-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Landmark Inquiry: British Committed Genocide Against Indigenous Australians in Victoria
Landmark Inquiry Concludes British Committed Genocide Against Indigenous Australians in Victoria A historic Aboriginal-led investigation has concluded that British colonists committed genocide against Indigenous Australians in the state of Victoria. The Yoorrook Justice Commission, established in 2021 as Australia's first formal truth-telling inquiry, released a damning report revealing that colonisation brought about the near-destruction of Aboriginal communities through violence, disease, and systemic abuse. The Commission found that the Indigenous population of Victoria plummeted by 75% within just two decades of British settlement in the early 1830s. By 1851, the number of Indigenous people had dropped from 60,000 to just 15,000. The report stated unequivocally, “This was genocide.” Drawing on more than 1,300 submissions and over two months of public hearings, the Commission documented a harrowing history of atrocities including mass killings, disease, sexual violence, forced exclusion, child removals, cultural erasure, linguicide, and environmental destruction. It called for comprehensive “redress” to acknowledge and address these extensive human rights violations, including potential reparations. “This report shines a light on hard truths,” said Victoria Premier Jacinta Allan, whose Labor government promised to “carefully consider” the findings and recommendations. Among the 100 recommendations made were sweeping reforms to the education system, increased support for Indigenous-led health services, and formal apologies for injustices, such as the exclusion of Aboriginal soldiers from post-war land grant programs. Racism in the state’s health system was described as “endemic” by the Commission, which urged greater investment in Indigenous healthcare and stronger policies to recruit and retain Aboriginal staff. Jill Gallagher, head of Victoria’s leading Aboriginal health organisation, said the Commission's finding of genocide was “indisputable.” Speaking to the ABC, she said, “We don't blame anyone alive today for these atrocities, but it is the responsibility of those of us alive today to accept that truth — and all Victorians today must accept, recognise and reconcile with these factual findings.” Notably, three of the Commission’s five members — Sue-Anne Hunter, Maggie Walter, and Anthony North — did not approve of the inclusion of unspecified “key findings” in the final report. No additional explanation was given regarding their objections. Despite this, the report stands as a landmark in Australia’s ongoing reckoning with its colonial past. It forms part of a broader national movement toward reconciliation, which includes treaty processes and efforts to amplify Indigenous voices in political decision-making. However, progress has been uneven across the country. While similar truth-telling commissions are underway in other states and territories, some have stalled or been abandoned. In Queensland, for instance, a truth inquiry was scrapped following the election of a new Liberal-National government, replacing Labor. Nationally, the question of how to meaningfully recognise First Nations peoples remains highly contested. In October 2023, Australians voted down a proposed constitutional amendment to establish the Voice to Parliament — a national Indigenous advisory body — in a divisive referendum that left many Aboriginal leaders disheartened. The Yoorrook Justice Commission’s findings underscore the urgent need to confront uncomfortable truths about the foundations of modern Australia. While the inquiry focused solely on Victoria, its implications are national, challenging all Australians to engage in a process of truth, recognition, and ultimately reconciliation. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-07-03 -
0
Australia Bans Kanye West Over Over 'Heil Hitler' Song
Australia Bans Kanye West Over Anti-Semitic Song Praising Hitler Australia has officially revoked Kanye West's tourist visa, banning the controversial rapper from entering the country following the release of a song that glorifies Adolf Hitler. The decision, confirmed by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, comes amid growing concern over West’s pattern of anti-Semitic rhetoric and his latest track, titled Heil Hitler, which was released in May. “You're going to have a song and promote that sort of Nazism -- we don't need that in Australia," Burke said on Wednesday. He explained that although West, who now goes by the legal name Ye, had previously traveled to the country without issue, the nature of his latest music forced officials to reconsider. “He’s been coming to Australia for a long time and he’s made a lot of offensive comments,” Burke added. “But my officials looked at it again once he released the Heil Hitler song and he no longer has a valid visa in Australia.” Ye had obtained a tourist visa that could have allowed him to stay in Australia for up to 12 months. However, sources inside the government confirmed to News.com.au that the visa was recently cancelled and that the decision had been formally communicated to him. The ban also impacts West's ability to travel with his Australian-born wife Bianca Censori, who grew up in Melbourne. While she was back in Australia earlier this year, West remained in Japan amid reports of tensions in their relationship. Now, the couple will not be able to visit Australia together due to the government's ruling. “This wasn’t a visa for the purpose of concerts. It was a lower-level visa, and the officials still looked at the law and said, ‘You’re going to have a song and promote that sort of Nazism?’ We don’t need that in Australia,” Burke told ABC TV. Asked whether the ban was sustainable considering West’s global fame, Burke didn’t hesitate. “I think that what’s not sustainable is to import hatred,” he said. “Some people say, oh, don’t you believe in freedom of speech? And for Australian citizens, yeah, you’ve got full freedom of speech. But we have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry.” This isn’t the first time Australia has threatened to deny West entry over his inflammatory statements. In the past, government officials expressed concern following his interview with far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, in which he openly praised Hitler. But the release of Heil Hitler appears to have been the breaking point. Ye, the ex-husband of Kim Kardashian, shares four children with her: North, Saint, Chicago, and Psalm. Despite his longstanding fame and previous visits to Australia, the government has made clear that celebrity status will not shield anyone from consequences if their actions violate national standards. In Minister Burke’s words, “We don’t need to bring that kind of hatred here.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from News.Au 2025-07-03 -
0
USA U.S. Slows Missile Deliveries to Ukraine Over Concerns About Domestic Stockpiles
U.S. Slows Missile Deliveries to Ukraine Over Concerns About Domestic Stockpiles The United States has halted certain shipments of air defense missiles and precision-guided munitions to Ukraine due to growing concerns over depleted domestic stockpiles, according to two individuals familiar with the matter. The decision marks a notable shift in the Pentagon’s logistical support for Kyiv, coming at a time when Ukraine is struggling to repel intensified Russian offensives across its southeastern front. The suspension of some weapons deliveries, including critical air defense interceptors designed to destroy incoming Russian missiles and drones, took place in recent days, the sources confirmed. While the Pentagon declined to comment officially on the matter, the individuals indicated the move reflects an internal reassessment of the U.S. military's own preparedness amid global tensions and ongoing conflicts. “There’s a real concern about how much is left in our own inventory,” said one of the sources, emphasizing that the slowdown is a precaution rather than a complete freeze of all support. The missile systems in question play a crucial role in shielding Ukrainian cities and military infrastructure from Russian aerial assaults, which have surged in recent weeks. Russia currently occupies roughly one-fifth of Ukrainian territory and continues to press forward. Ukrainian defenses are being tested on multiple fronts, particularly in the southeastern regions of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk, where Moscow has reportedly gained ground. At the same time, Russia has escalated its air campaign across Ukraine, targeting civilian and military sites alike. This latest pause in aid deliveries is not the first disruption to U.S. weapons support. Back in February, all military aid was temporarily suspended, followed by another, longer hiatus in March. While these suspensions were tied to funding disputes and legislative delays under the Biden administration, the current slowdown is tied more directly to concerns about national readiness. Though President Donald Trump’s administration has resumed shipments of previously approved aid, no new arms transfer policies have been announced. This leaves Ukraine in a vulnerable position, relying on pre-authorized supplies at a moment when their strategic need is arguably at its highest. The halt was first reported by Politico on Tuesday afternoon, further highlighting the uncertainty surrounding U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s military resistance in the months ahead. With political divisions at home and growing caution within the Pentagon about America’s own defense capabilities, the future of continued, large-scale arms support for Ukraine remains unclear. As the battlefield situation evolves and Russia presses its advantage, Ukrainian officials are likely to push for reassurances and fresh commitments from their Western allies. For now, however, the flow of critical U.S. weapons—particularly those designed to counter aerial threats—is slowing at a crucial time. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Reuters 2025-07-03 -
0
USA Paramount and CBS Reach Eight-Figure Settlement with Trump, Agree to Editorial Changes
Paramount and CBS Reach Eight-Figure Settlement with Trump, Agree to Editorial Changes Paramount Global and CBS have agreed to a major settlement with President Donald Trump, resolving a high-profile election interference lawsuit that centered around a controversial “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. The settlement, which includes an upfront payment of $16 million to Trump, may ultimately exceed $30 million when factoring in future allocations. According to sources familiar with the agreement, part of the settlement includes additional commitments by the network for future conservative-leaning content, such as advertisements or public service announcements. Fox News Digital reported that this mid-eight-figure allocation would support conservative causes, though Paramount leadership has reportedly disputed the characterization of these additional expenditures. CBS has also agreed to implement a significant change in its editorial standards, requiring the prompt release of full, unedited transcripts of all interviews with future presidential candidates. Those involved in the negotiations have referred to this new editorial protocol as the “Trump Rule.” “With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team told Fox News Digital. “CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle. President Trump will always ensure that no one gets away with lying to the American People as he continues on his singular mission to Make America Great Again.” Trump originally filed a $20 billion lawsuit against CBS, accusing the network of manipulating public perception through selective editing of Harris’ responses during a 2023 “60 Minutes” interview. In the disputed broadcast, correspondent Bill Whitaker asked Harris why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t “listening” to the Biden administration. A preview clip aired on CBS’ “Face the Nation” showed Harris giving what critics called a rambling “word salad” response. Later, however, during a primetime special, the network aired a more composed and articulate reply to the same question. Critics accused CBS of selectively editing Harris’ full answer in a way that protected her image just before the 2024 election. The raw footage and full transcript, released earlier this year by the FCC, revealed both clips came from the same response — with CBS airing only different segments at different times. Despite agreeing to the settlement, CBS has denied any journalistic misconduct. “The settlement will include a release of all claims regarding any CBS reporting through the date of the settlement, including the Texas action and the threatened defamation action,” Paramount said in a statement. The case proceeded to mediation, where both sides sought resolution, especially as Paramount Global prepared for a major merger with Skydance Media. Analysts speculated that Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, pushed for a swift resolution to avoid potential delays or retaliation from the FCC, which is led by Trump-appointed officials and holds authority over the pending merger. In an earlier post on Truth Social, Trump declared the case a sure win, writing: “They cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena. Kamala Harris, during Early Voting and, immediately before Election Day, was asked a question, and gave an answer, that was so bad and incompetent that it would have cost her many of the Votes that she ended up getting.” CBS’ long-time “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley had previously warned that any settlement in the case could be “very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies.” While the settlement ends the legal dispute, it leaves a significant mark on media policy and underscores Trump’s continued campaign against what he has repeatedly labeled “Fake News.” ABC also settled a defamation lawsuit in December with then-President-elect Trump for $15 million, after anchor George Stephanopoulos repeatedly and incorrectly asserted Trump had been found “liable for rape” in a civil trial last year. Adapted by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-07-03 -
0
USA UPenn ban trans athletes after probe involving swimmer Lia Thomas
The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to bar transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports after a federal investigation sparked by the participation of former swimmer Lia Thomas. The decision comes as part of a resolution with the U.S. Department of Education, which required the Ivy League school to both apologise and correct athletic records that were “misappropriated by male athletes.” In a statement announcing the agreement, the department confirmed that UPenn must revise records from the 2021–22 season “to indicate who would now hold the records under current eligibility guidelines.” The university has not yet clarified whether the records held by Thomas—who became the first openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I title in 2022—will be deleted entirely. Thomas' presence in collegiate swimming reignited a national debate over transgender inclusion in sports, especially following her dominant performances for UPenn’s women’s swim team after competing on the men’s team for three years. The university now says it will adopt “biology-based definitions” of male and female, a shift required under a recent executive order signed by President Donald Trump shortly after returning to office. “Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” said U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.” The Department of Education had previously launched several Title IX-related investigations into universities’ transgender policies, with UPenn among the most high-profile cases. Title IX is a 1972 federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational programs. Two months after initiating the investigation, the Trump administration temporarily withheld $175 million in federal funds from the university, citing its transgender athletics policy as the reason. UPenn defended its past policies by pointing out that they aligned with NCAA eligibility standards at the time. “We acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules,” the university said in a statement. “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.” Thomas began hormone therapy in 2019 before switching to compete on the women’s team, where she broke multiple school records and posted the fastest times for any female swimmer in the NCAA. She has since graduated and is no longer affiliated with the university’s athletics program. Despite the controversy, Thomas previously stressed that her decision to transition was deeply personal, not competitive. “The biggest misconception, I think, is the reason I transitioned,” she told ABC and ESPN in 2022. “People will say, ‘Oh, she just transitioned so she would have an advantage, so she could win.’ I transitioned to be happy, to be true to myself.” Last year, Thomas challenged World Aquatics’ ban on transgender women competing if they experienced any part of male puberty, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland dismissed her case. The Human Rights Campaign, a prominent LGBTQ+ advocacy group, condemned the agreement. “The American people deserve a White House that is laser focused on making sure every student thrives,” said spokesman Brandon Wolf. “Instead, this administration is obsessed with making young people’s lives harder and scapegoating transgender people so they can attack independent institutions.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-07-03 -
0
UK Starmer’s Rebellion Problem: Cracks in Labour Could Deepen Fast
Starmer’s Rebellion Problem: Cracks in Labour Could Deepen Fast Sir Keir Starmer may have narrowly sidestepped a humiliating Commons defeat over welfare reform, but the rebellion by 49 Labour MPs this week suggests far more serious trouble could be on the horizon. If political history is any guide, this is not just a bump in the road—it could be the start of a long and painful erosion of party discipline. At first, the scale of the revolt looked even more daunting. Reports suggested up to 120 Labour MPs might vote against the government over proposed disability benefit cuts—numbers that would have outstripped the early rebellions faced by Boris Johnson or Theresa May. In the end, Starmer retreated, scrapping the cuts before they could be voted on. That tactical withdrawal helped reduce the size of the rebellion, but it did little to mask the depth of the discontent. The episode evokes strong parallels with Sir Tony Blair’s own experience in 1997. Just seven months into his first term, Blair faced a rebellion of 47 Labour MPs over benefit changes for lone parents—a not entirely dissimilar controversy. Yet while the numbers are similar, the context is very different. Blair, at the time, enjoyed a net approval rating of +46. Starmer, by contrast, ends his first year in office with a dire approval score of -36. Worse still, Blair’s initial rebellion was a warning of more to come. In 1997, just 5% of Commons votes saw significant revolts of ten or more Labour MPs. But by 2000, that figure more than doubled, and by 2005, it reached 22%, a year marked by major rebellions on everything from terror laws to ID cards and even rail legislation. After a brief lull under Gordon Brown, dissent surged again as Labour’s hold on power slipped away. The Conservative experience offers a slightly different timeline, with internal tensions remaining somewhat managed—until the Brexit crisis of 2019. That year, party discipline effectively collapsed. In a third of all parliamentary votes, ten or more Tory MPs broke ranks—the highest rebellion rate on record. Starmer, like Blair before him, leads a “broad church” of Labour MPs, and history shows what happens when that coalition starts to fracture. The danger is particularly acute when the challenge comes from the left. Survation’s ideological mapping of the party showed a 31-point divide between the Labour Left and Right before the general election. That gap has now widened to 39. Starmer and his allies sit squarely in the centre-left, just like Blair. But the rebellion is building from the leftward edge of the party—and the more that wing feels sidelined, the bolder it may become. The Prime Minister’s challenge is not only internal. Voter opinion also paints a complicated picture. A recent poll revealed that a third of Labour voters in 2024 supported the proposed cuts to disability benefits that Starmer has now abandoned. Around 20% were unsure. That third who supported the plan could prove crucial at the next election. If disillusioned, they might not return to the Tories—but they could drift towards Reform UK, fracturing Labour’s fragile coalition of support. What this week’s events make clear is that Starmer’s struggle is not over—it may only just be beginning. If Labour’s internal divisions deepen and the public grows more uncertain of his leadership, Starmer could find himself fighting on two fronts: against his opponents, and against his own party. Just like Blair learned two decades ago, once the cracks start to show, holding everything together becomes exponentially harder. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-07-03
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts