.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
30
Study indicates strong correlation between COVID and IQ
??? Many employers made it a mandatory condition to keep your job with them. Same for many universities/high schools requiring Covid-vaccination to enroll in their causes or sportive activities. They need to be made accountable for the harm they caused (but, but, just following orders from the authorities...). -
182
China tells airlines to suspend Boeing jet deliveries
A red herring? I don't think so. Powell says what he says for public consumption. He has to at least appear to be doing his job. Privately, it's another matter. Fed officials have made no secret about it - they will step in, if necessary, to support the bond market in the case of an impending crackup. In other words, the Fed put is there, as always. Trump doesn't need to cajole Powell into lowering interest rates. They'll do it gladly, when the time comes. And that means Trump has free reign to do what he wants, if he can stay away from the Wall Street people who are there to keep him inbounds. Don't think the outcome is a forgone conclusion at this point. That's what makes Trump so "dangerous." Nobody knows what he'll do next. He seems to think that's a good negotiating tactic. I remember Trump was once explaining certain foreign policy negotiations the occurred during his first term, when he brought along the Neocon, John Bolton. People on the other side of the table didn't know what to think. Negotiate with Trump, or risk the crazy Neocon? The uncertainty worked in Trump's favor. -
7
Why, Oh Why: has the Left turned on Elon? No more gravy-train?
There are many more naysayers than one against that person. -
0
Vietnam Expands Aircraft Import Options to Enhance Aviation Flexibility
File photo for reference only In a significant policy shift aimed at increasing flexibility and international collaboration within its aviation sector, Vietnam has announced a new government decree allowing a broader array of aircraft types to be imported. This decision marks a departure from previous restrictions and opens up opportunities for Vietnamese airlines to operate a wider variety of aircraft. Under the new decree, aircraft certified by several international aviation authorities, including the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and other global agencies from Brazil, Canada, Russia, the U.K., China, and Vietnam, are now eligible for import. This is a notable expansion from the earlier rule, established in 2016 and amended in 2019, which restricted imports to aircraft certified only by the FAA, EASA, or Vietnamese authorities. The Ministry of Construction underscores that the previous limitations hindered Vietnamese airlines from accessing diverse aircraft models designed by nations with advanced technological capabilities. The ministry believes these amendments will empower Vietnamese airlines by providing greater access to innovative aircraft, thereby facilitating more efficient aircraft procurement and operations management. By broadening its certification acceptance list, Vietnam aims to bolster its aviation industry's international cooperation and strengthen ties with global partners, fostering growth and advancement in the nation's aviation capabilities. This development is expected to enhance Vietnamese airlines' competitiveness and operational flexibility on the global stage, reported VN Express. -- 2025-04-16 -
22
Opinion Why the White House Must Double Down on DEI in Education
Too many MAGAmaniacs cannot separate distaste/hate of Trump with hate of the USA. I am strongly against what Trump is doing to the world order and initially it made no difference to my longstanding love of the USA. Unfortunately that is dissipating at an alarming late not just from me but from many countries and their populations around the world. -
0
UK Supreme Court Rules ‘Woman’ Means Biological Female, in Landmark Decision
UK Supreme Court Rules ‘Woman’ Means Biological Female, in Landmark Decision Britain’s Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of the word “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers exclusively to biological females, delivering a resounding win for gender-critical feminist campaigners and sparking serious concern among transgender rights activists. In a unanimous ruling delivered Wednesday, Deputy President of the Supreme Court Patrick Hodge stated, “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.” The ruling was quickly hailed as a landmark moment by advocates who argue that biological sex is fixed and legally significant, particularly when it comes to protecting women-only spaces and services. Meanwhile, transgender activists voiced alarm, warning the decision could strip trans individuals of essential legal protections. The judgment could have far-reaching consequences across the UK, particularly for single-sex services in England, Scotland, and Wales. These include services such as women’s refuges, hospital wards, and sports clubs — all of which may now have firmer legal grounds to exclude trans women, even those who hold Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs), from spaces intended for biological females. The UK government welcomed the ruling, calling it a source of “clarity and confidence” for women and those responsible for running gender-specific services. “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” a government spokesperson said in a statement after the ruling. Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said the decision addressed real challenges facing those trying to maintain single-sex provisions. “The judgement has addressed challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations,” Falkner said. The ruling stems from a years-long legal battle brought by For Women Scotland, a campaign group that argues sex is biological, binary, and immutable. The case challenged changes introduced by the Scottish government to legislation governing gender balance on public boards. Back in 2018, under the leadership of then-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish government introduced gender quotas in an effort to increase female representation on public boards. However, in its implementation, the legislation was broadened to include trans women with gender recognition certificates under the category of “women.” For Women Scotland challenged that interpretation, arguing that it diluted the meaning of womanhood and conflicted with existing legal definitions under the UK-wide Equality Act. The Supreme Court agreed. In a pointed rebuke of the Scottish government’s guidance, the court said: “Therefore, a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the female gender does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish ministers is incorrect.” Transgender rights advocates have been quick to voice alarm. They argue that the ruling undermines years of hard-won legal recognition and could lead to widespread uncertainty about the rights and protections available to trans people in public life. Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman called the court’s decision “deeply concerning” for the state of human rights in the UK. “This is a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society,” she said, warning that it could leave many trans individuals “deeply anxious and worried about how their lives will be affected and about what will come next.” Chapman’s party, which shares power in the Scottish Parliament as part of a coalition with the SNP, has previously championed trans rights reforms, including efforts to simplify legal gender recognition. Meanwhile, the opposition Conservative Party and gender-critical feminists have celebrated the ruling as a validation of long-standing concerns over what they say is the erasure of sex-based rights. Kemi Badenoch, a former equalities minister and now leader of the opposition Conservatives, was among the most vocal supporters of the judgment. “This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious,” she said. “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either.” The debate over how the law should define sex and gender identity has grown increasingly intense in the UK in recent years, polarising public opinion and dividing political parties. Activists on both sides of the debate have complained of facing harassment and threats as discussions around gender identity and women’s rights have become increasingly fraught. Transgender people in the UK can still legally change their gender on official documents through a GRC, but critics argue that current legal frameworks remain confusing and inconsistent — particularly when it comes to the intersection of UK-wide laws like the Equality Act and devolved policies, such as those pursued by the Scottish government. Supporters of the ruling argue that, rather than denying rights to trans individuals, it merely reasserts the original intent and wording of the Equality Act. They say this clarity is crucial to ensuring that sex-based rights — especially for women — are not undermined or redefined without public debate or parliamentary scrutiny. For Women Scotland said it was “delighted” by the ruling and described it as a “vindication” of their long-standing position. “We have said all along that the definition of woman in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. This ruling confirms that and affirms the rights of women to single-sex spaces and protections under the law,” a spokesperson for the group said. The Scottish government has yet to indicate whether it will seek to challenge or amend its policies in light of the judgment. It had previously argued that trans women with legal recognition should be treated as women in public life, a position now legally untenable under the Equality Act following the Supreme Court's interpretation. Legal experts say the ruling could be cited in future court cases involving access to single-sex services, women’s sports, and the rights of organisations to exclude individuals on the basis of biological sex. Based on a report by Politico 2025-04-16- 1
-
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
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