31 May

News and Analyses, A Foreign Perspective

News and Analyses, A Foreign Perspective

English Online International Newspapers

Nearly all of these are English-edition daily newspapers. These sites have interesting editorials and essays, and many have links to other good news sources. We try to limit this list to those sites which are regularly updated, reliable, with a high percentage of “up” time.

View All>>

Hostile attitude towards Myanmar will not contribute to peace and harmony

The McGlynn: BULLSHIT!!!

WHILE we are trying to solve the issues of Rakhine State in good faith through bilateral cooperation, it is most regrettable that instead of fulfilling its commitment for repatriation of the displaced persons as agreed upon in the bilateral agreements, the Bangladesh side has been deliberately making excuses to stall the repatriation process. Bangladesh has been distorting the facts and telling the world that Myanmar is not willing to accept the return of the displaced persons. Bangladesh is altering the truth and vilifying the government and the people of Myanmar to solicit international condemnation and to exert maximum political pressure on Myanmar. We need full and sincere cooperation of the Government of Bangladesh if the repatriation process is to be successful.

When it comes to human rights abuses and violations, we should not forget the fact that the current humanitarian problem was the result of Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) terrorist attacks on 30 border guard posts in northern Rakhine. The root cause of the latest crisis and the brutal killings and atrocities committed by the terrorists on innocent ethnic Hindus, Rakhine Buddhists and other minority tribes was conveniently ignored by the western media.

We are seriously concerned that Bangladesh is unwittingly allowing extremism to rear its ugly head in this part of the region. ARSA is already having a foothold in the camps, and soon it will become a stronghold of terrorism and extremism. Recently, on 9 May, a group of four to six terrorists reportedly entered one of the refugee camps in Balukali and dragged 46-year-old Mohamed Faisal Ulhaq out of the camp and stabbed him to death. It was reported that he was advocating for return of IDPs to Rakhine among fellow displaced people in the camp. We will continue to implement the recommendations of the Kofi Annan Report to the fullest extent possible in line with the situation on the ground to bring long-term peace, harmony and development to the people of Rakhine.

The international community, including the United Nations, should work together to create an environment conducive to restoring peace, harmony and development for all people in Rakhine State. Hate narratives that promote deep rooted mistrust should and must stop.

Bangladesh should cooperate fully with Myanmar in sincerity in the implementation of the bilateral agreement for repatriation of displaced persons. We are confident that we will be able to solve the present humanitarian problem and long-term peace and development of Rakhine State if Myanmar and Bangladesh work hand in hand with the spirit of mutual respect, genuine desire to help the displaced persons and the spirit of good neighborliness.

World Politics

United States

  • Player has filed grievance claiming he is being blackballed

  • Attorney Mark Geragos says he has damning testimony

Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid kneel in protest during the national anthem in September 2016

Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid kneel in protest during the national anthem in September 2016. Photograph: Thearon W Henderson/Getty Images

A lawyer for Colin Kaepernick says an NFL owner testified under oath that he changed his mind about signing the quarterback after Donald Trump said players protesting during the national anthem should be fired.

Kaepernick hired attorney Mark Geragos as he filed a grievance case claiming owners have colluded to keep him out of the league after he knelt during the national anthem to highlight racial injustice in the United States. Under the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement teams and the NFL are forbidden from coming together to deprive a player of employment.

Kaepernick, who led the 49ers to the Super Bowl in 2013, left San Francisco at the end of the 2016 season and has not been picked up by a team since. The fact that teams with a need for a quarterback have passed up the chance to sign Kaepernick left many to believe owners are either punishing him for his stance or believe his presence would alienate fans.

A number of NFL owners have been called to testify in the collusion case. On the Straight Aim podcast this week, Geragos said one owner had admitted under oath that he changed his mind because of Trump’s stance on the anthem protests.

“Maybe you can prove that [New England Patriots owner] Bob Kraft, for example, was scared of what the president might do, but for collusion you would need to show that that fear actually influenced the owners by clear and convincing evidence. So, that’s kind of a high burden,” says Straight Aim host Amy Dash.

“Well, unless you’ve got an owner under penalty of perjury testifying that he changed his mind after he was told what Trump said,” replies Geragos.

When Dash asks Geragos if he has such evidence, he replies: “Yeah. Well, bingo.” Geragos does not imply that Kraft is the owner in question.

Geragos’s statement appears to be backed up by a report in the Wall Street Journal. The newspaper says it received copies of some of the testimony from owners. “I was totally supportive of [the protests] until Trump made his statement,” said Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross in his deposition. In Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s statement he describes how Trump told him: “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”

Last week NFL owners issued new guidelines that will see teams fined if their players or staff do not show appropriate “respect” for the national anthem. According to the new rules, “a club will be fined by the league if its personnel are on the field and do not stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem”.

Read Full Article>>

A future conservative nominee could affect issues ranging from women’s reproductive health to LGBT rights

Any vacancy on the court prior to 2020 would almost certainly be filled by Donald Trump.

Any vacancy on the court prior to 2020 would almost certainly be filled by Donald Trump. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP

When, just weeks after taking office, Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the supreme court, the newly minted US president made good on a central promise of his campaign: to replace the late justice Antonin Scalia with a bona fide conservative.

That moment foreshadowed what is shaping up to be among the most indelible of Trump’s triumphs – the reshaping of the federal judiciary with the appointment of dozens of judges with an ideological bent toward the administration’s agenda.

Republicans are working with Trump to make a record-breaking number of appointments to federal courts. These new, mostly young, white men will be in a position to rule on legislation that could change America for years.

But the most contentious appointment would be a second nomination to the highest court in the land. The supreme court has over decades delivered landmark decisions on issues from abortion to affirmative action and same-sex marriage. The potential for Trump to install another justice on the nine-seat bench, some legal experts argue, could have profound consequences on issues ranging from women’s reproductive health to LGBT rights.

With speculation mounting over the possible retirement of supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy, Trump could have a lasting impact on reshaping America’s most important court.

“If President Trump fills another vacancy on the court it will have an enormous effect,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley School of Law at the University of California.

“It will create the most conservative court since the mid-1930s,” he added. “It would mean a majority to overrule Roe v Wade and to allow states to prohibit abortions, to eliminate all forms of affirmative action, to eliminate constitutional limits on illegal police conduct.”

The president himself underscored the power of future vacancies earlier this year, when he tweeted that R

While it is not unusual for presidents to appoint supreme court justices with similar ideological leanings, Trump’s comments all but reinforced that he is unlikely to nominate a consensus pick if provided the opportunity. In November, the president updated his shortlist of candidates for a hypothetical vacancy, adding to a roster of proven judicial conservatives.

While the likelihood of a pending vacancy is far from confirmed, judicial watchers have set their sights on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a progressive icon who turned 85 this year, and Kennedy, a critical swing vote who has been the subject of retirement rumors for the second straight year.

Any vacancy prior to 2020 would almost certainly be filled by Trump, and a rules change adopted by Republicans during the Gorsuch nomination fight enabled the Senate to confirm supreme court justices with a simple majority vote.

Under the current balance of the court, Kennedy and the chief justice, John Roberts, though conservative appointees, have at times sided with the bench’s liberal justices.

Kennedy was the architect of several major decisions on LGBT rights, most notably the supreme court’s milestone ruling in 2015 establishing same-sex marriage as the law of the land. He is being closely watched as the likely deciding vote on the court’s highly anticipated decision regarding a case of a baker in the state of Colorado who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Camilla Taylor, the director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal, a national civil rights group focused on LGBT issues, said Kennedy’s previous decisions in the LGBT community’s favor “helped bring our relationships and our families out of the shadows and recognized the full humanity and citizenship of our community on the court”.

Taylor voiced concern that a second Trump supreme court nominee would present “an immediate and unambiguous threat to the LGBT community.”

“Another conservative Trump justice would jeopardize our right to marry who we love, and also our fundamental equality under the law including protections from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, employment and education.”

Read Full Article>>

Comments are closed.

© 2023 | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Global Positioning System Gazettewordpress logo