 2022 overturned a key ruling that granted the right to abortion, sparking outrage from women’s rights advocates and Democrats.

Thursday’s decision has come months before the US elections, where reproductive rights have been a top theme in the campaign.

Three of the top court’s justices who overturned Roe v Wade – the 1973 legal precedent that enshrined the right to abortion – had been appointed by former President Donald Trump, who is set for a rematch with US President Joe Biden in November.

Since the revoking of the guarantee of abortion rights at the federal level, dozens of Republican-led states have imposed bans and severe restrictions on access to the procedure.

In the past two years, Democrats have stressed abortion rights and reproductive freedom to hit out against Republicans.

Biden welcomed the top court’s decision on the abortion pill on Thursday, stressing that the ruling “does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states”.

“But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide,” Biden said in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs behind the lawsuit challenging mifepristone lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue the case, which required that they show they have been harmed in a way that can be traced to the FDA.

Abortion is a prominent political issue in the US. For decades, restricting abortions has been a top goal for conservative religious groups. Liberals, who oppose government restrictions on abortion, argue that the procedure is part of a woman’s healthcare, personal choices and bodily autonomy.

Trump, who enjoys wide popularity amongst conservative Christians who oppose abortion, said in April he would not sign a federal abortion ban into law if elected. Last year, he called a six-week abortion ban in Florida a “terrible mistake”.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Two weeks since Trump’s New York guilty verdict: What have we learned? | Donald Trump News

Washington, DC – It has been two weeks since Donald Trump became the first former United States president convicted of criminal charges. But polls show the extraordinary verdict has largely been met with a resounding ho-hum.

On May 30, Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, in what prosecutors described as an effort to conceal a hush-money payment to a porn star.

But experts say the public response to the verdict has been a ripple rather than a tidal wave — and that is a reflection of the unique political moment the US finds itself in.

Trump is seeking re-election in November, and he is in a tight race against current President Joe Biden. But his campaign has been bolstered by strong support among Republicans, who have largely rallied under his leadership.

Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University, credited the muted reaction following May’s historic verdict to the Republican Party — and the media — normalising what should be remarkable.

“We never, in the 230 years plus of American history, have had a former president, or even a major party presidential candidate, charged with a crime, much less convicted of multiple felonies,” Lichtman told Al Jazeera.

“This is a cataclysmic event without precedent, and at least so far, it doesn’t seem to have much of an impact on people’s views of Donald Trump.”

‘Hush money’ vs ‘scheme to defraud’

According to Lichtman, the subdued response has been, in many ways, a culmination of Trump’s years-long effort to build a perception of both political impunity and persecution.

Trump bragged in 2016 that he could shoot someone on New York City’s Fifth Avenue and still “not lose any voters”. He ultimately won that year’s presidential race.

Nevertheless, for years, he has also promoted — without evidence — the claim that he is the target of a coordinated political “witch-hunt”, designed to keep him from power.

Lichtman added that the media’s coverage of the trial also contributed to the beige public reaction.

The trial, which took place in New York City, hinged on the prosecution’s argument that Trump covered up the hush-money payment to protect his chances in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump has denied the charges. But prosecutors maintained he used illegal means to conceal information from the American electorate.

The fact that the media referred to the trial as the “hush-money” case contributed to the lack of outrage, Lichtman said. He believes the verdict would have resounded more if the media had framed the case as a question of “fraud perpetrated on the American people”.

“Trump has played the media like a fiddle,” Lichtman explained. “Then, let’s not forget, virtually to a person, the entire Republican Party has bought into his lies that he was convicted by a rigged system in a phoney trial.”

A litmus test for voters

That was a message Trump and his campaign helped calcify as the New York verdict approached.

In a news conference after being found guilty, the former president sought to directly tie his conviction to the Biden administration, without providing evidence for the claim.

“This is all done by Biden and his people,” Trump said in the news conference. “We’re dealing with a corrupt government. We have a corrupt country.”

Shortly after, he again raised the spectre of political violence if he were to be imprisoned.

“I’m not sure the public would stand for it,” Trump told Fox News. “You know, at a certain point, there’s a breaking point.”

Earlier this week, his campaign even sent out an email titled, “Haul out the Guillotine”, a reference to the French Revolution.

For his part, Biden – through campaign communications and the White House – has portrayed the conviction of proof of a healthy and impartial justice system.

The New York trial is far from the end of Trump’s legal woes. He faces separate state and federal charges related to efforts to subvert his 2020 election loss to Biden, as well as a fourth indictment in Florida for allegedly hoarding classified documents.

But none of the other cases are expected to conclude before the presidential race on November 5.

That means the New York trial offers the first – and perhaps only – litmus test for how a criminal conviction will be viewed by the nearly 160 million registered voters in the US.

Muted fallout in polls

Since the verdict, there has been evidence that Trump’s strategy has helped to energise his supporters. His campaign claimed to have raised $141m in May, including two million small-money donations.

More than a third of those donations were made online in the 24 hours after the verdict, according to Trump’s campaign, although the official fundraising filings for the period have not yet been released.

Then, there have been a series of polls that have shown a broadly ambivalent response to the prospect of electing a convicted felon as president.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted immediately after the verdict found that only 10 percent of registered Republicans reported they were less likely to vote for Trump after the conviction.

Meanwhile, 56 percent of Republicans said the case would have no effect on their vote. Another 35 percent indicated it would make them more likely to vote for Trump.

The verdict’s impact was more pronounced among independent voters, a coveted demographic in US politics.

Approximately 25 percent of the independent voters surveyed said Trump’s conviction made them less likely to support him in November, compared with 18 percent who said they were more likely to vote for him.

However, the majority of the group — 56 percent — said the conviction would have no impact on their decision.

Still, two weeks after the verdict, most major polls and forecasters show Biden and Trump neck and neck in the presidential race, although several leading organisations — including FiveThirtyEight and Morning Consult — put Biden ahead with a slight edge.

This week, CBS News and YouGov released another poll showing the candidates virtually tied in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

However, as before, the majority of the voters surveyed said the New York conviction was not a factor in how they would cast their ballot come November.

Michael Fauntroy, the founding director of the Race, Politics and Policy Center at George Mason University, told Al Jazeera the cascade of post-verdict polls demonstrates one thing: “Trump has been hurt, but not mortally so.”

Will public sentiment reflect on ballot?

But the November 5 election is still more than four months away. That could help or hurt Trump.

Experts note that the public’s attention span is short — and already, other high-profile news items have diverted focus away from the New York verdict.

They include the conviction of Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, on charges he lied on a federal firearm background check form. The verdict represents the first time a sitting president’s child has been found guilty of criminal charges.

The Trump campaign sought to play up the conviction as evidence of what it calls the “Biden crime family”. But the verdict could also prove a double-edged sword, with some observers noting the case may neutralise Trump’s claim that the judiciary is corrupted by political bias.

After all, the Hunter Biden case was prosecuted by the Department of Justice, which falls under Biden’s White House. And the president has ruled out pardoning his son.

Then there is Trump’s upcoming sentencing hearing on July 11. The severity of the penalty is expected to impact voter opinion.

Fauntroy cautioned that the eventual sentence may make Trump’s conviction stickier and more difficult for his campaign to navigate.

“The sentencing may well accelerate the concern that Republicans have,” he said. “What if he gets jail time? What if he gets house arrest? What if he gets 30 days house arrest? What if he gets 1,000 hours of community service?”

Trump’s sentence, Fauntroy explained, “could be potentially very problematic for him”.

Even slight fluctuations in the polls could also spell trouble for Trump. Any dip in support could make the difference in an election that is expected to turn on a knife’s edge.

“It could have a small, immediate impact but a large ultimate impact,” Fauntroy said, “if the number of Republicans who are repulsed by this remains as it is now.”

And there is perhaps a larger reason for the disquiet looming over Trump’s camp, he added.

Several polls, including those conducted by Morning Consult and ABC News/Ipsos, have found a majority of Americans think the guilty verdict was correct. Fauntroy explained that shows a persistent vulnerability that could later be activated by Trump’s opponents.

“Right now, it’s a slight negative for Trump,” Fauntroy said, “but potentially a really bad one going forward.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Jury deliberations start in Hunter Biden’s gun trial | Courts News

The 12 jurors deliberated for about an hour after closing arguments. They will resume at 9am ET (13:00 GMT) on Tuesday.

The jury has begun deliberations in the case of Hunter Biden, the son of United States President Joe Biden, accused of lying about his use of illegal drugs when he bought a handgun in 2018.

The 12 jurors deliberated for about an hour after hearing closing arguments on Monday. They will resume at 9am local time (13:00 GMT) on Tuesday, a court official said.

“We ask, you find the law applies equally to this defendant as it would to anyone else,” government prosecutor Derek Hines told the jury as the first criminal trial of a child of a sitting president reached its final phase.

“When he chose to lie and buy a gun, he violated the law. We ask, you return the only verdict supported by the evidence – guilty,” Hines said.

Hunter Biden, 54, has pleaded not guilty to charges that include lying about his addiction when he filled out a government screening document for a Colt Cobra revolver and illegally possessing the weapon for 11 days.

Defence lawyer Abbe Lowell compared the government’s case with the work of a magician who focuses attention on drug use from months or years before the gun purchase to create the illusion Hunter Biden was a user of crack cocaine when he bought the weapon.

“They blurred all those years before he walked into StarQuest Shooters and all those years after,” Lowell told jurors, referring to the gun shop where he made the purchase.

US District Judge Maryellen Noreika instructed jurors to be impartial. “You have to decide the case based on the evidence,” she told them.

‘It was ugly and it was overwhelming’

Over four days of testimony last week, prosecutors offered an intimate view of the younger Biden’s years of struggle with alcohol and crack cocaine abuse, which prosecutors say legally precluded him from buying a gun.

In the prosecution’s closing arguments, a government lawyer said common sense understanding of the grim testimony of Hunter Biden’s constant drug use filled in any gaps in evidence about his behaviour around the time of the gun purchase.

“It was personal and it was ugly and it was overwhelming,” federal prosecutor Leo Wise told the jury, referring to the testimony of Hunter Biden’s drug use. “But it was also necessary.”

The trial in US District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, follows another historic first – the May 30 criminal conviction of Donald Trump, the first US president to be found guilty of a serious crime. Trump is the Republican challenger to Joe Biden, a Democrat, in the November 5 presidential election.

Congressional Democrats cite the Hunter Biden prosecution as evidence that Joe Biden is not using the justice system for political or personal ends.

Wise said it did not matter if well-known people appeared in court or how they reacted to the evidence, a possible reference to First Lady Jill Biden’s attendance. “None of that matters. What matters came from the witness stand,” he said.

If convicted, Hunter Biden could face up to 25 years in prison, although first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum, and it is unclear whether the judge would give him time behind bars.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Hong Kong hits back as UK judge says rule of law ‘profoundly compromised’ | Courts News

Hong Kong has hit back at a British judge who announced his resignation from the territory’s top court last week and expressed concern that the rule of law was in danger following the landmark conviction of 47 pro-democracy politicians and activists.

Jonathan Sumption, one of two British judges who resigned from the Court of Final Appeal last week, wrote in the Financial Times on Monday that last month’s decision, which he noted could still be reversed by an appeal court, was “symptomatic of a growing malaise in the Hong Kong judiciary” where judges had to “operate in an impossible political environment created by China.”

The 47 were found guilty of subversion for organising an unofficial primary to choose their candidates in the largest ever trial under the National Security Law, which Beijing imposed on the territory in 2020.

Among his concerns, Sumption listed the security law and the revived colonial-era sedition law, which he said were “illiberal legislation” that “severely” limited judges’ freedom of action, “interpretations” by a standing committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing such as in the case of jailed tycoon Jimmy Lai, and the “paranoia” of the authorities.

“The least sign of dissent is treated as a call for revolution,” Sumption wrote. “Hefty jail sentences are dished out to people publishing ‘disloyal’ cartoon books for children, or singing pro-democracy songs, or organising silent vigils for the victims of Tiananmen Square. Hong Kong, once a vibrant and politically diverse community is slowly becoming a totalitarian state. The rule of law is profoundly compromised in any area about which the government feels strongly.”

In a lengthy statement on Tuesday, the Hong Kong government rejected the British judge’s comments, saying there was “absolutely no truth” to suggestions that Hong Kong’s judiciary was under pressure from Beijing, or that there had been any decline in the rule of law in Hong Kong, which was returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

“The government has never, and also will not allow anyone to, interfere with the prosecutions of the Department of Justice and trials by the court,” Chief Executive John Lee said in the statement, noting that prosecutorial power and adjudication power were independent, and citing the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini constitution.

“These two powers are fully and affirmatively protected by the Basic Law. The prosecutorial decisions of the Department of Justice has [sic] not been subject to any interference. Likewise, the court has always exercised its independent judicial power without any interference. This is how it was in the past, how it is at present, and how it will be in future. The rule of law in Hong Kong is strong and will not change.”

In his weekly news conference on Tuesday, Lee pointed his finger at the United Kingdom, the former colonial ruler of Hong Kong.

“Some UK officials and politicians try to weaponise the UK’s judicial influence to target China and HKSAR [Hong Kong]” Lee told reporters. “A judge is entitled to his personal political preferences, but that is not a judge’s area of professional expertise.”

Political upheaval

Sumption, who in 2021 resisted pressure on foreign judges to resign their positions, stepped down last week with another British judge Lawrence Collins.

Collins told the Associated Press news agency that while he retained confidence in the independence of the courts, he had decided to leave “because of the political situation in Hong Kong”.

In 2019, the territory was rocked by mass protests which began over concerns about plans to extradite suspects for trial in Chinese courts and evolved into calls for democracy, which later turned violent. Beijing imposed the National Security Law on July 1 the following year and Hong Kong passed its own security law earlier this year.

Since the protests, rules governing Hong Kong elections have also been tightened with all candidates required to undergo strict vetting to ensure only “patriots” hold public office.

Many pro-democracy politicians and activists, including some who once sat in the territory’s legislature, have been arrested or gone into exile with the police offering financial rewards for information leading to their detention. Civil society groups have also wound down and independent media closed.

Dozens of people are now facing trial under the Chinese law and the first arrests were made under the Hong Kong law last month.

The governments in Beijing and Hong Kong say the laws have restored stability following the 2019 protests.

Amid the debate over overseas judges, Hong Kong announced late on Monday that former Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who is 80, would step down in July when her contract expires.

McLachlin, who has previously come under pressure for her decision to remain on the bench, was appointed in 2018.

“I continue to have confidence in the members of the Court, their independence, and their determination to uphold the rule of law,” she said in a brief statement.

Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, unlike mainland China where the courts are controlled by the Communist Party.

Non-permanent overseas judges have consistently served on the bench of its top court since the handover. There were 15 such judges in 2019, and with McLachlin’s departure, about seven will remain.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Three Valencia fans handed prison sentences over Vinicius Jr racist abuse | Football News

Spanish court convicts fans for hate crimes against the Real Madrid football player in the first conviction over racist insults.

Three Valencia football fans have been sentenced to eight months in prison for hate crimes against Real Madrid player Vinicius Jr, the first conviction for racist insults in a football stadium in Spain, a court announced.

“The ruling handed down today, which is final, establishes as proven that the three defendants insulted Vinicius with shouts, gestures and chants referring to the colour of his skin,” the court said in a statement on Monday.

“These shouts and gestures of a racist nature, consisting among other things in the repetition of the sounds and imitating the movements of monkeys, caused the footballer feelings of frustration, shame and humiliation, with the consequent undermining of his intrinsic dignity.”

In Spain, prison sentences of less than two years for non-violent crimes rarely require a defendant without previous convictions to serve jail time, so the three are likely to remain free unless they commit further offences.

The three supporters, who pled guilty to the charges, were also banned from entering football stadiums for two years and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

“This ruling is great news for the fight against racism in Spain as it repairs the damage suffered by Vinicius Jr and sends a clear message to those people who go to a football stadium to insult that LaLiga will identify them, report them and there will be criminal consequences for them,” LaLiga president Javier Tebas said.

The events happened at Valencia’s Mestalla Stadium in May last year, when racist slurs were hurled at Vinicius, who is Black, during a league match.

They led to an outpouring of support for the Brazilian forward and galvanised a series of local and international campaigns, including the creation of a FIFA anti-racism committee made up of players.

“During the hearing, the defendants read a letter of apology to Vinicius Jr, LaLiga and Real Madrid,” LaLiga said in a statement on Monday.

Real Madrid’s Vinicius Junior, right, in action with Cadiz’s Ivan Alejo [Juan Medina/Reuters]

Real Madrid said the defendants had shown repentance and, in their letter, had “asked fans that all traces of racism and intolerance should be banished from sporting competitions”.

“Real Madrid, which together with Vinicius Jr has acted as private prosecutor in these proceedings, will continue to work to protect the values of our club and to eradicate any racist behaviour in the world of football and sport,” the club added in a statement.

The 23-year-old Vinicius helped Real Madrid to win the LaLiga title and the Champions League this past season. He was named the Champions League’s player of the season and is one of the favourites to win the Ballon d’Or for the world’s best player in October.

Sixteen incidents of racist abuse against Vinicius have been reported to Spanish prosecutors by LaLiga in the last two seasons.

In March, Vinicius broke down in tears at a press conference and said he was struggling to stay motivated and enjoy playing football due to the recurring abuse, urging Spanish authorities to take action.

“People should know that this type of act is punishable, punishable as a hate crime, because the conviction is for crimes against moral integrity but with the aggravating circumstance of hatred,” state prosecutor Susana Gisbert told reporters.

In April, Spanish TV station Movistar Plus+ fired analyst German Burgos after Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain refused to give interviews to the network following a comment he made about Barcelona’s Lamine Yamal that was interpreted as racist.

In the same month, Atletico Madrid and Getafe were ordered to partially close their stands following racist and xenophobic abuse in a LaLiga game, while a third-division match between Rayo Majadahonda and Sestao River was suspended after Rayo’s Senegalese goalkeeper Cheikh Kane Sarr confronted a rival fan who he said was racially abusing him.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Widow of Beau Biden testifies about seeing revolver in Hunter Biden’s truck | Courts News

Federal prosecutors say US President Biden’s son was in the throes of a heavy crack addiction when he bought the gun.

Hunter Biden’s widowed sister-in-law has testified that she found his gun and threw it away out of fear of his spiralling drug addiction, potentially bolstering prosecutors’ case that President Joe Biden’s son broke a law barring illegal drug users from owning firearms.

Hallie Biden told jurors about the moment she found the revolver in his truck, describing how she put it into a leather pouch, stuffed it into a shopping bag and tossed it in a rubbish bin outside a market near her home.

“I panicked, and I wanted to get rid of them,” she testified about finding the gun and ammunition in the vehicle’s console in October 2018. “I didn’t want him to hurt himself, and I didn’t want my kids to find it and hurt themselves.”

The purchase of the Colt revolver by Hunter Biden – and Hallie Biden’s frenzied disposal of it – are central to the case against him. Federal prosecutors say the president’s son was in the throes of a heavy crack addiction when he bought the gun.

He has been charged with three felonies: lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally keeping the gun for 11 days.

Hunter Biden, who has pleaded not guilty, has said the Justice Department is bending to political pressure from Republicans and that he is being unfairly targeted.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden said in an interview with ABC that he would accept the jury’s verdict and ruled out a pardon for his son. Hunter Biden is the first child of a United States president to face a criminal trial.

The Delaware jury has heard testimony this week from witnesses including his ex-wife and a former girlfriend about the 54-year-old’s past prolific drug use, which he has publicly acknowledged.

Prosecutors did not wrap up their case on Thursday and said they planned to call two more witnesses on Friday. Hunter Biden’s lawyer said he could finish his case by the end of Monday.

Hunter Biden, son of US President Joe Biden, and his wife Melissa Cohen Biden, leave the federal court during his trial on criminal gun charges in Wilmington [Hannah Beier/Reuters]

Hunter Biden gun charges

Hallie Biden, who had a brief romantic relationship with Hunter after Beau Biden died in 2015, testified that from the time Hunter returned to Delaware from a 2018 trip to California until she threw his gun away, she did not see him using drugs. That time period included the day he bought the weapon.

Much of her testimony focused on October 23, 2018 – 11 days after he bought the gun and when she disposed of it. Hunter was staying with her and seemed exhausted. Asked by the prosecutor if it appeared that Hunter was using drugs around then, she said, “He could have been.”

As Hunter slept in her home, Hallie Biden went to check his car. She said she was hoping to help him get or stay sober, free of alcohol and cocaine. She said she found the remnants of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia. She also found the gun Hunter had purchased in a box with a broken lock that kept it from fully closing. There was ammunition, too.

Hunter Biden watched expressionless as Hallie spoke. She told jurors that she found crack at her home and saw him using it. She said she was with him occasionally when he met dealers.

Jurors have also heard from the gun store clerk, who testified about how he explained a few options to Hunter Biden before he settled on the gun.

The clerk then watched as the customer filled out the firearms transaction record, a required document for the purchase of a gun, and saw him check off “no” to the question of whether he was “an unlawful user of or addicted to” marijuana, stimulants, narcotics or any other controlled substance.

The proceedings are unfolding after the collapse of a plea deal that would have resolved the gun charge and a separate tax case, and spared the Biden family the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election.

The president’s sister, Valerie, was in court on Thursday. First Lady Jill Biden spent the first part of the week there before leaving for France. Allies worry about the toll the proceedings will take on the president, who is deeply concerned about the health and continued sobriety of his only living son.

If convicted, Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison, although first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum, and it is unclear whether the judge would sentence him to time in jail.

He also faces a separate trial in September on charges of failing to pay $1.4m in taxes.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Why are South Korean babies and children suing their government? | Climate Crisis News

As a 20-week-old embryo, Choi Hee-woo became one of the world’s youngest-ever plaintiffs by joining a landmark climate lawsuit against South Korea.

In late May, South Korea’s Constitutional Court held a final hearing of the first case in East Asia to challenge national climate policies.

Now 18 months old, Hee-woo and more than 60 other children await a verdict that is expected later this year.

So what did their case challenge, and where does South Korea stand with its climate action?

What is the children’s climate case in South Korea?

South Korea’s Constitutional Court heard landmark cases alleging that the government is failing to protect people in the country from the harms of climate change.

Four similar climate cases filed between 2020 and 2023 were combined in February for procedural reasons. The first hearing of the joint case was held in April, while the second and last one was on May 21.

The petition involving Hee-woo was called “Woodpecker vs South Korea”, after his nickname in the womb. It was filed by about 200 people, including 62 children who are all under the age of five.

Another lawsuit in 2020 was filed by 19 youth activists.

Plaintiffs say that without stronger climate action, the government is failing to meet a constitutional obligation to protect people’s right to life and a healthy environment.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, South Korea has also made a legally binding international commitment to prevent average global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) this century.

Although the date of the verdict is unclear, a decision is expected later this year, according to Amnesty International.

What climate agreements has South Korea made?

Under South Korea’s Decree of the Carbon Neutrality Act, by 2030 the country must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent compared with levels in 2018, which amounts to a drop of 290 million tonnes.

This Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, is unique to each country and represents their commitment towards reducing global emissions according to the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Plaintiffs of the climate case argue that the current goal underestimates the amount of emissions South Korea needs to reduce to reign in global temperature increase.

Additionally, to meet their goal by 2030, the country would have to reduce emissions by 5.4 percent every year from 2023, a target they have so far failed to meet.

Prior to the cases being merged, three of them challenged the target level of emission reduction set in the NDC, while the fourth one argued that the implementation plan for it is inadequate.

South Korea also aims to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

How does this impact climate action in South Korea?

The case’s conclusion is coming ahead of a deadline for countries to submit revised goals for reducing emissions.

Reviewed every five years under the Paris Agreement, the next set of targets will be presented by early 2025 and cover the following 10 years.

If the court rules in the favour of the plaintiffs, South Korea may have to be more ambitious in its next round of climate plans, experts told the journal Nature.

Where does South Korea’s climate action stand?

Currently, South Korea’s contribution to reducing emissions, or NDC, is categorised as “insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project that monitors how governments perform on their climate commitments.

In 2022, South Korea got only 5.4 percent of its energy from wind and solar, which is less than half the global average of 12 percent and far behind neighbouring Japan and China, according to energy think tank Ember.

Additionally, South Korea is the G20’s second-highest carbon emitter per person.

What other major climate cases have young people filed?

Several youth-led climate cases have been filed and have succeeded over the years.

In 2020, nine people between the ages of 15 and 32 challenged Germany’s Federal Climate Protection Act in the Federal Constitutional Court, claiming the law’s emission reduction targets were still insufficient and violated their human rights.

The following year, the court ruled in their favour, concluding that the country’s climate change mitigation plans were inadequate, pointing out that it could lead to “intergenerational injustice”.

In essence, the court concluded that Germans today are consuming too much of the carbon budget while contributing little to reduction efforts, leaving too much of a burden on future generations. The German government responded by advancing its timeline to reach carbon neutrality from 2050 to 2045.

In the United States in 2020, a group of 16 people aged five to 22 years old, sued the state of Montana, arguing it was not protecting their right to a clean environment. In 2023, the court ruled in their favour saying that Montana has to take climate change into account when approving fossil fuel projects.

Six youths between the ages of 11 and 24 also filed a lawsuit against 32 European countries in 2023, arguing that climate change threatens their rights to life, privacy and mental health. However, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed their case due to its broad geographic scope.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Trump, first ex-president ever convicted of a crime, slams New York trial | Donald Trump News

Donald Trump has ratcheted up his unfounded claims that his New York hush-money trial was a political hit job, a day after becoming the first former president in United States history to be convicted of criminal charges.

Speaking at Trump Tower in New York City on Friday morning, Trump delivered a meandering speech in which he portrayed the trial as a “scam” and “rigged”, while telling his supporters they could also be targeted.

“This is case where if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” he told reporters. “These are bad people. These are in many cases, I believe, sick people.”

Trump has repeatedly attacked prosecutors and the judge involved in the case, and has said – without evidence – that the administration of US President Joe Biden was connected to the prosecution.

“This is all done by Biden and his people,” Trump said without providing any evidence. He said he plans to appeal the verdict.

Trump’s remarks – which oscillated between condemnation of the trial and his now familiar stump speeches – came less than 24 hours after New York City jurors found the former president guilty on all 34 felony counts he faced in his widely watched trial.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office argued that Trump falsified business documents to cover up reimbursements paid to his personal fixer and former lawyer Michael Cohen, for hush-money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Prosecutors said the payments to Daniels – in exchange for her silence over an alleged affair with Trump – were part of a wider scheme to withhold negative information that would have hurt Trump ahead of the 2016 presidential elections, which he won.

They argued that Trump sought “to defraud the voting public”, in violation of New York state law.

The upcoming US presidential election loomed large over the New York trial, and Trump’s conviction could shake up the campaign.

Trump, who is set to face off against Democratic President Joe Biden on November 5, has repeatedly said – without evidence – that the hush-money case was part of a coordinated effort to derail his re-election bid.

Reporting from outside Trump Tower on Friday, Al Jazeera’s John Hendren noted, however, that “Biden didn’t have anything to do with [the case]”.

“This was a New York jury … [Biden] is not in the chain of command of the district attorney of New York. There’s really no way Biden could have intervened in this particular case,” Hendren said.

“But Trump is going to make this a campaign issue. He says the ultimate verdict is going to come in November … and there’s no reason to believe the Republican Party will back off of him. So far the support among Republicans has been near-universal.”

Trump comments after he was found guilty by a New York jury on May 30 [Justin Lane/Pool via Reuters]

GOP leaders back Trump

Trump’s allies and top members of the Republican Party have united around the former president in the wake of his conviction, with his son, Donald Trump Jr, referring to his father as a “political prisoner” in a fundraising email.

On Friday, Trump’s 2024 campaign announced what it called its largest single-day, small donor funding haul ever, raking in $34.8m since the verdict was announced.

Many Republicans have echoed Trump in arguing – again without evidence – that his conviction was the result of a politicised judiciary.

Mike Johnson, the staunchly conservative Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, slammed the trial as a “purely political exercise, not a legal one”.

Even those who have more recently sought to distance themselves from Trump, including Texas Senator John Cornyn, called the verdict “a disgrace”.

“Now more than ever, we need to rally around @realdonaldtrump, take back the White House and Senate, and get this country back on track,” Cornyn wrote on X.

In a brief statement following the verdict, a spokesperson for the White House counsel said, “We respect the law” but added there would be no additional comment.

‘Pivotal point’

Addressing the verdict for the first time on Friday, Biden joined a chorus of Democrats who have said the jury’s decision was a shining example of equality under US law, regardless of how powerful a defendant is.

Biden said the guilty verdict reaffirmed the “sacred principle that no one is above the law”.

“It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict,” he added.

Despite his conviction, Trump is expected to be confirmed as the GOP’s 2024 presidential nominee at the party convention in July.

Under the US Constitution, anyone convicted of a felony can still run for and win the presidency as long as they are over 35 years of age, are a “natural-born” citizen of the US, and have been a resident of the country for at least 14 years.

The Republican National Convention will be held just days after Trump is set to be sentenced in the New York hush-money case on July 11, though the sentencing hearing could be delayed pending expected appeals from his defence team.

The ex-president also faces three other criminal indictments, two of which relate to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election that he lost to Biden, but none are expected to go to trial before November’s vote.

But it remains unclear what political fallout of the guilty verdict in New York will have for Trump.

Polls have shown most Republican voters will not be swayed by the prospect of electing a convicted felon to the country’s highest office.

However, some recent polls have indicated that a conviction could turn some undecided voters off Trump, or see a small percentage of his supporters decide they can no longer cast a ballot for him.

In an election expected to be decided by razor-thin margins, that could make a difference, experts have said.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday, Rina Shah, a political strategist and commentator, said the prevailing Republican view appears to be that the conviction “bolsters [Trump’s] claim that this was a politically motivated witch hunt that was predetermined by Democrats”.

But while the Republican leadership has largely coalesced around Trump, Shah said there are large swaths of the party with more faith in the justice system.

“I do think that right now, the Republican Party sits in a moment that will determine its fate for the next decade at least,” she said. “In the next few months, this is a pivotal point.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version