Social Media

An off topic news troll post has been removed: 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW. If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

Topic re-opened after clean up. One poster has been removed due to personal inflammatory attacks on other members and false claims. Please discuss the topic nicely and within forum community guidlines.

The concept of "wokeism" continues to ignite debates across the globe, with political movements increasingly capitalizing on the backlash it generates. In France, the National Rally has framed "the danger of wokeism" as a core issue, using it to appeal to voters disenchanted with progressive ideologies. This strategic pivot mirrors trends in the United States, where some argue that resistance to woke ideology contributed to Donald Trump’s rise to power. According to The Economist, America has become less “woke” since its peak in 2020, coinciding with Joe Biden’s election. Opinions and practices associated with the term appear to be in decline. While Merriam-Webster defines "woke" as being "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)," the term has no universally accepted definition. Democrats often view it as a call for empathy and recognition of systemic injustices, while Republicans tend to see it as an agenda promoting far-left priorities and gender ideology. For many, however, “woke” has become shorthand for political correctness gone too far. Merriam-Webster notes that the term can imply political liberalism or progressivism perceived as extreme or unreasonable. This perception reached a flashpoint in 2021 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposed rule changes to “honor all gender identities,” replacing traditional terms like mother, father, son, and daughter with gender-neutral alternatives such as parent, child, and sibling. Pelosi’s support for Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate further fueled criticism. Harris, portrayed as a champion of woke-feminist progressivism, alienated segments of the Democratic voter base. "We have to stay woke. Like everybody needs to be woke," Harris said in 2017, a sentiment her critics seized upon to frame her as emblematic of radical-left ideologies. In contrast, Trump positioned himself as the antithesis of woke culture, appealing to voters disillusioned with what they saw as excessive liberalism. Some analysts believe his success stemmed less from personal endorsement and more from a rejection of the cultural values associated with Harris and her ilk. Critics argue that woke ideology often focuses on historical injustices, fostering shame rather than pride in one’s country. Trump’s rhetoric about the American Dream provided an alternative narrative centered on patriotism and upward mobility. The anti-woke sentiment is not confined to the U.S. In France, President Emmanuel Macron has expressed concerns about the racialization of French society due to imported woke culture. While he champions universalism over identity politics, his 2022 appointment of Pap Ndiaye as education minister—decried by some as a “true woke”—sparked a cultural clash. The National Rally, under Jordan Bardella, has made anti-wokeism a cornerstone of its platform, marking a departure from Marine Le Pen’s strategy of sidestepping societal issues. Bardella aims to broaden the party’s appeal, particularly to centrist voters, by framing woke ideology as a threat to traditional values. In Eastern Europe, where societies are generally more conservative than in Western Europe, anti-woke rhetoric resonates strongly. Even center-left parties in the region often reject progressive gender and climate policies, reflecting broader skepticism toward liberal ideals. As this anti-woke wave gains momentum, it underscores the global polarization over cultural and societal values. Whether this pendulum will continue to swing or eventually find balance remains a question for the years ahead. Based on a report by euractiv 2024-01-18

BRUSSELS ― The European Parliament, often marked by nearly empty chambers during debates, is launching an experiment aimed at addressing the issue of absentee lawmakers. The initiative, set to begin next week, could reshape the culture of parliamentary attendance. An internal email obtained by POLITICO revealed that two debates scheduled for next week’s plenary session in Strasbourg will be conducted without publishing their timetables. This means Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will need to remain present throughout the entire debate if they wish to participate. Damian Boeselager, an MEP from the center-left Volt group, remarked, “Step by step, we need cultural changes to increase attendance and make debates more fun.” This pilot initiative was agreed upon by Parliament President Roberta Metsola and political group leaders during a closed-door meeting on Wednesday. The plan aligns with efforts led by a coalition of 60 younger MEPs seeking to modernize the institution. Metsola’s office emphasized the importance of this trial, stating, “For the president, it is about making sure that MEPs are present in the hemicycle during the debates. If it goes well, we will roll-out this approach increasingly.” The first debate under this new system will take place on Tuesday, addressing enforcement of the Digital Services Act and its implications for foreign interference, particularly recent alleged meddling by Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter), in European politics and elections. On Wednesday, the trial will continue with a discussion on December’s European Council summit, which gathers the EU’s 27 leaders. Despite the significance of these topics, even high-profile debates have historically suffered from low attendance, with many MEPs appearing only briefly to deliver their speeches and leaving immediately afterward. The trial seeks to reverse this trend by implementing stricter participation requirements. Under the new rules, the president or vice president overseeing the session will have the discretion to decide speaking order following the initial round of statements by group leaders. The email outlined that “members who request and are allocated speaking time will need to attend the whole debate in which they want to speak and check on the screens if they are the next to be called.” The initiative stems from a December proposal by the younger MEP group, which included ten suggestions to enhance debate attendance, engagement, and relevance. Their recommendations also called for mandatory attendance quotas, spontaneous reactions to speeches, and the removal of seating restrictions that currently reserve front rows for group leaders. The group is determined to create momentum for these changes. Boeselager, who coordinates the coalition, shared their plans to “hijack” next week’s debate. By attending as a unified bloc and utilizing the Blue Cards system, they intend to engage speakers in impromptu Q&A sessions, injecting energy and interaction into the discussions. “Let’s establish a culture of testing improvements over the upcoming sessions,” their December letter urged. If successful, this trial could mark the beginning of a new era for the European Parliament, where debates are not only better attended but more dynamic and meaningful. Based on a report by Politico 2024-01-18

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) has reintroduced a bill aimed at rolling back pandemic-era remote work policies for federal employees. The proposal, known as the SHOW UP Act, seeks to require federal workers to return to in-person office settings and reinstate stricter telework guidelines from 2019. “The pandemic is long over, and it’s past time for the federal workforce to show up to the office to better fulfill agencies’ missions and serve the American people,” Comer stated in his announcement of the bill. As chair of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Comer has been vocal in his criticism of the Biden administration’s approach to telework, accusing it of hindering government efficiency and performance. Originally introduced nearly two years ago, the SHOW UP Act successfully passed in the House but failed to gain Senate approval. Comer’s renewed push comes amid broader discussions about the future of work within the federal government and rising tensions over potential policy changes under the next administration. The proposed legislation would require federal agencies to reduce telework policies to pre-pandemic levels within 30 days. Additionally, agencies would need to provide Congress with retrospective studies within six months to evaluate the impact of hybrid work models on their operations. Comer’s insistence on these measures reflects growing skepticism among some lawmakers about the long-term viability of widespread remote work in federal agencies. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has taken steps to secure hybrid work protections for federal employees. These efforts, which extend telework accommodations through 2029 for many roles, particularly in agencies like the Social Security Administration, aim to provide stability for employees who have adjusted to the flexibility of remote work. The administration has emphasized maintaining current telework levels, framing the policy as a pragmatic adaptation to modern workforce needs. However, federal workers are bracing for potential disruptions tied to former President Donald Trump’s expected return to the White House. If Trump reassumes office, policy shifts could significantly impact federal employment practices. Notably, tech entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have been tapped to lead Trump’s proposed “Department of Government Efficiency,” have outlined plans for extensive federal workforce layoffs. As debates over remote work and government efficiency intensify, the fate of the SHOW UP Act remains uncertain. Should it gain traction, it could signal a dramatic shift in federal workplace norms, forcing thousands of employees to return to traditional office environments. For now, federal workers and agencies are navigating a rapidly evolving landscape with potentially far-reaching implications for their daily operations and long-term futures. Based on a report by The Hill 2024-01-18

Despite the recent backlash over the treatment of columnist Allison Pearson, it seems some lessons are yet to be learned by the police regarding their approach to speech on social media. Like children needing repeated admonitions, the police appear to require further instruction on where to draw the line. The recent incident involving an anonymous social media user, known as “Cillian,” is a testament to this. Just as the controversy surrounding Pearson’s tweet was beginning to fade, law enforcement officers are once again embroiled in an investigation of a social media post that, while controversial, hardly merits police intervention. Pearson’s ordeal began with a tweet about the differential policing of pro-Gaza protests, which led to an unwarranted investigation by Essex Police. The public outcry that ensued embarrassed the chief constable and should have served as a clear warning to other forces. Yet, here we are again, witnessing another overreach, this time by South Wales Police. Cillian's offense was expressing outrage on X about a video featuring two young schoolgirls welcoming asylum seekers to Wales. In his viral post, he connected the video to the grooming gang scandal and criticized the Welsh Refugee Council for using young girls in promotional material aimed at attracting migrants. His post was provocative, certainly, but is it criminal? The police seem to think it’s worth investigating, much to the dismay of those who believe their resources would be better spent addressing more pressing issues. The timing of the complaint, coming in late on a Saturday night, further highlights the questionable judgment at play. One would think the police would be preoccupied with serious crimes like assaults or robberies at that hour. Instead, they are diverting their attention to what many see as a waste of time, particularly when crime rates in South Wales are on the rise. The video in question was originally intended for Ukrainian refugees as part of a school project. However, it broadly welcomed anyone fleeing conflict, listing various forms of support available in Wales. This raises concerns about what children are being taught regarding immigration and whether they are encouraged to critically evaluate the impact of such policies. While the project may have had good intentions, its dissemination by the Welsh Refugee Council transformed it into a controversial public statement, leading to backlash and the eventual removal of the video from the council's platforms. Cillian's commentary, albeit harsh, has sparked debate—a debate that perhaps should not be stifled by police intervention. Instead of involving law enforcement, it would be more constructive to engage in open discussions about the issues he raised. The police now face a choice: continue to entertain such complaints and risk being mired in similar controversies, or dismiss them as unwarranted and focus on their primary duty—upholding public safety. The hope is that they choose the latter, learning from past mistakes and respecting the boundaries of free speech. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-18

In the years following the George Floyd protests, the United States appeared ready to confront its deep-seated issues of discrimination and inequality. Yet, the recent rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in corporate America and educational institutions signals a troubling retreat from those commitments. While DEI programs have faced criticism for their shortcomings, their rapid dismantling suggests a country regressing rather than progressing. Major companies like Facebook, McDonald’s, and Walmart have recently announced reductions or complete discontinuations of their DEI efforts. These initiatives, ranging from specific hiring targets for women and people of color to broader goals of fostering inclusive workplaces, are now being scaled back. This shift reflects a disturbing trend: corporations are signaling less concern about creating environments that support women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people of color, and those with disabilities. The retrenchment isn't limited to the corporate world. Educational institutions are also rolling back diversity measures. Some colleges have halted efforts to increase enrollment of Native, Black, and Latino students or cut scholarships designated for minority groups. Others have shuttered campus centers that offered support and resources for Black, LGBTQ+, and female students, among others. The legal climate has undoubtedly played a role in this shift. The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling restricting affirmative action in college admissions has emboldened conservative legal groups to challenge corporate DEI programs, arguing that they resemble the policies struck down by the court. In response, many companies are preemptively abandoning these initiatives, fearing legal repercussions. However, the decline of DEI is not solely a legal issue. The social and political environment in the U.S. has shifted significantly. For some corporations, the expansion of DEI programs may have been more about aligning with the prevailing societal mood than a genuine commitment to combating racism and sexism. As the fervor surrounding the George Floyd protests subsides, so too does the urgency of these initiatives. The rise of anti-DEI sentiment is rooted in two flawed premises. The first, often espoused by conservatives, is the belief that acknowledging gender, race, and other identities is inherently divisive. This argument suggests that ignoring identity would lead to fewer tensions, an approach that overlooks the systemic issues these initiatives aim to address. The second premise comes from a segment of liberals and Democrats who, while supportive of certain diversity measures like campus centers for Black students, resist initiatives that seem to challenge the concept of meritocracy. This group sometimes aligns with conservatives in opposing the consideration of race or gender in admissions and hiring, fearing it undermines a merit-based system. Both premises weaken the case for necessary and overdue societal changes. Ignoring identity does not erase the inequalities tied to it, and clinging to a flawed notion of meritocracy often perpetuates existing disparities. The decline of DEI initiatives is more than just a policy change; it is a reflection of a shifting national consciousness, one that risks undoing progress made in recent years. As memories of George Floyd's killing and the subsequent protests fade, there is a danger that the hard-fought gains in diversity and inclusion will be lost, leaving the U.S. further entrenched in its historical patterns of inequality. Based on a report by WP 2024-01-18

A teenager involved in what police have described as a Satanist terror network targeting children online for sexual blackmail and violence has been jailed for six years at the Old Bailey. Cameron Finnigan pleaded guilty to encouraging suicide, possessing a terrorism manual, and indecent images of a child. The court heard the 19-year-old from Horsham was part of an extreme right-wing Satanist group called 764, which anti-terror police warn poses "an immense threat". At least four British teenagers have been arrested in connection with the activities of the group, which has blackmailed children - mainly girls - into carrying out sexual acts, harming themselves or or even attempting suicide. At a previous hearing Finnigan admitted five charges and he has now been given a six-year sentence with an extended three-year licence period. Mr Justice Jay said he posed "a high risk of serious harm to the public". Finnigan was arrested in March 2024 after police received information that he had a gun. No firearm was found at his home but after analysing his digital devices, officers found online chats where he encouraged one young female, believed to be in Italy, to livestream her own suicide. Officers have been unable to identify this woman and do not know what happened to her. In online chats Finnigan boasted to other members of 764 about his attempts to get children to hurt themselves. Det Ch Supt Claire Finlay, head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East, says the members competed to see who was the most extreme: "If you can get someone to self-harm, you're doing quite well in that group. If you can get them to kill themselves, you're reaching the pinnacle." An 11-page PDF document was also found on Finnigan's computer, giving detailed instructions on how to carry out a "mass casualty" terrorist attack using a lorry, firearm or knives. And on the Telegram messaging platform, he and other members plotted what they called "terror week". He told the group he planned to murder a homeless man living in a tent near his home, and even posted pictures of the location. "I won't stop until he's dead," he wrote online. "This case has been very shocking," said Det Ch Supt Finlay. "Cameron Finnigan was dangerous. There was a threat to public safety there." 'An immense threat' The 764 network was founded in 2020 by a US teenager, Bradley Cadenhead, who was then 15. It is believed to be named after the partial postal code of his hometown in Texas. Police say it is part of a loose, international network of far-right extremist groups that have adopted what officers call "militant accelerationist ideology". Those who have researched the groups say they seek to destroy modern, civilised society by committing depraved acts of violence and sexual exploitation - often involving children. Cadenhead was arrested in 2021 and is now serving an 80-year prison sentence in Texas for the creation of videos in which children were not only being sexually abused, but also choked, beaten, suffocated and seriously injured. The network uses Nazi and Satanist imagery. Finnigan, who went by the online username "Acid", adorned his bedroom in West Sussex with swastikas and pentagrams. Based on a report by BBC 2024-01-18

Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is facing criticism for her approach to addressing the issue of grooming gangs in the UK. Despite the Government allocating £5 million for five initial local inquiries, modeled after the judge-led investigation in Telford, critics argue that the lack of statutory powers to compel witnesses will hinder the efforts to uncover the full truth. The first inquiry will take place in Oldham, marking a reversal of the Home Office’s previous decision not to support such investigations. This change came after significant criticism, including comments from tech billionaire Elon Musk on social media platform X. In a statement to the Commons, Cooper also announced a rapid three-month national audit led by Baroness Louise Casey. This audit aims to establish the current scale of grooming, focusing on the societal and cultural drivers as well as the ethnicity of the gangs. Following this, Baroness Casey will move on to address the social care crisis. These measures have been designed to counter demands for a comprehensive national inquiry from various political figures, including Conservatives, Reform UK, and some Labour MPs. However, Cooper's approach has been met with disapproval from within her party. Senior Labour politicians, such as Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, and Sarah Champion, MP for Rotherham, have voiced concerns over the lack of statutory powers in the local inquiries. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, labeled the local inquiries as "wholly inadequate," given that the problem affects up to 50 towns. “These local inquiries won’t have the legal powers under the Inquiry Act 2005 to compel witnesses to attend, take evidence under oath, and requisition written evidence,” Philp stated. He emphasized that victims, the public, and even Labour leaders like Burnham want a full national public inquiry with the necessary powers to compel evidence. Echoing these sentiments, Sarah Champion highlighted that without statutory powers, local inquiries would only ensure no cover-ups if they had the ability to compel witnesses. Despite the criticism, Cooper defended the local inquiry approach, arguing that they can provide more detailed, locally relevant answers and changes than a nationwide inquiry. She revealed plans to utilize the Government’s new “duty of candour,” a legal obligation on public servants, including police, to tell the truth. This measure aims to hold those involved in cover-ups or resisting scrutiny accountable, ensuring that truth and justice are upheld. Tom Crowther, who led the Telford inquiry, will establish a national framework for these local investigations, starting with Oldham and four other pilot areas. Additionally, Cooper asked police forces to review and potentially reopen cold cases related to historic child sexual exploitation and abuse allegations. The police’s Child Sexual Exploitation Taskforce is also tasked with improving the collection of ethnic data on perpetrators and victims, following evidence that some abuse allegations were suppressed to avoid damaging community relations. Official data recently revealed that individuals of Pakistani descent are up to four times more likely to be reported for child sex grooming offenses than the general population. This has intensified the call for robust action and thorough investigations to address the systemic issue of grooming gangs in the UK. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-18

Donald Trump's guest list for his inauguration as U.S. president on January 20 is shaping up to be an unusual collection of global far-right populists, signaling a clear ideological stance for his upcoming administration. Inaugurations are typically domestic-focused ceremonies, with foreign diplomats attending as a courtesy rather than foreign leaders. However, Trump’s approach deviates from tradition. His invitations extend to many leaders he's engaged with, including Argentinian President Javier Milei and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Notably absent are key figures from the European centrist mainstream, such as EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. In contrast, prominent far-right and nationalist politicians, including British anti-EU figure Nigel Farage, French nationalist Éric Zemmour, and Belgium’s Tom Van Grieken, have been invited. Edward Frantz, chair of the department of history and political science at the University of Indianapolis, notes the abnormality of foreign leaders attending such a ceremony, highlighting that it is "entirely a domestic matter." Yet, the presence of these far-right figures reveals much about the political direction Trump may pursue and who could influence him once in office. The list of invitees reads like a Who’s Who of right-wing populism. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Argentinian President Javier Milei, both likened to Trump in their rhetoric and policies, are set to attend. Meloni’s visit earlier this month to Mar-a-Lago, where Trump praised her as a "fantastic woman," underscores her significance on this list. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, another far-right leader and admirer of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was also invited, though he will not attend. For other leaders, attending Trump’s inauguration is a calculated move, reflecting the need for diplomatic leverage and the importance Trump places on personal relationships and public respect. While some, like Meloni, may prefer to engage with the new administration after the inauguration week, her interest in attending indicates a strategic respect for Trump. EU diplomats acknowledge that the request to attend, though unusual, is taken seriously because it matters to Trump, and many leaders need to maintain good relations with the U.S. China’s Xi Jinping was invited in a move seen as an attempt to open dialogue, although the likelihood of his attendance is slim due to the short notice and the rarity of such appearances by Chinese heads of state. Still, China may send senior officials to represent its interests and initiate discussions with Trump’s incoming foreign policy team. India's Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Japan’s Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya have confirmed their attendance. Latin American leaders such as El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele and Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa are also expected, alongside former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who, due to legal issues, cannot attend. The tech industry will be represented by figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, with French billionaire Xavier Niel also attending. From Europe, the guest list includes far-right politicians like Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) candidate Tino Chrupalla, who will represent the party following Elon Musk’s endorsement. Spain’s Vox leader Santiago Abascal and Portugal’s Chega leader André Ventura will also be present. In contrast, notable figures like EU Commission President von der Leyen and French far-right leader Marine Le Pen were not invited, suggesting a preference for those who have openly supported Trump. This guest list, packed with far-right leaders and allies, not only highlights Trump’s political leanings but also sets a tone for his administration’s international relationships, favoring those aligned with his ideologies. Let me know if you'd like any further adjustments. Based on a report by Politico 2024-01-18

In what is expected to be his final Oval Office interview, President Joe Biden shared candid insights about his biggest regrets, his deepest fears, and his most accurate prediction during a conversation with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. The 82-year-old president, whose term concludes on Monday, leaves office with low approval ratings and after stepping back from a reelection bid that saw Vice President Kamala Harris defeated by former rival, President-elect Donald Trump. Throughout the interview, Biden made several notable missteps. Discussing the presence of North Korean forces in Russia’s war in Ukraine, he initially referred to them as Chinese before correcting himself. Reflecting on his 2021 meeting with Vladimir Putin, he mistakenly said Sweden before clarifying that the meeting took place in Switzerland, a pivotal dialogue eight months before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, while recounting the October 7 Hamas terror attack, Biden inadvertently referred to it as 9/11, a comparison he has drawn before to highlight the gravity of the incident. When asked about this week’s ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, Biden defended his administration’s approach amid criticism from progressive voices that labeled his policies as overly pro-Israel. He revealed details of a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following Hamas’ attack on Israel. "When I went to Israel immediately after their attack on the—by Hamas, eight days later, whatever it was, and I told them we were going to help, I said: ‘But, Bibi, you can’t be carpet-bombing in these communities,’” Biden recounted. The president shared Netanyahu’s retort, which drew historical parallels. "And he said to me: ‘Well, you did it. You carpet-bombed’—not his exact words—‘but you carpet-bombed Berlin. You dropped a nuclear weapon. You killed thousands of innocent people because you had to in order to win a war,’” Biden said. Acknowledging the argument’s legitimacy, Biden noted that Hamas militants were using tunnels beneath civilian buildings, complicating Israel’s efforts to retaliate effectively. "Only way to get to them is to take out the places where they were under," he explained. In response, Biden pointed out the evolution of global conflict protocols, referencing the establishment of the United Nations as a result of lessons learned from World War II. “That’s why we came up with the U.N.,” he said. The interview offered a glimpse into the personal and political reflections of a president nearing the end of a tumultuous term, leaving behind a complex legacy shaped by global conflicts, domestic challenges, and moments of profound introspection. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-01-18

Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s final press conference descended into chaos Thursday as journalists were forcibly removed after accusing him of enabling a "genocide" in Gaza. The heated confrontation came shortly after Blinken announced a tentative Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage exchange agreement set to take effect on Sunday. State Department aides escorted Russia linked Grayzone News journalist Max Blumenthal from the briefing room, while independent journalist Sam Husseini was dragged out by security guards. Both reporters expressed outrage that the Gaza conflict, which began after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and has lasted 15 months, killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, had not been resolved sooner. Video footage posted on X captured the dramatic moments. Husseini shouted, “Criminal! Why aren’t you in The Hague!” as three guards carried him out. He later wrote on his X account, “Tried to ask a series of questions. Was carried out and handcuffed. Completely excessive force.” Husseini’s protests included accusations that Blinken ignored international condemnation of Israel’s actions. “Everybody from Amnesty International to the ICJ [International Court of Justice] is saying that Israel is doing genocide and extermination, and you’re telling me to respect the process?” he exclaimed. Before Husseini’s removal, Blumenthal had interrupted Blinken, asking, “Why did you keep the bombs flowing when we had a deal in May? Why did you allow my friends’ homes in Gaza to be destroyed?” Blinken instructed the journalists to “respect the process” and assured them they would have opportunities to ask questions after his remarks. The ceasefire deal marks a significant step forward, including a 42-day halt to hostilities to allow the evacuation of Israeli and American hostages from Gaza in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners. The agreement's first phase will secure the release of 33 hostages, including seven Americans. Despite the Biden administration's support for Israel, it has firmly denied allegations of genocide. On May 13, 2024, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated at a White House briefing, “We do not believe what is happening in Gaza is a genocide. We have been firmly on record rejecting that proposition.” The volatile press conference underscores the heightened tensions surrounding the ongoing conflict and the challenges the U.S. faces in navigating its diplomatic role. As the ceasefire begins, the world will watch closely to see if it leads to lasting peace or further unrest. Based on a report by NYP 2024-01-18

Judge Julia Sebutinde is on the brink of assuming the presidency of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a significant milestone that reflects her distinguished career and portends a potential shift in the court's orientation. Sebutinde, a Ugandan jurist renowned for her firm stance against South Africa's genocide claims targeting Israel, is poised to step into the role following the departure of the current president, Nawaf Salam. Salam's departure is part of a larger political realignment, as he has been appointed the Prime Minister of Lebanon by the newly elected President Joseph Aoun. Aoun's presidency, endorsed by the United States and Saudi Arabia, marks a significant setback for Iran and Hezbollah, its regional ally. Born Julia Semusso in February 1954 in Uganda's Central Province, Sebutinde's career trajectory has been extraordinary. From a modest background with a civil servant father and a homemaker mother, she rose to prominence with her 1996 appointment to Uganda's Supreme Court. Her tenure there was marked by leading critical anti-corruption investigations, establishing her reputation as a formidable legal mind. Sebutinde's international stature was cemented with her 2005 appointment to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, where she was instrumental in the trial of Liberian President Charles Taylor, a landmark case in international law. Her groundbreaking 2012 appointment to the ICJ as the first African woman to serve on the court was a historic achievement. Recently, her ruling on the Israel-Hamas conflict brought her into the international spotlight again. In a decisive opinion, she rejected South Africa's appeal for temporary measures to halt the war in Gaza, stating that the issue is inherently political and beyond the court's legal jurisdiction. Sebutinde's presidency comes at a pivotal moment. The ICJ is preparing for Israel to present its defense against South Africa's allegations in July, with the court's president playing a critical role in shaping its administrative and judicial outcomes. Her leadership could influence the court's approach, especially in politically sensitive cases. As Sebutinde steps into this influential position, the legal world watches closely, anticipating how her presidency will steer the court during these turbulent times. Based on a report by The JC 2025-01-18

In a sobering revelation by International SOS, no country has seen an improvement in its security risk over the past year. The organization’s latest risk map, assessing security, health, and climate change threats, identifies the most perilous countries to visit in 2025. Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic stand out as some of the most hazardous nations, categorized under "extreme" security risk. The list also includes Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine, reflecting ongoing conflicts and instability. Countries deemed to have a "high" security risk, just below the "extreme" category, include Mali, Ethiopia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Venezuela, Haiti, and Honduras. These ratings are based on a comprehensive analysis of factors like conflict, health risks, and climate change impacts, guiding travelers and businesses in navigating potential dangers globally. The risk map uses a five-level scale to grade countries, ranging from "low" to "very high" for medical risks and from "insignificant" to "extreme" for security concerns. This tool helps organizations and individuals assess and prepare for various threats, including infectious diseases and extreme weather events. While most regions have experienced escalating risks, the UK maintains a "low" rating in security, medical, and climate risks, although its mental health statistics indicate a notable proportion of the population dealing with mental health issues. Conflicts have significantly influenced risk evaluations in 2024, particularly in Sudan, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Myanmar, where escalating violence has necessitated repeated risk reassessments. New Caledonia, too, has seen its security risk elevate from "low" to "medium," attributed to long-term social unrest and economic challenges. In contrast, some countries remain relatively safe from a security perspective. Nations like Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Morocco, and Vietnam are considered among the safest, offering a stark contrast to the high-risk regions. As 2025 approaches, understanding these risks is crucial for those planning international travel or business operations, ensuring informed decisions in an increasingly volatile world. Based on a report by The Independent 2024-01-18

The future of Gaza remains clouded with uncertainty, even after the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement. Both Israel and the United States, along with the Palestinian Authority, have rejected the idea of any governance in Gaza involving Hamas. Despite being significantly weakened by Israeli military operations, Hamas has not been eradicated, leaving its potential influence over Gaza unresolved. Reports from Israeli media reveal that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the notion of replacing Hamas with an interim Arab coalition. Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority, had reportedly supported the idea. However, Netanyahu stated that such a coalition would not materialize “before total victory and the eradication” of Hamas had been achieved. The U.S. administration has consistently called for a Gaza that is “never again governed by Hamas or used as a platform for terrorism,” reiterating this stance since November 2023. Outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the importance of this goal, saying it was crucial for achieving "a lasting peace." "For many months, we’ve been working intensively with our partners to develop a detailed post-conflict plan that would allow Israel to fully withdraw from Gaza, prevent Hamas from filling back in, and provide for Gaza’s governance, security, and reconstruction," Blinken said during remarks at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC. He confirmed that the plan would be handed over to the incoming Trump administration to advance its implementation. After the Doha agreement, President-elect Donald Trump pledged to collaborate closely with Israel and U.S. allies to ensure Gaza “NEVER again becomes a terrorist safe haven.” However, his administration has yet to outline specific intentions for Gaza’s governance or its position on the Biden administration’s plan. Blinken proposed that the Palestinian Authority should work with international partners to establish and manage an interim administration responsible for essential civil sectors in Gaza. "The international community would provide funding, technical support, and oversight," he noted. He further emphasized that this administration would involve “Gaza Palestinians and Palestinian Authority representatives, selected after genuine consultation with Gaza residents.” The power would then transition “to a fully reformed Palestinian Authority administration as soon as it’s feasible.” Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa, speaking in Oslo, insisted that "it will not be acceptable for any entity other than the Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza." He added, "We are the government of Palestine, ready to assume our responsibilities in the Gaza Strip as we did before." Despite these discussions, the future hinges on several factors: Israel’s willingness to make compromises, the Trump administration's regional strategies, and the role of Palestinian actors. The Palestinian Authority faces questions about its legitimacy, while Hamas, though weakened, remains a significant player. Adding to the complexity, Israeli reports in January highlighted that Hamas continued to demand a role in Gaza’s governance as a precondition for negotiations on releasing Israeli hostages. This unresolved tension underscores the deep challenges facing any long-term resolution in Gaza. Based on a report by AFP 2024-01-18

Post using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly, this applies to both sides of the political debate.

inflammatory antisemitic troll post removed @MalcolmB more like that and you'll be on another official posting break. An off topic post making unsubstaniated claims additionally removed. @newbee2022 If you want your post to remain ensure it falls under the topic of: Hostages to Return Amid Cease-Fire Deal: But Hamas Must Still be Defeated

An off topic post making historical claims out of context has been removed @Chomper Higgot the topic is: Hostages to Return Amid Cease-Fire Deal: But Hamas Must Still be Defeated A post making numerous unsubstaniated off topic claims also removed.

Keir Starmer's leadership has come under sharp criticism as his government faces a series of high-profile resignations within its first six months. These developments have sparked questions about his judgment, the Labour Party's internal dynamics, and the apparent inconsistencies in his handling of ministerial controversies. The resignation of Tulip Siddiq from her role as corruption tsar has been the latest flashpoint. Siddiq, a long-time ally of Starmer, was accused of using property connected to individuals with ties to her aunt, Sheikh Hasina, the former Bangladeshi prime minister. Allegations surrounding Siddiq’s connections to the Awami League had been public knowledge for years. In 2017, before Starmer became Labour leader, concerns were raised by constituents about her familial and political links to a regime known for its repression of dissent. A Channel 4 News investigation questioned Siddiq's claims of non-involvement in Bangladeshi politics, despite evidence of her public acknowledgment of support from the Awami League. Siddiq’s resignation came only after an investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent adviser on ministerial standards. Critics have highlighted the contrast between this delayed action and Starmer’s swift dismissal of others, such as Louise Haigh, who was upfront about a past criminal conviction, and Sue Gray, his former chief-of-staff. The disparity has fueled accusations of a “two-tier” system within Labour, where personal relationships seemingly influence disciplinary decisions. Starmer’s appointment of Siddiq to senior government positions, despite the unresolved allegations, reflects a troubling trend. This pattern has raised concerns that personal ties may overshadow the broader interests of the government. “The apple does not fall far from the tree” is not a principle enshrined in Labour Party rules, but many argue that Siddiq's connections and the unanswered questions surrounding her should have disqualified her from such roles. The fallout from Siddiq’s departure has amplified existing tensions within Starmer’s leadership. Media speculation has shifted to Chancellor Rachel Reeves, whose position has been subject to uncertainty. When asked about Reeves’s future, Starmer’s reluctance to offer a definitive answer fueled further unease. Reeves, unlike Siddiq, does not share Starmer’s north London legal background or his close social circle, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by political observers. Starmer's handling of internal controversies has opened him to accusations of inconsistency and favoritism. While political alliances and personal relationships are inevitable in governance, prioritizing them over ethical considerations risks undermining public trust. The Prime Minister’s actions suggest that friendship and proximity to power may carry more weight than accountability and transparency. With three resignations already under his watch, Starmer must navigate an increasingly hostile political landscape. The perception of a government mired in cronyism and selective enforcement of discipline could erode the credibility he has worked to build. As attention turns to other members of his administration, the coming months will test whether Starmer can rise above these challenges or become further entangled in them. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-17

In a move that has stirred significant debate, the House of Representatives passed legislation on Tuesday aimed at banning transgender athletes from participating in women's and girls' sports in schools and institutions receiving federal funding. This bill, which has garnered widespread attention, proposes an amendment to federal law to define "sex" based solely on reproductive biology and genetics at birth. The vote concluded with a tally of 218 to 206, predominantly along party lines. Notably, only two Democrats from Texas, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, supported the measure. In contrast, Rep. Don Davis, a Democrat from North Carolina, chose to vote present, and no Republican members opposed the bill. Rep. Greg Steube, a Republican from Florida and the bill's sponsor, expressed that the legislation's intent is to protect women's sports. "The distinction between men and women is clear and evident, and the erasure of this division has been promulgated by those in the radical left who seek to dismantle the core foundation of our society," Steube stated on the House floor. "We must never let our country and the American way of life surrender to this immoral ideology." However, not everyone shares Steube's perspective. Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts and the only woman in Congress with experience in Division I college sports, criticized the bill. "I have long placed my trust in the governing bodies of sports — the experts who have dedicated their lives to these games — to create fair and responsible rules for participation," Trahan remarked during the floor debate. She further accused Republicans of overstepping their bounds by inserting themselves into matters they are not qualified to adjudicate. Democrats have taken a strong stance against the bill, with some referring to it as the "Child Predator Empowerment Act." They argue that it jeopardizes the safety of children in schools and could lead to invasive questioning and inspections of students' bodies. This is not the first time the House has addressed such legislation. A similar bill passed in April 2023 without any Democratic support, but it did not progress in the Senate, which was then under Democratic control. The current scenario sees Republicans holding the majority, potentially changing the bill's trajectory. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, emphasized the party's commitment to women's rights following the vote. "I'm a Bible-believing Christian, I make no apology about that. But whether you regard that as the truth or not, it’s also nature. It’s biology," Johnson declared in a post-vote news conference. His remarks reflect the broader Republican sentiment supporting the bill, which they believe is a stand for women. As the bill advances to the Senate, it continues to spark heated discussions on both sides of the aisle, illustrating the deeply polarized views on this contentious issue. Based on a report by NBC 2024-01-17

In a world still grappling with violence against women and persistent gender inequalities, Mark Zuckerberg’s recent remarks about the need for more "masculine energy" in the corporate sphere feel not just misguided, but alarmingly tone-deaf. The Meta CEO’s comments, made during an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, suggest that the corporate world is “pretty culturally neutered” and could benefit from celebrating aggression more. This from the man who launched Facebook, initially to rank female college students, and who now balances his time between managing a tech giant and engaging in mixed martial arts and hunting invasive pigs in Hawaii. Zuckerberg’s assertion that a culture embracing more aggression has its merits comes off as a dangerous oversimplification. He acknowledges that society already has plenty of masculine energy but dismisses the broader implications of his call to amplify it. The world is already replete with examples of unchecked aggression and its dire consequences, especially for women and girls. Organizations like UN Women have declared violence against women a national emergency, and recent tragedies like the murders of Miss Switzerland finalist Kristina Joksimovic and Olympic runner Rebecca Cheptegei only underscore this ongoing crisis. Zuckerberg’s remarks appear to ignore the reality that corporate environments often compel women to adopt traditionally masculine traits to get ahead. From donning power suits to being assertive to the point of aggression, women are frequently advised to conform to male-dominated norms to succeed. Yet, despite these pressures, progress remains slow. The Office for National Statistics' recent report highlights that the gender pay gap is closing at an agonizingly slow pace, pointing to the ineffectiveness of these strategies. The real question is: what does Zuckerberg mean by "masculine energy"? If his own actions serve as a template, it could involve decisions like firing fact-checking teams in favor of "community notes" or potentially cutting diversity and inclusion initiatives, perhaps to curry favor with political powers. Such moves seem less about fostering a productive corporate culture and more about preserving the status quo, one that often sidelines diversity and progress in favor of maintaining male dominance. Rather than doubling down on so-called masculine traits like aggression, perhaps the corporate world could benefit from embracing more "feminine energy" — qualities like empathy, collaboration, and inclusivity, which have been shown to foster more equitable and innovative workplaces. It’s clear that the old paradigms are not serving everyone equally, and it’s time for a shift that genuinely values diverse perspectives. Zuckerberg’s vision for more aggression in corporate culture not only risks undermining progress toward equality but also perpetuates a narrow and outdated understanding of leadership. It’s a call to action that the modern world can ill afford. What the corporate world truly needs is a balance that celebrates both masculine and feminine energies, ensuring a fairer, more inclusive future for all. Based on a report by The Independent 2024-01-17

England’s system for supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is faltering, with MPs describing it as a postcode lottery in dire need of funding and reform. The findings, presented by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), highlight a system that is failing families and placing unsustainable financial pressure on local councils. In its critical report, the PAC reveals that thousands of children are being let down by inequities in the system. Families face significant struggles to access the essential support their children need, while councils are pushed towards financial ruin. Over the past nine years, the number of young people receiving SEND support in state schools has risen by 140,000, reaching 1.14 million. However, budgets have not kept pace with this growing demand, creating what MPs have called a "crisis." For children with the most complex needs, education, health, and care (EHC) plans are a legal entitlement. Yet the number of these plans has surged by 140% to 576,000, exacerbating the strain on local authorities. This increase in demand has led to escalating financial deficits. According to the Society of County Treasurers (SCT), SEND-related deficits among English councils have reached £4 billion and are projected to grow to £5.9 billion this year. Cllr Roger Gough, spokesperson for children's social care at the County Councils Network, emphasized the urgency of addressing this crisis. "While government has committed to reform, it is vital that it is done quickly and correctly. Both councils and families can ill-afford to wait," he stated. Gough urged the government to implement a comprehensive reform package within the next year and to clarify its plans to address council deficits. Luke Sibieta, a research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, pointed out the disconnect between funding and demand. "We've seen a rapid rise in the number of pupils with the most severe special needs over the last 6-7 years. Numbers have gone up by around 70%, and funding has increased by 60%, so it hasn’t met the rapid increase," he said. Sibieta added that this shortfall places significant pressure on mainstream school budgets, leaving little for other resources. Beyond financial concerns, the PAC report highlights the uneven standard of SEND services across England. The disparity in support creates a postcode lottery, where families in neighboring areas experience vastly different outcomes. For example, in 2023, only 50% of EHC plans were issued within the legal 20-week timeframe. While 71.5% of plans were completed on time in Lambeth, neighboring Southwark managed just 19.2%. The committee warned of a "lost generation" of children who risk leaving school without the support they desperately need unless reforms are enacted swiftly. Among its seven key recommendations, the PAC calls for an urgent collaboration between the government and local authorities to address immediate financial challenges, clearer definitions of what SEND provision children can expect, and better accountability for schools. It also urges earlier identification of SEND and improved teacher training within the next six months. Without immediate and effective intervention, England’s SEND system may continue to fail its most vulnerable children and young people, leaving families and councils grappling with an untenable situation. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-01-17

Cleveland Police has been deemed “inadequate” in its handling of child sexual exploitation and abuse, according to a damning report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS). The report highlights persistent shortcomings, including a failure to fully understand the connection between missing children and child exploitation, despite the area’s history with grooming gang scandals. In 2014, Teesside Crown Court sentenced three men from Middlesbrough—Shakil Munir, Ateeq Latif, and Sakib Ahmed—for grooming and abusing seven local girls, some as young as 14. The men lured the victims with offers of takeaway food, free lifts, and drugs. Munir and Ahmed received eight-year prison sentences, while Latif, who was 17 at the time, was sentenced to three years in a young offenders' institution. More than a decade later, the HMICFRS report reveals that Cleveland Police is still not adequately addressing the risks facing vulnerable children and young people. The force was graded “inadequate” in both “responding to children at risk of harm” and “investigating child abuse, neglect, and exploitation.” The report pointed out critical staffing shortages within Cleveland Police’s complex exploitation team, which has 11 officers instead of the recommended 22. Additionally, inspectors criticized the force for failing to collect data on the ethnicity of targeted children, limiting their ability to assess risks tied to cultural heritage. Michelle Skeer, the Inspector of Constabulary, stated, “The force doesn’t consistently recognize the risks posed to missing children. Nor does it respond to them effectively.” She further noted that while training efforts have been made, they have not resulted in significant improvements for children at risk. The report underscored specific failings in Cleveland Police’s response to cases, such as an incident involving a 15-year-old girl who went missing from a care home. The case was classified as “medium risk,” and it took officers over five hours to respond. During this time, there was little investigative activity. When the girl was eventually located and interviewed, officers displayed a lack of “professional curiosity” about whether she had been exposed to harm while staying at her boyfriend’s house. Inspectors also identified the use of victim-blaming language in case reviews, with phrases such as “child does not understand her behavior” and “engages in behavior that is highly risky.” This approach, they said, reflected a broader failure by the force to properly assess and respond to risk. The findings have fueled growing calls for a public inquiry into how police, councils, and other public bodies allowed widespread abuse of thousands of girls across the country. Asst Chief Constable Richard Baker acknowledged the challenges posed by high levels of social deprivation in the Cleveland area but reaffirmed the force’s commitment to improving child protection. “I am committed to ensuring the force strives to ensure a high standard of service is provided and the improvements that have already been put in place are sustained and continue to be monitored,” he said. Baker added, “The protection of children across Teesside will continue to be a key priority for Cleveland Police, and I am determined that, together with our partners, we will keep working hard so those who are most vulnerable receive the service they deserve.” The report serves as a stark reminder that significant reforms are needed to ensure the safety and protection of vulnerable children in Cleveland and beyond. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-17

Jillian Segal, Australia's special envoy for anti-Semitism, has called for a national cabinet meeting to address the growing incidents of anti-Semitic attacks across the country. This plea follows a summer marked by alarming acts of hatred against Jewish Australians. "The law provides for an aggravated hate crime overlay on top of a normal sentence, but it's essential that the judiciary recognizes the broader implications of these crimes," Segal stated. "Failing to address this effectively undermines our democracy." The push for a national cabinet meeting gained further support from Foreign Minister Penny Wong, who underscored the necessity of a decisive national response. Wong agreed with Segal, noting that anti-Semitism affects not only the Jewish community but the fabric of Australian society as a whole. "This prejudice and criminal behavior is an attack on Australian values and requires united action," Wong said. Labor MP Josh Burns, representing the Macnamara district where the Addas Israel Synagogue was attacked, also backed the call for a national approach, especially in states with significant Jewish populations. He noted that a nationally consistent strategy would be beneficial. Prime Minister Albanese reassured that his government is actively responding to these issues, citing Segal's satisfaction with the recent meeting involving NSW and Victoria. Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton reiterated his long-standing call for a national cabinet meeting, highlighting that the Coalition had been advocating for this since October 2023, in the wake of the Hamas terror attack on Israel and the subsequent Gaza conflict. The consensus among leaders points to the urgent need for unified and robust action to combat anti-Semitism in Australia, safeguarding the rights and security of the Jewish community and upholding the country's democratic principles. Based on a report by ABC | Sky News 2024-01-17

The notion that former terrorists and their sympathizers might qualify for taxpayer-funded compensation is both alarming and unjust. This controversy reignited in 2023 when parliament blocked attempts that would have enabled figures like Gerry Adams and other IRA sympathizers to claim compensation for wrongful arrest. Adams, the former Sinn Fein leader, was interned in the early 1970s under special powers at the outset of the Troubles. However, the technicality that the warrant was signed by a junior minister rather than the Secretary of State led the Supreme Court in 2020 to quash his conviction for attempting to escape prison. This legal technicality, despite being a minor oversight in procedure, has now become a point of contention. For decades, governments upheld that custody orders issued by junior ministers were valid. The High Court in Belfast, however, ruled that Adams was wrongly denied compensation, prompting a parliamentary amendment to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill to prevent compensation claims based on these technicalities. While this amendment seemed to resolve the issue, the Government's recent decision to accept the High Court's judgment and use the Human Rights Act 1998 to make a “Remedial Order” has reopened the door for compensation claims. This move has been criticized as “inexplicable” by a Policy Exchange paper signed by 16 eminent peers. The criticism arises from viewing the situation through a purely legalistic human rights lens rather than considering the broader implications of justice and sensibility. This decision could potentially allow hundreds of former terrorists and sympathizers to seek compensation, a prospect that many find outrageous. The idea of compensating someone labeled in the House of Lords as the “godfather of terrorism” due to a legal technicality is incomprehensible to many. Sir Keir Starmer, a trained human rights lawyer, faces intense scrutiny over this issue. His inclination to prioritize legal technicalities over public sentiment and justice has led to accusations of being out of touch with public opinion. However, bowing to pressure Starmer says government will 'look at every conceivable way' to stop Gerry Adams and any other terrorists payout. In this context, the call to drop this unconstitutional measure is not just about legal interpretation but about maintaining the integrity of justice and the sentiment that those involved in terrorism should not be rewarded with taxpayer money. This situation underscores the importance of balancing legal frameworks with moral and societal expectations, ensuring that justice is not only served in letter but also in spirit. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-17