Social Media

Ursula Haverbeck, infamously known as the "Nazi grandma," has been sentenced once again for denying the Holocaust. At the age of 95, she faces another 16-month prison term, handed down by a Hamburg court on Wednesday. Haverbeck, a repeat offender in this regard, has been jailed multiple times for her persistent denial of the Nazi genocide. The court's decision took into account her previous convictions and her continued dissemination of Holocaust denial during the trial itself. Haverbeck repeated her denial of the Holocaust several times throughout the proceedings, prompting the judges to factor in her ongoing defiance and use of the trial as a platform for her views. Supporters of Haverbeck were present in court, and their repeated heckling disrupted the proceedings. Haverbeck was once the head of a far-right training center, which was shut down in 2008 for spreading Nazi propaganda. Over the years, she has been sentenced to jail on several occasions for her denial of the Nazi genocide. One of her most notorious declarations was made on television, where she claimed, "the Holocaust is the biggest and most sustained lie in history." This latest sentence comes after Haverbeck lost an appeal over a conviction related to comments she allegedly made in 2015 during the trial of Oskar Groening, a former Auschwitz guard. During that trial, she claimed that Auschwitz was merely a labor camp and that no mass murder occurred there. Her remarks, according to prosecutors, were a clear denial of the atrocities committed at Auschwitz, where approximately 1.1 million people, primarily European Jews, were murdered. The proceedings against Haverbeck were delayed several times due to the coronavirus pandemic and her health issues. This sentence also considers a previous conviction by a Berlin court in 2022 for statements she made in another interview and at an event. It remains uncertain whether Haverbeck will actually serve her sentence in prison. German law strictly prohibits the denial of the genocide committed by Adolf Hitler's regime. Holocaust denial and other forms of incitement to hatred can lead to up to five years in prison, and the use of Nazi symbols, such as swastikas, is also banned. Haverbeck's case highlights Germany's ongoing struggle with Holocaust denial and the legal measures in place to combat it. Despite her advanced age, the courts have continued to hold her accountable for her persistent spread of falsehoods and hatred. Credit: TOI 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Under a Labour government, every borough in the UK would be required to take their "fair share" of asylum seekers, according to Angela Rayner, the party’s deputy leader and shadow levelling up secretary. Rayner announced that successful asylum seekers would be eligible for the 1.5 million new social housing units and homes that Labour plans to build across the country. Labour has pledged to clear the 35,000 migrants currently being housed in hotels within a year. The Conservative Party has argued that Labour’s plan could result in each local authority accommodating 1,300 new asylum seekers if the current levels of illegal migration continue over the next parliament. However, Labour disputes these claims, stating that they intend to expedite asylum cases to clear the backlog and establish a new enforcement and returns unit to deport those who have no right to remain in the UK. A new analysis by The Telegraph reveals a significant disparity in the distribution of asylum seekers between Labour and Conservative areas. Labour-controlled councils currently house almost nine times as many asylum seekers in local council accommodation compared to Conservative councils, with figures standing at 44,748 to 5,098 respectively. Similarly, there are four times as many asylum seekers in hotels in Labour areas as in Tory areas, and six times as many as in Liberal Democrat areas. Currently, 90,000 asylum seekers are in a state of limbo, unable to claim asylum under the Government’s legislation and instead earmarked for deportation to Rwanda. Labour has pledged to scrap the Rwanda scheme from day one, allowing these individuals to apply for the right to remain in the UK. Speaking on BBC Radio Merseyside, Rayner emphasized the need for fair distribution and processing of asylum seekers. "Every borough has an obligation to take on their fair share of asylum seekers, but not everyone in hotels will be given a right to remain in the UK. Some of them shouldn’t be in the UK, but they’re in the UK and they’re costing taxpayers lots of money because we are not treating people fairly and dealing with the backlog," she said. Rayner further noted that the Labour plan aims to address housing demand by building 1.5 million homes across the UK. She criticized the Conservative government for failing to deliver on housing supply, stating, "When people have been processed, they either have a right to be here and therefore we need to have the housing supply, which is what the Tories have failed to deliver on." The government has previously pushed for a more comprehensive asylum dispersal system and in 2023 offered councils grants of up to £3,500 for each extra space created. Despite this, The Telegraph's data indicates that asylum seeker distribution remains concentrated in about a quarter of council areas. The Conservatives argue that Labour’s plan could result in an influx of 1,300 new illegal migrants in each area, assuming 425,000 illegal migrants arrive over the next parliament. They also suggest that the number could increase by 125,000 if Labour enters a "fair share" agreement with the EU to take thousands of new migrants as part of a returns deal—a claim Labour denies, accusing the Tories of spreading falsehoods. Immigration Minister Tom Pursglove criticized Labour's stance, stating, "This latest admission confirms that Labour stands for nothing but unlimited and uncontrolled illegal migration. With Labour giving preferential treatment to illegal migrants and asylum seekers for hundreds of thousands of homes across the country, it is clear that they’d rather roll out the red carpet than stop the boats." Labour's proposal represents a significant shift in how the UK might handle asylum seekers, aiming for a more equitable distribution across all boroughs and addressing the backlog in processing asylum cases. However, the plan has sparked considerable debate, with both supporters and critics voicing strong opinions on the potential impact of such policies. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Jeremy Renner, the acclaimed actor known for his roles in the Marvel franchise, has opened up about the harrowing snow plow accident that nearly cost him his life. In an exclusive interview with Men’s Health, Renner recounted the traumatic events of January 1, 2023, when he was pulled under a snow plow while clearing snow from his driveway near his home in Washoe County, Nevada. Renner vividly remembers the sound of his head cracking as the accident unfolded. "I remember my head cracking... it’s exactly like you think it would feel," he said. The crushing force of the plow against his skull was a moment of sheer terror. "An immovable object and a crushing force, and something’s gotta give. But thank God my skull didn’t fully give." As the plow continued its relentless movement, Renner's body was subjected to extreme trauma. He described how his cheekbone and eye socket broke under the immense pressure. "Cheekbone broke, eye socket broke, and then from the crushing of getting run over by the machine, my eye bulged out. I could see my left eyeball with my right eyeball. I was screaming for a breath." The vividness of his recollection paints a gruesome picture of the incident, one that would leave a lasting impact on anyone. In the immediate aftermath, Renner's neighbors quickly came to his aid. They called 911 while his nephew held his arm in place, trying to stabilize him. Despite the severity of his injuries, Renner remained acutely aware of his surroundings and even managed to maintain a dark sense of humor. "I was going through the checklist of my body, figuring it the fuck out. I’m thinking, ‘Ooo, shit, that’s gonna hurt later. Ooo, that’s my eyeball—that’s kinda weird!’ I’m like, ‘Shit, I wonder if this breathing trouble is just a cramp. Let me just get this breathing right, and then I can go tell the family we’re not going skiing today.’" Renner's account of the accident not only highlights the physical agony he endured but also showcases his resilience and determination. More than a year after the incident, he has made a remarkable recovery and has returned to work. His ability to recount the traumatic experience with such clarity and even humor speaks volumes about his strength of character. Reflecting on the incident, Renner’s story is a testament to the fragility of life and the human spirit's capacity to endure and overcome unimaginable pain. The detailed narrative of his ordeal serves as a powerful reminder of the dangers that can lurk in seemingly mundane activities and the importance of resilience in the face of adversity. Credit: Daily Beast 2024-06-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified more than 400 immigrants as "subjects of concern" due to their association with an ISIS-affiliated human smuggling network. According to three U.S. officials, these individuals were brought to the United States from Central Asia and other regions by this network. While over 150 of them have been arrested, the whereabouts of over 50 remain unknown. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is actively seeking to arrest these individuals on immigration charges as they are located. A senior Biden administration official emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, "In this case, it was the information that suggested a potential tie to ISIS because of some of the individuals involved in [smuggling migrants to the border] that led us to want to take extra care, and out of an abundance of caution make sure that we exercised our authority in the most expansive and appropriate way to mitigate risk because of this potential connection being made." Despite these concerns, the official noted that since ICE began arresting migrants linked to the ISIS-affiliated smuggling network, no information has emerged suggesting that these individuals pose a direct threat to the U.S. homeland. Nonetheless, the DHS has been scrutinizing migrants from countries such as Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Russia, where ISIS-K is known to be active. The majority of these 400-plus migrants crossed the southern border and were initially released into the U.S. by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) because they were not on the government's terrorism watchlist at the time of entry. However, recent terrorist attacks in Russia have heightened concerns about ISIS and its offshoot, ISIS-K. "The fact that the whereabouts were unknown is clearly alarming," said Christopher O’Leary, former FBI counterterrorism section chief and current employee at The Soufan Group, a security consulting firm. He explained that ICE is likely aiming to detain these individuals on immigration charges to mitigate any potential national security threats, even if there is no concrete evidence of them plotting an attack. "I believe the [U.S.] is scrambling to locate these individuals, and using the immigration charges is not uncommon," O’Leary said. "They are in violation of that law. And if you need to take somebody off the street, that’s a good approach to do it." Two officials reassured that federal law enforcement agencies are not in a state of panic but are prioritizing these individuals for arrest out of an abundance of caution. Some of the 150 arrested migrants have already been deported, while others are known to be in various states and may soon face arrest. Some may have voluntarily left the U.S. since their arrival. To date, none of those detained or deported have been charged with terrorism-related offenses but have been charged with immigration violations. Earlier this month, ICE arrested eight Tajik men in New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles due to suspected ISIS affiliations. NBC News reported a similar case involving an Uzbek man in Baltimore, who was flagged by his home country for ISIS ties and was arrested in April after living in the U.S. for over two years without any initial indicators of a terrorism link. Historically, the threat of terrorism from migrants crossing U.S. borders has been low. Since October, the number of migrants identified on the terrorism watchlist has constituted about .014% of all CBP encounters, or slightly less than one in every 7,000 migrants vetted. However, some current and former U.S. officials have raised concerns about the vetting process, especially with the increasing number of immigrants from countries like Venezuela, China, and various Eastern Hemisphere nations that do not routinely share law enforcement and criminal data with the U.S. A notable case involved an Afghan named Mohammad Kharwin, whose name was on the U.S. terrorist watchlist but was released by CBP due to insufficient information at the time of his entry. He lived in the U.S. for nearly a year before being arrested in San Antonio in February. He was released on bond after a court hearing but was re-arrested hours after NBC News published a story about his case. The DHS Office of Inspector General recently highlighted issues with vetting at the U.S. southern border, stating, "The Department of Homeland Security’s technology, procedures, and coordination were not fully effective to screen and vet non-citizens applying for admission into the United States." In response, the Republican-led House Homeland Security Committee has requested the unredacted version of the Inspector General's report to evaluate DHS's handling of this critical national security matter. Credit: NBC News 2024-06-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former U.S. President Donald Trump recently urged his nearly 88 million followers on the Truth Social network to watch Sheryl Sandberg's documentary film, "Screams Before Silence," which documents the sexual crimes committed by Hamas during the October 7 massacre. Trump expressed his support for the film, which includes interviews with survivors from the Nova music festival and Gaza border communities. "The documentary 'Screams Before Silence' is incredibly difficult to watch because, sadly, it graphically portrays the death and destruction that Hamas has unleashed. I urge people to support the documentary and watch, if able. We demand that all hostages taken on October 7th from Israel, and being held in Gaza, be released immediately, including eight Americans, and citizens from over 20 other countries, so that the war can come to an end. PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!" Trump wrote on Truth Social. Sheryl Sandberg, the former COO of Meta, filmed the documentary in Israel a few months ago, focusing on the sexual crimes committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7. The film features testimonies from paramedics, rescue personnel, and survivors, including Amit Soussana, who recounted her harrowing experience of being held captive and sexually assaulted in Gaza. Sandberg stated that "Screams Before Silence" is the most important project she has undertaken, describing it as a culmination of her life's work. Despite the graphic content and the serious subject matter, Sandberg and Trump both emphasized the importance of bringing these stories to light. Trump's endorsement of the film comes amid his presidential campaign, during which he has shifted his stance on the Gaza conflict. Initially calling for a quick end to the war, he later expressed full support for Israel's right to continue its military actions in Gaza in a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors in New York, as reported by the Washington Post. This endorsement also occurs in the context of Trump's own controversial history regarding allegations of sexual misconduct. Over the years, multiple women have accused him of sexual assault. Notably, six months ago, a federal appeals court judge in New York ruled that Trump must pay $83.3 million in damages to journalist E. Jean Carroll, who sued him for defamation after he denied sexually assaulting her. During the trial, other women, including Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, testified about their own experiences of unwanted advances by Trump. The infamous 2005 Access Hollywood tape, where Trump made crude comments about women, was also referenced in the trial. Despite these allegations, Trump remains a significant political figure, leveraging his platform to draw attention to the documentary and its depiction of the atrocities committed by Hamas, while continuing to influence public discourse on both domestic and international issues. Full Movie (Graphic Details) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAr9oGSXgak Credit: YNet 2024-06-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

For some, he is a hero of free speech and a crusader for truth, while for others, he is a reckless figure whose actions have endangered lives and compromised national security. Assange first gained prominence in 2006 when he founded WikiLeaks in Australia, aiming to create a platform where whistleblowers could anonymously share classified information with the public. His mission was to promote transparency and accountability, and over the years, WikiLeaks has published more than 10 million classified files. Among these were the explosive releases of US Army intelligence documents in 2010, which revealed previously unreported civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, and instances of torture by Iraqi forces. Supporters of Assange, such as Matt Kennard, co-founder of Declassified UK, hail him as a champion of free speech. They argue that his work has exposed significant truths about government actions and military conduct, thereby serving the public interest. Notable revelations included a video showing a US military helicopter shooting civilians, including two Reuters journalists, which brought global attention to the realities of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jemima Goldsmith, a screenwriter and producer, emphasized the importance of WikiLeaks’ disclosures, arguing that the information revealed by Assange’s platform countered government lies and lack of accountability. Reporters Without Borders has also praised Assange for his role in uncovering war crimes and human rights abuses, viewing his potential release as a victory for press freedom. However, Assange’s critics are equally vocal. John Demers, a former top US Justice Department national security official, has denounced Assange as irresponsible, accusing him of endangering the lives of confidential sources by publishing sensitive material without redaction. This sentiment was echoed by Mike Pence, former US Vice President, who asserted that Assange’s actions during wartime compromised the safety of US troops and national security. Assange’s legal troubles began in 2010 when he was accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Fearing extradition to the US on espionage charges, he sought asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he remained for seven years. During this period, high-profile supporters, including filmmaker Ken Loach and journalist John Pilger, defended him, arguing that the charges were politically motivated attempts to silence a champion of free speech. The US government’s case against Assange centers on the allegation that he recklessly published documents that exposed the identities of individuals working with the US military, thereby endangering their lives. Critics argue that Assange’s indiscriminate approach to releasing information showed a disregard for the consequences. For instance, the publication of diplomatic cables revealed the names of human rights activists and dissidents, potentially putting them at risk. Former WikiLeaks employee James Ball, who worked closely with Assange, described the internal conflicts over the publication of sensitive information. While journalists wanted to redact potentially harmful details, Assange was determined to release all documents in full, regardless of the risks. This uncompromising stance further alienated some of his initial supporters. The controversy intensified during the 2016 US presidential election when WikiLeaks released emails from the campaign of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, which had been hacked by Russian operatives. This led then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to label WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” supported by state actors like Russia. As Assange now prepares to plead guilty to an Espionage Act charge of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified national defense information, opinions remain sharply divided. James Clapper, former US Director of National Intelligence, has suggested that Assange has “paid his dues,” while others, like Pence, vehemently oppose any plea deals, arguing that those who endanger national security should face the full extent of the law. Ultimately, Assange’s legacy is likely to remain contentious. To his defenders, he is a vital figure who has challenged powerful institutions and fought for transparency. To his detractors, he is a reckless individual whose actions have posed serious risks. As he approaches freedom, the debate over whether he is a free-speech crusader or a threat to the West will undoubtedly continue. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Supreme Court is poised to issue a pivotal decision in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, a ruling that will have far-reaching consequences for the interplay between government influence and social media in the modern digital landscape. This case scrutinizes the extent to which the government can manipulate and manage social media platforms to propagate its own messages, a practice that threatens to fundamentally alter the dynamics of public discourse. The origins of this case lie in a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. They accuse the Biden administration of exerting undue pressure on social media companies to suppress content on a range of controversial topics, including COVID-19 practices and vaccinations, the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, abortion, and the situation in Afghanistan. The plaintiffs argue that such government actions constitute coercion, infringing on the free speech rights of American citizens. Federal District Judge Terry Doughty ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing an injunction to restrain the Biden administration from influencing social media platforms. Doughty described the government’s actions as possibly “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” accusing the administration of using its power to silence opposition voices. The Biden administration, unsurprisingly, appealed this decision, bringing the matter before the Supreme Court. At the heart of the Supreme Court’s deliberations is the question of whether the Biden administration’s interactions with social media companies amount to coercion or are merely an extension of the long-standing practice of government engaging with media to shape public opinion. There is no dispute that social media platforms responded to government pressure, but the critical issue is whether this pressure crossed constitutional lines. During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed her concerns, questioning whether the plaintiffs’ perspective might excessively constrain the government’s ability to communicate with citizens during critical periods. She argued that the government has a duty to protect its citizens, which might necessitate certain actions during crises. However, the challenge lies in distinguishing between legitimate crises and pretexts for suppressing dissenting voices. Historically, traditional media outlets maintained a degree of independence from government influence, fiercely guarding their editorial autonomy. In contrast, today’s social media platforms seem more vulnerable to government pressure, whether through collaboration or intimidation. This dynamic risks distorting the public discourse, where robust debate should thrive. The First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from monopolizing national dialogue at the expense of individual expression. It was intended to empower citizens to speak freely and challenge governmental authority without fear of retribution. Presidential administrations have numerous avenues to disseminate their messages, from press conferences to direct addresses to the nation. They should not need to leverage social media platforms to amplify their narratives while suppressing dissent. A nuanced ruling from the Supreme Court is essential. It must allow for legitimate government communication while safeguarding the rights of individuals to express their opinions on social media, even if those opinions are critical of government policies. A narrow or overly technical ruling could perpetuate uncertainty, leaving the door open for future abuses of the First Amendment. The court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri will set a precedent for how government and social media platforms interact in the future. It must balance the government's interest in managing public information with the fundamental rights of citizens to freely express their views. Failure to achieve this balance could result in ongoing rhetorical chaos and further erosion of free speech protections. The ruling will either uphold the principles of a free and open public discourse or pave the way for increased government control over digital dialogue, shaping the future of free expression in the United States. Credit: Hill 2024-06-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The White House has issued a strong critique of the House Republican funding bill unveiled on Tuesday, arguing that the proposed cuts undermine serious efforts to combat crime. The bill, which aims to allocate $78.288 billion in discretionary spending for the departments of Commerce and Justice, as well as various science agencies for fiscal year 2025, proposes a reduction of approximately two percent, or $1.275 billion, from the fiscal 2024 levels. Senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates did not mince words in his rebuke of any cuts to Department of Justice funding. He called upon Congressional Republicans to collaborate with President Biden to effectively address crime, emphasizing the necessity of adequate funding for federal law enforcement agencies. Bates stated, “Republican officials attempted to defund law enforcement to the benefit of violent criminals and fentanyl traffickers, targeting federal agencies that are critical to stopping gun crime, terrorism, and child trafficking.” Bates also highlighted the Biden administration's accomplishments in public safety, asserting, “Even though he inherited a skyrocketing murder rate from his predecessor, Joe Biden’s unprecedented funding for public safety – together with signing the first significant gun crime bill in three decades – has delivered the lowest violent crime rate in 50 years.” This statement underscores the administration's stance that their approach to funding and public safety measures is effectively reducing crime rates. The criticism from the White House comes as Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, have sought to blame President Biden for crime rates, positioning themselves as the party of law and order ahead of the November elections. However, recent crime statistics released earlier this month indicate a considerable drop in violent crime in the early months of 2024 compared to the same period last year, providing a counter-narrative that supports the Biden administration’s claims of success in public safety. Conservative Republicans in the House have focused on the appropriations bill, known as the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill, as a tool to challenge the Justice Department, particularly in light of Trump’s conviction in his hush money trial in New York. Despite this focus, the bill does not specifically mention special counsel Jack Smith, who is currently leading investigations into Trump, nor does it seek to curtail the powers of a special counsel more broadly. This ongoing dispute highlights the deep divisions between the White House and Congressional Republicans regarding the appropriate approach to funding law enforcement and tackling crime. While the Biden administration emphasizes its achievements and warns against the dangers of cutting DOJ funding, Republicans seem resolute in pursuing their fiscal agenda, reflecting broader partisan tensions over crime and justice in the United States. Credit: Hill 2024-06-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Georgia Supreme Court has removed Douglas County Probate Judge Christina Peterson from her position following allegations of shoving a police officer during a profanity-laden altercation outside an Atlanta nightclub. The incident, captured on bodycam footage, has led to her arrest and has raised significant concerns about her conduct both in and out of the courtroom. Judge Peterson, 38, was removed from office and banned from holding any judicial position in the state for seven years after the state's highest court issued its opinion on Tuesday. Despite the public attention on her recent arrest, it was not the incident that led directly to her removal. Instead, the Judicial Qualifications Commission found that she exhibited a "pattern of judicial misconduct" while in office. Elected and sworn into office in December 2020, Peterson faced 50 counts of alleged misconduct less than a year into her four-year term. While 20 of these counts were dismissed, a hearing panel found clear and convincing evidence to convict her of 28 out of the remaining 30 counts. The panel's March report concluded that she should be removed from the bench, a decision the Georgia Supreme Court upheld. The court found Peterson showed a "flagrant disregard for the law, court rules, and judicial conduct rules," with a consistent pattern of violations. One particularly troubling incident involved Peterson holding a woman in criminal contempt for appealing to correct an error on her marriage certificate. The judge sentenced the woman to the maximum jail time of 20 days and imposed a fine without providing an explanation or justification. Additionally, Peterson was accused of allowing unauthorized individuals to enter the county courthouse after hours without proper screening and using deputies for personal overtime work at taxpayer expense. Source Peterson's inappropriate behavior extended beyond the courthouse. She was accused of engaging in hostile exchanges with neighbors during homeowners association meetings while simultaneously suing the association. This conduct, the court said, did not reflect the decorum and temperament required of a judge. The Georgia Supreme Court did not consider Peterson’s recent arrest in its determination, as it was not part of the investigation. However, the incident further damaged her reputation. During the incident, Peterson allegedly pushed an off-duty Atlanta police officer twice in the chest outside the Red Martini Restaurant and Lounge. She was charged with simple battery against a police officer and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. According to police reports, Peterson interfered as the officer was trying to de-escalate a situation involving a security guard escorting a woman out of the club. Bodycam footage shows Peterson shouting, "Let her f–cking go, let her f–cking go," at the guard and officer before being handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser, where she continued to shout expletives and refused to give her name. Peterson's attorney, Marvin Arrington Jr., defended her actions, stating she was trying to help a woman who had been reportedly attacked by a man outside the club and did not mean to push the officer. Two witnesses, including the alleged victim, supported Peterson's account at a press conference, with the alleged victim stating, "He viciously attacked me, punched me in my face, and Judge Peterson was the only one to help me." Arrington expressed confidence in Peterson's eventual exoneration, saying, "As the investigation continues to unfold and more facts come to light, we believe that Judge Christina Peterson will be completely exonerated of these charges." Credit: New York Post 2024-06-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Alina Habba, Donald Trump’s lawyer, has issued a stern warning of potential public unrest if the former president is jailed following his conviction in the hush money criminal trial. Trump, who became the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to cover up a payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Trump, denying any sexual encounter with Daniels, has blasted the trial as "rigged" and vowed to appeal the verdict. Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention, where he is expected to be nominated for president. Each of the felony counts of falsifying business records carries a potential prison sentence of up to four years, though prosecutors have not specified if they will seek incarceration. The decision on whether Trump will face jail time lies with Judge Juan M. Merchan, and the outcome remains uncertain. In an appearance on Fox News' Hannity, Habba expressed her concerns, stating, "I wouldn't put it past [the judge] to hand down a prison sentence while Trump is campaigning to win back the White House." She emphasized the potential consequences of such a decision, saying, "It will literally cause an uproar in this country. They cannot do it." Source Habba referenced comments made by Sunny Hostin on The View, where Hostin claimed to have heard from someone in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office that a one-year prison sentence would be sought. Habba questioned the appropriateness of such communication, saying, "First and foremost, why are you speaking to anybody from the DA's office? Secondly, the fact is, I wouldn't put anything past them, Sean." The White House has been accused by Trump’s supporters of seeking to imprison him to bolster President Joe Biden's re-election campaign. Habba suggested that the Democrats' actions were "ridiculously desperate," adding, "They can't win. Biden's their candidate." Judge Merchan recently modified the gag order in the case, allowing Trump to comment about witnesses and jurors in the trial but maintaining the ban on comments about court staffers, the prosecution team, and their families until sentencing. Trump is still permitted to comment on the judge and Bragg. In addition to the hush money case, Trump faces charges in three other criminal cases. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on whether Trump has immunity from criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. He is also charged with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and obstructing efforts to retrieve them. Additionally, Trump faces charges in Georgia for allegedly participating in a scheme to overturn his loss to Biden in the 2020 election. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in all cases. Credit: NewsWeek 2024-06-27 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A post contravening our communty standards has been removed @Neeranam From the World News header: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

Topic reminder, please stay somewhere near the OP, this is not the place for history lessons or Bush in Iraq. Further off topic posts removed @Neeranam next removal will be more than posts. 'Swear on Allah': French 12 year old antisemitic rape victim told to convert to Islam

Reported off topic response and reply removed.

Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, is seeking a new trial in his federal gun case following his conviction two weeks ago. The conviction was based on charges that he lied about his drug use when purchasing a firearm in 2018. His legal team has now filed a motion citing a procedural technicality rather than challenging the merits of the case itself. Hunter Biden, 54, became the first child of a sitting US president to be criminally convicted when a jury found him guilty on June 11. During the seven-day trial, prosecutors presented witness testimonies, including from Biden’s family members, alongside his text messages and memoir, to argue that he was using crack cocaine at the time he bought the gun. Biden's defense argued that he was in recovery during the purchase and did not consider himself an addict. Despite their efforts, the jury was convinced of his guilt. His lawyers immediately vowed to challenge the conviction, leading to the current motion for a new trial. Biden's legal team's latest move focuses on a procedural technicality. According to his primary attorney, Abbe Lowell, the trial began without a "mandate" from the appeals court. A mandate is a formal document that an appellate court uses to notify a lower court of its decision and authorization to proceed with the trial. In their filing on Monday, Lowell argued that the lack of this mandate invalidates the trial's basis. This motion comes after a previous attempt for a new trial was uploaded and then quickly deleted on June 17 at the request of Biden’s lawyers. In May, a federal appeals court had rejected two challenges to the case filed by Biden's legal team. The recent motion by Lowell contends that the absence of the mandate from the appeals court should result in the conviction being vacated. Experts suggest that while the chances of success on this procedural technicality might be slim, it represents a significant aspect of legal defense strategies. The procedural argument does not address the factual findings of the case but rather focuses on whether the trial was conducted according to proper judicial procedures. Biden was found guilty on all three criminal counts related to his purchase of a revolver at a Delaware gun store in October 2018. He kept the gun for approximately 11 days. While experts suggest that it is possible Biden could face prison time, it is unlikely he would receive the maximum sentence of 25 years. In addition to the gun case, Hunter Biden faces another legal battle in California, where he will stand trial in September for allegedly evading $1.4 million in taxes between 2016 and 2019. During this period, it is alleged that he spent millions on drugs, escorts, and luxury cars. The legal proceedings against Hunter Biden have broader implications, given his high-profile status as the president’s son. The case has garnered significant media attention and public interest, partly due to the intersection of legal, political, and personal dimensions involved. The attempts to secure a new trial based on procedural grounds also highlight the complexities and nuances of the legal system. Procedural defenses can play a critical role in ensuring that trials adhere to established judicial processes and standards. Credit: BBC 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant case challenging a Tennessee law that bans hormone therapy and puberty blockers for children under 18. This case marks the first occasion for the current nine justices to address the issue of transgender medical treatments. Three transgender teenagers from Tennessee, their parents, and a doctor who provides transgender medications are the plaintiffs in this case. They argue that the 2023 Tennessee law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, asserting that it discriminates on the basis of sex. The plaintiffs are supported by the Biden administration and several major medical groups, who argue that the law prevents transgender individuals from accessing necessary drugs and therapies that are available to other adolescents with medical needs. Additionally, they contend that the ban infringes on parental rights to obtain necessary care for their children. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, emphasized the harm caused by the Tennessee law and similar statutes. In a brief filed last year, Prelogar stated that these laws "inflict profound harm on transgender adolescents and their families" by denying "appropriate and necessary" treatment for a serious medical condition. She called on the Supreme Court to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the legality of transgender medical bans. On the other side, lawyers for the state of Tennessee argue that the law reflects the will of the state's elected lawmakers and addresses a pressing public concern. According to their brief, Tennessee acted to ensure that minors do not receive these treatments until they can fully understand the lifelong consequences or until the science develops to the point where the state might reconsider their efficacy. This case, United States v. Skrmetti, comes in the wake of a previous Supreme Court decision that upheld an Idaho ban on transgender medical treatments for children, although the court did not express an opinion on the constitutionality of the statute. Additionally, in 2020, a six-justice majority of the court ruled that federal law prohibits discrimination against transgender employees. However, the composition of the court has changed since then, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg being replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a more conservative appointee of former President Donald Trump. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the autumn and issue a decision sometime next year. This case could have far-reaching implications for the legal landscape surrounding transgender rights and medical treatments in the United States, particularly given that 25 states have enacted similar laws, some of which are currently under legal challenge. Credit: BBC 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a stark warning to the French electorate, President Emmanuel Macron cautioned that a victory for either the far-left or far-right in the upcoming snap election could lead to "civil war." Macron's remarks come amid a tense political climate as France prepares to vote in a parliamentary election triggered by his coalition's recent defeat by the far-right National Rally in the European election. Speaking on the podcast "Generation Do It Yourself," Macron articulated his concerns about the divisive policies pursued by both the far-left France Unbowed and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally. He argued that these policies exacerbate tensions between communities and undermine social cohesion. According to Macron, the far right's approach to addressing insecurity reduces individuals to their religion or origin, fostering an environment ripe for civil conflict. Similarly, he accused the far-left, under the leadership of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, of promoting division through electioneering tactics aimed at appealing to specific religious or ethnic groups. Macron's comments reflect broader anxieties within his administration regarding the potential consequences of a polarized political landscape. With recent polls indicating that the National Rally could secure 35 percent of the vote in the first round of the election, ahead of a left-wing alliance, which includes France Unbowed, at 27 percent, and Macron’s centrists at 19 percent, the stakes are high. The president's allies have been vocal in their warnings about the economic and social risks posed by a shift towards the extremes. They argue that such a shift could lead to economic instability and increased societal conflict. Macron, however, took these warnings a step further by explicitly stating that the rise of political extremes could culminate in civil war. He emphasized the dangers of turning to extremist solutions out of frustration with daily hardships, urging voters to reject divisive rhetoric and policies. This election represents a critical juncture for France, as the potential influx of far-right members into the National Assembly could significantly alter the country's political dynamics. Macron's dire predictions aim to galvanize centrist support and dissuade voters from opting for radical alternatives. The outcome of this election will not only determine the composition of the French government but also potentially set the course for the nation's future social and political stability. Credit: Politico 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A recent study published in JAMA Pediatrics links a significant rise in infant deaths in Texas to the state's stringent abortion ban enacted in 2021. The study, conducted by analysts from Johns Hopkins University and Michigan State University, investigated infant mortality rates following the implementation of the Texas heartbeat law, which effectively banned abortions around 5 to 6 weeks into pregnancy. This law, passed in September 2021, was one of the most restrictive in the nation at the time, prohibiting abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, typically around six weeks of gestation. The researchers found a troubling increase in infant deaths in Texas between 2021 and 2022. The number of infant deaths rose from 1,985 to 2,240, representing a 12.8 percent increase, compared to a 1.8 percent increase across the rest of the United States during the same period. This spike in Texas's infant mortality rate significantly outpaced the national average, which only saw a modest increase. Prior to this law, Texas permitted abortions up to 22 weeks of pregnancy. The new restrictions, however, made no exceptions for cases of rape or incest, nor for congenital anomalies or birth defects. The study also highlighted a notable rise in congenital anomalies in Texas, which increased by 22.9 percent, contrasting sharply with a 3.1 percent decrease in such cases across the rest of the country. The researchers noted that the Texas heartbeat law's implementation appeared to correlate with increased infant deaths, particularly due to congenital anomalies among infants who were in early gestation when the law took effect. This correlation suggests that the restrictive abortion policies may have unintended and severe consequences on infant health. The study's findings were released on the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which had previously granted a constitutional right to abortion since 1973. This landmark ruling empowered states to impose their own abortion regulations, leading to a wave of restrictive abortion laws in several Republican-led states, including Texas. Dr. Alison Gemmill, one of the study's lead authors, emphasized the relevance of these findings in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. She stated, "These findings suggest that restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of infant health and the associated trauma to families and medical costs." This study underscores the broader implications of such policies, indicating that they may not only impact women's reproductive rights but also have far-reaching effects on infant mortality and family well-being. Researchers employed statistical modeling and analyzed publicly available death-certificate data from January 2018 to December 2022 to arrive at these conclusions. Another research paper published last year corroborated these findings, linking nearly 10,000 additional live births in Texas to the state's abortion ban. The study’s release and its alarming findings provide a crucial perspective on the real-world impacts of restrictive abortion legislation, highlighting the need for further examination and discussion on the implications for public health and policy. Credit: Hill 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In an unexpected twist, the Communist Party of Britain found itself in the spotlight following an endorsement from J.K. Rowling, who has gained notoriety for her controversial views on transgender issues. Rowling, widely known for her Harry Potter series, has recently become equally recognized for her outspoken stance against trans women. The drama began when Rowling urged her social media followers to support Communist candidates, following a tweet from the anti-trans feminist group For Women Scotland. The group had claimed that a spokesperson for the Communist Party had voiced support for recognizing the nature of biological sex. This endorsement was a surprising turn for many, given Rowling's contentious history with transgender rights. In response to the endorsement, the Communist Party of Britain released a statement on its official X account, seeking to clarify its position. The party reaffirmed its unwavering support for transgender people's rights, stating that it supports the right of trans individuals to medically transition and access healthcare. Furthermore, the party emphasized the right of transgender people to live equal, full, and meaningful lives socially, economically, and politically. The statement underscored the belief that true liberation for transgender people could only be achieved under socialism. Rowling's endorsement, which is likely to be rescinded given the party's clear stance on transgender rights, followed her op-ed published in The Times of London. In the piece, Rowling expressed her disillusionment with the Labour Party due to its support for trans rights. A longtime Labour supporter, she lamented that she would "struggle to vote" for Labour in the upcoming elections, accusing the party of abandoning women. This episode highlights the deepening divisions in the U.K. over transgender rights and the recognition of biological sex. Political and social groups continue to navigate this contentious issue, often finding themselves at odds. The Communist Party of Britain's reaffirmation of its support for transgender rights is a significant stance, especially in the context of the controversy surrounding Rowling's endorsement. The controversy underscores the complexity of the ongoing debate on transgender rights in the U.K. Rowling's unexpected endorsement of the Communist Party brought attention to the nuanced positions within the political landscape. The party's clear reaffirmation of its support for transgender rights, despite the potentially detrimental endorsement, marks a significant moment in this ongoing discourse. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the debate over transgender rights and recognition of biological sex remains a contentious and polarizing issue. The Communist Party of Britain's stance reflects a broader commitment to equality and social justice, even as it navigates the complexities of modern political endorsements. This incident serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for transgender rights and the importance of clear and unwavering support from political entities. Credit: Daily Beast 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a landmark legal move, over 100 victims and their families of the brutal October 7 Hamas attack on Israel have filed a lawsuit against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), demanding $1 billion in damages. The 167-page lawsuit, submitted in the Southern District of New York, accuses UNRWA of aiding and abetting the terror group by allowing its facilities to be used for weapons storage, permitting tunnels and command centers to be constructed under its sites, and indirectly funding Hamas through its payroll practices. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are current and former UNRWA leaders, including Philippe Lazzarini, the agency's head, as well as Pierre Krähenbühl, Filippo Grandi, Leni Stenseth, Sandra Mitchell, Margot Ellis, and Gréta Gunnarsdóttir. Krähenbühl is now the director-general of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Grandi serves as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The plaintiffs allege that UNRWA's policy of paying employees in US dollars, which must be converted to Israeli shekels in Gaza, resulted in Hamas-controlled money changers taking a significant cut of these transactions. This practice, the lawsuit claims, funneled substantial funds into Hamas's coffers, enabling the purchase of weapons and other materials used in terror activities. "Hamas did not carry out these atrocities without assistance," the lawsuit asserts. "Defendants were warned repeatedly that their policies were directly providing assistance to Hamas," yet they continued these practices despite the warnings. The October 7 attack, in which 3,000 Hamas terrorists launched a cross-border assault resulting in the deaths of over 1,200 civilians in southern Israel and the abduction of 251 individuals, is described in the lawsuit as a foreseeable consequence of UNRWA's actions. One of the prominent plaintiffs, Ditza Heiman, who was abducted by Hamas on October 7 and later released in a prisoner exchange, reported that her captor was a teacher in an UNRWA school and that she was fed UNRWA-issued food rations during her captivity. "The fact that Hamas ruled Gaza was not an excuse for UNRWA to hire and finance terrorists, but it should have ensured that UNRWA took additional precautions," Heiman told Ynet. Other plaintiffs include Gadi and Reuma Kedem, who lost their daughter Tamar, son-in-law Yonatan, and three grandchildren—Shahar, Arbel, and Omer—in the attack on their home in Kibbutz Nir Oz. Yonatan's mother, Carol, was also killed. "There is no pain in the world that compares to burying your children and grandchildren who were murdered and strangled in their own home," Gadi Kedem said. He emphasized the need to hold UNRWA accountable for its role in empowering Hamas. "UNRWA strengthened Hamas and transferred funds and financed the murders, while being a full partner in the growth of Hamas terrorists." The lawsuit also points to the use of Hamas-approved textbooks in UNRWA schools, which allegedly indoctrinate children with ideologies of hatred and genocide, thus serving as a recruitment tool for the terror group. The plaintiffs stress that their legal action is not intended to serve as a platform for political grievances but is a pursuit of monetary compensation for their injuries based on traditional tort principles. UNRWA has not responded to requests for comment from various media outlets, including the UK’s Jewish Chronicle and Fox News, which first reported on the lawsuit. The agency's Director Lazzarini, meanwhile, has recently called for resistance against Israeli efforts to have UNRWA disbanded, arguing that such actions undermine the multilateral system supported by the majority of UN member states. The controversy surrounding UNRWA's operations is not new. Israel has long criticized the agency for allegedly turning a blind eye to Hamas activities and has accused it of employing individuals affiliated with Hamas and other terror groups. In February, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant claimed that a significant number of UNRWA employees in Gaza were linked to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, with some taking active roles in the October 7 massacre. As the lawsuit progresses, it could have profound implications for UNRWA and its future operations, potentially reshaping the international community's approach to aid and governance in conflict zones. The legal battle underscores the complex interplay between humanitarian assistance and security, highlighting the dire need for stringent oversight and accountability in regions plagued by terrorism. Credit: TOI 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a surprising revelation, a top-secret US Navy submarine prototype, known as the "Manta Ray," has been spotted by keen-eyed users on Google Maps, revealing the sophisticated aquatic drone to the public. The vessel, which has drawn comparisons to Star Wars spacecraft due to its futuristic design, was seen docked at Port Hueneme naval base in California, sparking widespread interest and intrigue. Satellite images of the Manta Ray, which is part of a cutting-edge naval project developed by Northrop Grumman, went viral over the weekend. The vessel's sleek and smooth profile stood out against other docked ships, making it easily identifiable even from satellite view on both Google Maps and Google Earth. The Manta Ray is named after the sea creature for its streamlined design and capability to anchor itself on the ocean floor while operating in low-power mode. This autonomous underwater drone is designed to operate for extended periods without needing refueling, thanks to its efficient buoyancy-driven gliding system, which allows it to traverse the ocean depths with minimal energy consumption. Dr. Kyle Woerner, Manta Ray program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), highlighted the significance of the vessel in a press release. "Our successful, full-scale Manta Ray testing validates the vehicle’s readiness to advance toward real-world operations," Woerner stated. "The craft is designed with several payload bays of multiple sizes and types to enable a wide variety of naval mission sets." One of the standout features of the Manta Ray is its modular design. This allows the drone to be disassembled and transported using ordinary shipping containers, bypassing the need for dedicated port facilities and enhancing its deployment flexibility. The Navy has spent over three months testing the Manta Ray off the coast of Southern California, demonstrating its capabilities and potential applications. The development of the Manta Ray is seen as a strategic move by the US Navy to counteract the growing underwater capabilities of adversaries like Russia and China. Both countries have been advancing their own underwater drone technologies. Russia, in particular, has claimed that its underwater drones can cover ranges of up to 6,200 miles, can be armed with nuclear warheads, and can achieve speeds of up to 100 knots (approximately 115 mph). The sighting of the Manta Ray on Google Maps underscores the increasing visibility and public awareness of top-secret military technology in the digital age. Despite its classified nature, the vessel's appearance on a publicly accessible platform highlights the challenges of maintaining secrecy in an era where satellite imagery and digital mapping tools are widely available. While the US Navy has not officially commented on the Google Maps sighting, the Manta Ray’s public exposure raises questions about operational security and the measures taken to safeguard advanced military technologies. Nonetheless, the Manta Ray represents a significant leap forward in underwater drone technology, offering new capabilities and strategic advantages for the US Navy in its ongoing efforts to maintain maritime superiority. As the Manta Ray progresses towards real-world operations, its potential applications and impact on naval warfare will likely continue to be a topic of significant interest and discussion within defense circles and the public domain. Credit: New York Post 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Birmingham election candidate Akhmed Yakoob has issued an apology and vowed to "fight misogyny" after facing backlash over comments he made on a podcast earlier this year. Yakoob, who is running as an independent candidate in Birmingham Ladywood, had previously come third in the West Midlands mayoral election in May. The controversy stems from remarks Yakoob made during an episode of the Minted Minds podcast, where he stated that "70% of hell is going to be women" and made inappropriate comments regarding domestic violence. During a discussion, a fellow guest suggested giving his wife a "backhander" if she made money dancing on TikTok. Yakoob, a criminal defense lawyer, responded, "Brother, are you saying if she comes up in your personal space, you will defend yourself?" These comments were met with condemnation from the Muslim Women’s Network UK (MWN), which described them as "deeply disturbing" and questioned Yakoob's judgment and values. In response to the outcry, Yakoob expressed remorse, stating, "I am mortified to listen back to this recording. While banter in an informal setting can often be crude, I should have refused to take part, since the tone of that discussion represents everything I stand against." Yakoob further emphasized his commitment to addressing misogyny, saying, "Voters in Ladywood will not fall for attempts to distract them from the tens of thousands of civilian women who have been killed in Gaza. But I have learned lessons from this and wish to wholeheartedly apologise. My promise to the women of Ladywood is that, in fighting misogyny, they will always have an ally in me." Yakoob's campaign focuses significantly on support for Palestine, with campaign posters urging voters to "lend Gaza your vote." The Minted Minds podcast episode, initially advertised as an "emergency meeting" to discuss Palestine, veered into topics concerning women and masculinity. Yakoob's comments included stating that "70% of hell will be women" in response to another guest's remarks about "empowered" women being followers of Dajjaal, a false Messiah or liar in Islam. During a discussion on how men should behave around women, Yakoob commented, "How much can you lower your gaze? […] It’s natural for men to be attracted to females, so keep our queens at home." The MWN found Yakoob's comments, along with his support for Andrew Tate—who is awaiting trial in Romania on charges of human trafficking and rape—alarming. "We strongly encourage all women to closely examine candidates’ positions on crucial issues such as violence against women and girls and equality," the MWN stated. Credit: The Guardian 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The BBC has been criticized for allegedly failing to disclose the affiliations of certain Palestinian journalists killed by Israel, who were reported to have ties to Hamas. Media campaigners have highlighted that some of the individuals described as journalists in the BBC's reports since the beginning of Israel's response to the October 7 attacks were militants who supported or worked for Hamas. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (Camera), an organization advocating for accurate reporting on Israel, claims that 55 out of 69 individuals listed as journalists by BBC Arabic had either expressed support for the killing of Israelis or worked for media outlets that did. This includes Mohammad Jarghoun and Assaad Shamlakh, who were eulogized on social media as part of the "resistance" and "jihad fighters," and Mustafa el-Sawaf, who was a member of Hamas’s political leadership for nearly 20 years. Additionally, Israel's Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre reported that more than half of the journalists the Hamas media office claimed were killed in Gaza were affiliated with terrorist organizations, including 44 from Hamas and 19 from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). These revelations come in the wake of a recent incident where three Israeli hostages were found in the home of Abdallah al-Jamal, a Palestinian journalist, and his father, a doctor, during a raid by Israeli troops. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) labeled al-Jamal a "Hamas terrorist," alleging he detained the hostages in his family home. Al-Jamal, who contributed to The Palestine Chronicle and Al Jazeera, was killed along with his father and wife during the rescue operation. Camera has criticized the BBC for allegedly elevating these individuals due to their "journalistic work" without acknowledging their affiliations with militant groups. They argue that this omission compromises the integrity of journalism and misleads audiences about the true nature of these individuals' roles. The BBC has responded to these allegations, stating that their reports covered the deaths of journalists regardless of their media outlets' political affiliations, emphasizing that such reporting is legitimate despite any connections between the journalists and proscribed groups. The BBC maintains that their intention was to record the loss of life among journalists, not to endorse or comment on their political views. The Telegraph disclosed last month that the corporation’s head office had been forced to correct BBC Arabic’s coverage of the Gaza conflict every other day on average during the first five months of the war. This issue has sparked ongoing debate about the role and impartiality of journalists in conflict zones, particularly those working for media organizations with known political biases. The BBC's Arabic service has faced repeated scrutiny for its coverage of the Gaza conflict, with accusations of bias and numerous corrections being issued during the war. Despite the criticisms, the BBC asserts that it remains committed to impartial reporting, even as it acknowledges the complex affiliations of journalists in the region. Related Topics: Al Jazeera’s Terrorist Ties and the Controversy Over Its Operations Al Jazeera journalist reportedly moonlights as Hamas commander claims IDF Israeli Forces Rescue Hostages, Held By Al Jazeera & Palestine Chronicle Journalist Exposing What Others Prefer to Hide The Dismal State of Hamas Propoganda by Media Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Reducing knife crime will become a "moral mission" for Labour if they win the upcoming general election, Sir Keir Starmer will declare on Tuesday. He plans to work closely with victims' families and survivors, aiming to cut knife-related incidents by half within a decade. However, the Tories criticize Starmer’s tenure leading the Crown Prosecution Service, arguing that Labour's proposals would regress the country to previous issues. As Labour’s leader, Sir Keir Starmer will unveil a comprehensive strategy to tackle knife crime, promising the establishment of a new cross-government "coalition" that will involve families of victims, survivors, tech companies, and other relevant organizations. Furthermore, he will commit to chairing an annual knife crime summit to monitor progress toward the goal. He will emphasize that knife crime transcends party politics, urging for collaborative efforts across all political factions. Starmer will highlight the devastating impact of knife crime, pointing to the countless grieving families who have lost loved ones to brutal acts of violence often perpetrated by children. He will underscore the shared responsibility of political leaders to work together to eliminate knife crime and ensure the safety of young people. Labour's data indicates that knife-related offences have surged by 81% since 2015 across England and Wales. In response, the party's post-election commitments include tougher penalties for carrying knives, including custodial sentences for the most serious offences, and expanding the list of prohibited knives. Additionally, Labour will launch a new "Young Futures" programme aimed at supporting young people in local communities. Sir Keir Starmer’s vision encompasses a broad coalition and multi-faceted approach to address the knife crime epidemic, with a steadfast commitment to making significant strides within the next decade. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

"Before letting her leave, they made her swear on Allah not to say anything," her mother said. The 12-year-old girl who was gang-raped in an antisemitic incident in France was asked to convert to Islam by her attackers, her parents told the French media outlet Le Parisien. "Before letting her leave, they made her swear on Allah not to say anything, and that she should not tell anyone, neither her parents nor the police," her mother said in the interview. The girl had reported to the police last week that she had been gang raped by three teenagers aged between 12-14 in what has been characterized as an antisemitic crime, according to Le Parisien. The girl's father described the impact the attack has had on his daughter. The "shock caused her to have flashbacks at night. She has difficulty falling asleep and wakes up at night. It's a pretty painful daily life," he said to Le Parisien. "Her attackers stole her childhood." The father has no doubt that this is an antisemitic attack and linked it to the "importation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into France." The victim's mother said that one of her daughter's attackers told her, "I know you're not Muslim... So, what religion are you?" The mother added that when the attacker learned that her daughter was Jewish, he deduced that she must be pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Prior harassment of the victim - This is not the first antisemitic attack that her daughter experienced in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war, added the mother. "After October 7, our daughter suffered harassment at her school and was ostracized because of her religion. It started during the month of November with Nazi salutes, swastikas on tables at school, and jokes about the Holocaust. She lost several Muslim friends this way without it leading to physical violence," she told LeParisien. The crime occurred in the Parisian suburb of Courbevoie. Related Topic: Teens Accused of Raping 12 Year Old Jewish Girl Arrested in France Credit: J.P. 2024-06-26 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

An inflamatory troll post has been removed: @Neeranam Topic update: