Koh Chang: National Park authorities ban overnight stays, water borne activities until further notice
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
11
THAILAND LIVE Thailand Live Wednesday 4 June 2025
Father Dies in Motorcycle Crash After Wife’s Online Search Picture courtesy of Khaosod. A 25-year-old man has died following a motorcycle incident after crashing into a U-turn bridge barrier in Chonburi. The young man’s body was later found on the road below the bridge, hours after his distraught wife posted a photograph of him with their young daughter in an emotional online appeal to help locate him. Full story:https://aseannow.com/topic/1362589-father-dies-in-motorcycle-crash-after-wife’s-online-search/ -
0
Ukraine Demands Return of Kidnapped Children at Istanbul Peace Talks
Ukraine Demands Return of Kidnapped Children at Istanbul Peace Talks Peace talks between Ukraine and Russia resumed briefly in Istanbul, with both sides exchanging proposals for a possible ceasefire and humanitarian measures. During the one-hour meeting, Ukrainian negotiators handed their Russian counterparts a list of 339 children allegedly abducted and forcibly taken to Russia or Russian-occupied territories—a gesture that underscored the deep emotional and legal tensions that persist amid the ongoing war. The meeting took place at Istanbul’s historic Ciragan Palace, now a luxury hotel, and ended after just over an hour. The two sides presented memorandums outlining their respective visions for ending the conflict. Ukraine’s memorandum, which was made public prior to the session, called for a full ceasefire and concrete guarantees of the country’s security and territorial integrity. Rustem Umerov, Ukraine’s defence minister, led Kyiv’s delegation and was joined by other senior officials including Andriy Yermak, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff. Yermak confirmed that the list of missing Ukrainian children had been formally submitted to Russia’s delegation. “Their return is non-negotiable,” he said, stressing that children, under international law, cannot be part of prisoner exchange agreements governed by the Geneva Conventions. “They must be returned,” he added, reinforcing Ukraine’s position that these removals constitute a violation of international norms. Vladimir Medinsky, Russia’s chief negotiator, dismissed the handover of the children’s list as political theatre. He accused Kyiv of “putting on a show” for Western audiences, but nevertheless stated that Russia would cooperate to help reunite the children with their families in Ukraine—“if they can be found.” Russia had not released its proposals ahead of the meeting, but its state media later reported that Moscow’s demands included a full Ukrainian withdrawal from Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Donbas—regions Russia claims but does not fully control—as well as limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces. While the two sides remain far apart on political and territorial issues, they did reach limited agreements on humanitarian matters. They pledged to exchange all seriously wounded and sick prisoners, as well as prisoners of war under the age of 25. Additionally, both sides agreed to repatriate the remains of approximately 6,000 fallen soldiers. Medinsky announced that Russia had also offered a temporary ceasefire—lasting two to three days—along certain sections of the front line to allow commanders to collect the dead. It remains unclear whether Ukraine has accepted this offer. Despite the brevity of the talks, one Ukrainian official noted a shift in tone compared to earlier meetings. “The tone was better in this meeting than the last one,” the official said. “Steps taken on humanitarian matters make [the Russians] realise progress can be made.” The latest talks followed a major Ukrainian military strike conducted just hours earlier. In one of the most daring operations of the war, Ukraine reportedly targeted and struck over 40 Russian warplanes stationed thousands of miles from Ukrainian territory—a strike that had been planned for more than 18 months. Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has offered to convene a future summit involving Zelensky, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and former U.S. President Donald Trump. When asked about this proposal, the White House press secretary confirmed that Trump is open to participating “if it comes to that,” but insisted that he wants “both of these leaders and both sides to come to the table together.” While the road to peace remains uncertain, the humanitarian commitments—particularly concerning children and prisoners—are seen as fragile yet essential building blocks in a conflict that has otherwise shown little sign of de-escalation. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-06-04 -
0
Free Speech or Blasphemy? Court Conviction Sparks Outrage Over Koran Burning Case
Free Speech or Blasphemy? Court Conviction Sparks Outrage Over Koran Burning Case A recent court ruling in the UK has reignited a national debate over the boundaries of free speech and the perceived resurgence of blasphemy laws, following the conviction of a man who burned a copy of the Koran during a protest in London. The case of 50-year-old Hamit Coskun has become a lightning rod for concerns about freedom of expression, especially in criticism of religion. Sam Armstrong: "We DO NOW have a blasphemy law in this country - that is the undeniable logic of this verdict." In his ruling, Judge McGarva dismissed the idea that the prosecution sought to revive blasphemy laws, which were formally abolished in the UK in 2008. “A decision needs to be made as to whether your conduct was simply you exercising your right to protest and freedom of speech or whether your behaviour crossed a line into criminal conduct,” he said. Addressing Coskun directly, he added, “You believe Islam is an ideology which encourages its followers to violence, paedophilia and a disregard for the rights of non-believers. You don’t distinguish between the two. I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.” Coskun, who is currently claiming asylum in the UK after fleeing persecution in Turkey, called the verdict “an assault on free speech” and questioned whether he would have faced prosecution had he burned a Bible outside Westminster Abbey. “Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago, and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam,” he said. “As an activist, I will continue to campaign against the threat of Islam.” His defence barrister, Katy Thorne KC, argued that the prosecution criminalised the public burning of any religious text, which she said was tantamount to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws. “It is effectively chilling the right of citizens to criticise religion,” she said, insisting that Coskun’s actions were directed at the religion itself, not its followers. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) denied that the case was about blasphemy. Philip McGhee, representing the CPS, said, “He is being prosecuted for his disorderly behaviour in public.” He emphasized, “Nothing about the prosecution of this defendant for his words and actions has any impact on the ability of anyone to make any trenchant criticism of a religion.” Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick sharply criticised the ruling, saying, “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.” The National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union, which funded Coskun’s legal defence, have vowed to appeal. A spokesperson for the FSU said, “This is deeply disappointing. Everyone should be able to exercise their rights to protest peacefully and to freedom of expression, regardless of how offensive or upsetting it may be to some people.” They added, “Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn’t require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers.” Coskun has been ordered to pay a £240 fine. His legal team, along with the FSU and NSS, have signalled that they intend to take the case as far as the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph | X 2025-06-04 -
0
Fetterman Breaks Ranks with Democrats Over Border Policy, Israel, and Party Direction
Fetterman Breaks Ranks with Democrats Over Border Policy, Israel, and Party Direction Senator John Fetterman has intensified his criticism of the Democratic Party, blasting the Biden administration's handling of the U.S.-Mexico border as a “mistake” and voicing growing discontent with his party's stance on immigration, Israel, and internal cohesion. His remarks, delivered during a debate in Boston with Republican Senator Dave McCormick, underscored a widening rift that has prompted speculation about a potential party switch—rumors Fetterman has continued to reject. “I thought the border was really important and our party did not handle the border appropriately. Look at the numbers — 260,000, 300,000 people showing up our borders,” Fetterman told the audience at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate. “We can’t pretend we can take care of 300,000 people showing up every month,” he continued, referencing the peak in migrant encounters under Biden in December 2023. “That’s roughly the size of Pittsburgh. Now, that’s unacceptable, and that’s a national security issue, and that’s chaos.” Fetterman acknowledged that his views, including support for immigrants and willingness to back Trump-era border investments like a $12 billion security package, place him in direct conflict with his party. “It puts me at odds with my party and my base,” he said. His criticism extended to the Democratic response to the Israel-Gaza war and the campus-based pro-Palestinian protests that have erupted across the U.S. “That’s not free speech, building tent cities on a campus and terrorizing and intimidating Jewish students, that’s not free speech,” Fetterman argued. “And now we really lost, we’ve lost the argument in parts of my party, and for me, that moral clarity, it’s really firmly on Israel.” Fetterman’s divergence from the Democratic base has become more apparent over time, particularly through his legislative record. He supported the Laken Riley Act, which mandates the federal detention of undocumented immigrants accused of various crimes, and voted to confirm Trump figures such as Attorney General Pam Bondi. These choices, coupled with his critiques of party leadership, have stirred anxiety among fellow Democrats. “We really got our a**** kicked in, and especially in the Senate, we could have been left a gigantic, smoking hole in the ground,” he told Politico. “We could have easily lost Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, and we could be staring down, 56-44.” Despite widespread speculation, Fetterman has denied plans to join the GOP. “I’ve been on record ... saying I am not going to become a Republican, you know, although maybe some people might be happy on one side,” he said earlier this year. “But I would make a pretty terrible Republican, because, you know, [I’m] pro-choice, pro really strong immigration, pro-LGBTQ … I don’t think I’d be a good fit.” Concerns about Fetterman’s well-being continue to circulate, especially following a May exposé in New York Magazine. The article quoted current and former staffers claiming the senator struggles with mental health and the demands of office. It described an incident in which Fetterman, amid the contentious confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, “spent part of the day locked in his office, fighting with [his wife] Gisele and crying while FaceTiming with staff.” The report also claimed he was involved in a 2024 car crash that injured his wife, despite warnings from staff that he should not be driving. Fetterman responded by denouncing the piece as a “hit job” from “best friends – Adam Jentleson and Ben Terris – who sourced anonymous, disgruntled staffers with lies or distorted half-truths.” He added, “My ACTUAL doctors and my family affirmed that I’m very well,” in a statement to The Independent. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Independent 2025-06-04 -
0
Transgender Community Faces Rising Hate Amid Political Attacks and Social Backlash
Transgender Community Faces Rising Hate Amid Political Attacks and Social Backlash Transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals were the targets of more than half of all anti-LGBTQ+ incidents tracked by GLAAD over the past year, according to a new report, underscoring the heightened vulnerability of this community amid a surge of political and social hostility. GLAAD's Anti-LGBTQ Extremism Reporting Tracker (ALERT) recorded over 930 anti-LGBTQ+ incidents from May 2024 through April 2025, spanning 49 states and Washington, D.C. Despite a slight decline in the overall number of incidents from the previous year, those specifically targeting transgender and gender-nonconforming people rose by 14%. The report reveals a grim toll: 84 injuries and 10 deaths resulted from violent attacks, while protests, verbal threats, vandalism, and other forms of harassment comprised the bulk of recorded incidents. "When we allow our politicians and our leaders to spread this anti-trans rhetoric, we see the very real impacts of that on the lived experiences of trans people," said Sarah Moore, who oversees the ALERT tracker for GLAAD. She emphasized that the tracker includes both criminal and non-criminal expressions of hate, because "LGBTQ people are going to experience these things as acts of hate, regardless of if they're prosecuted as that." Incidents aimed at state and local governments spiked by 57% compared to the previous year. GLAAD attributes this rise to a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced during the 2025 legislative sessions. These measures, often justified as protecting children or traditional values, have added fuel to a culture increasingly hostile toward transgender people. President Trump has issued multiple executive orders targeting the transgender community, threatening access to gender-affirming health care and federal recognition of gender identity. While these policies may not directly incite violence, their dehumanizing rhetoric has created a permissive environment for hate. “It is building a civic society and understanding ... that trans involvement, trans presence, is a threat,” said Minnesota state Rep. Leigh Finke, the first openly transgender member of her state’s legislature. “Either we're too strong for sports or too weak for the military.” Finke has used her platform to champion LGBTQ+ rights but has faced relentless personal attacks. “The most rewarding” professional year of her life has also been “easily ... the worst year, personally, that I’ve ever had.” The threats have lessened, but the scrutiny remains intense, particularly with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz under national attention and political rivals targeting his support for trans rights. Finke pointed to the brutal killing of Sam Nordquist, a Black transgender man in Minnesota, as an example of the deadly consequences this climate can breed. Nordquist was tortured and murdered by a group that included a woman he had met online. “The truth is that I can tell you how terrible it is for me to be constantly harassed,” Finke said. “But our Black trans family are getting murdered.” While the White House, through spokesperson Harrison Fields, stated that Trump takes all acts of violence or threats seriously and aims to “Make America Safe Again for all Americans,” Finke stressed that rhetoric matters. The “language of dehumanization and ... language of eradication” carries real-life consequences. Federal protections are urgently needed, Finke argued, though she acknowledged the political odds are long. Still, she believes cultural transformation is essential. “We have to continue to make our stories known,” she said. “That’s going to continue to be hard and create pushback, but ... it’s what we have to do.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from Axios 2025-06-04 -
0
Lords Defy Government Again Over AI Copyright Battle as Artists Demand Stronger Protections
Lords Defy Government Again Over AI Copyright Battle as Artists Demand Stronger Protections The UK government has suffered a fourth defeat in the House of Lords over its proposed Data (Use and Access) Bill, as peers continue to push for greater protections for artists and creators in the age of artificial intelligence. In a vote on Monday, the Lords backed a transparency-focused amendment by 242 to 116, despite the measure being rejected multiple times by the House of Commons where the government holds a majority. This persistent standoff between the two Houses of Parliament is highly unusual, with no side showing signs of retreat or compromise. “This is uncharted territory,” said one source from the Lords' camp, underlining the growing momentum behind those seeking to challenge the government's approach. At the heart of the dispute is how best to balance the interests of two powerful industries: technology and the creative arts. The Data (Use and Access) Bill was expected to pass into law smoothly, but now finds itself stuck in a political tug-of-war, with the potential to be shelved entirely. If that happens, other key elements of the legislation—such as proposals to give bereaved parents access to their children’s data, improved NHS data sharing, and a comprehensive 3D map of underground utilities—would also fall away. The core issue revolves around how AI companies use copyrighted material to train their models. The government’s current proposal would allow developers to access any content unless the individual owner explicitly opts out. However, critics argue this amounts to giving tech firms a free pass to exploit creative work without consent or compensation. Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer and former film director, is among the most vocal opponents. She warned that ministers are “knowingly throwing UK designers, artists, authors, musicians, media and nascent AI companies under the bus,” describing the current system as “state sanctioned theft.” She has called for an amendment that would require Technology Secretary Peter Kyle to report to Parliament within 15 months of the law’s enactment on its impact on the creative industries. Mr. Kyle has himself acknowledged that copyright law is no longer adequate for the AI era. “Copyright law was once very certain,” he said, “but is now not fit for purpose.” His remarks reflect the ongoing struggle to reconcile legal frameworks with rapid technological advancement. Among those backing the government’s stance is Sir Nick Clegg, former Deputy Prime Minister and now a leading figure at Meta. He has warned that requiring explicit permission from every copyright holder could “kill the AI industry in this country.” Supporters of this view argue that if the UK becomes too restrictive, tech firms will simply move operations abroad, taking investment and jobs with them. Artists and musicians, however, remain outraged. Sir Elton John has been especially outspoken, accusing the government of planning to “rob young people of their legacy and their income,” and branding the current administration “absolute losers.” His comments echo a broader backlash from creators who feel exploited by AI tools that use their work without acknowledgment or payment. This backlash stems from how AI companies originally developed their tools. Before the AI boom, developers scraped vast amounts of content from the internet—much of it created by artists, writers, and musicians—arguing it was publicly available. That scraped data now powers AI systems that can produce images, text, and music in moments, often mimicking specific styles. For example, a recent trend saw people sharing AI-generated images in the style of Studio Ghibli. Yet Hayao Miyazaki, the studio’s co-founder, once called AI in animation “an insult to life itself.” As debate intensifies, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology insists that changes to the bill will only be considered if they are proven to work for creators. Still, the future of the legislation remains uncertain. With both sides dug in and public support for creators growing, the fight over AI and copyright may well define the next phase of the UK’s digital future. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-06-04
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
-
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now