-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
-
0
Trump sent US officials to meet UK pro-life activists over concerns their freedom of speech
The Trump administration has dispatched a team of diplomats to the UK to investigate what it views as a troubling erosion of free speech rights, particularly regarding pro-life activists. The five-person delegation from the US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor spent several days in the UK, conducting interviews and meetings to assess what officials described as the shrinking space for dissent. The visit was led by Samuel Samson, a senior adviser at the State Department, and included formal talks with Foreign Office officials and UK regulators like Ofcom, particularly around contentious elements of the Online Safety Act. But perhaps most controversially, the team held private meetings with several British pro-life campaigners who had been arrested for silently protesting near abortion clinics. These included Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Rose Docherty, Adam Smith-Connor, Livia Tossici-Bolt, and Catholic priest Father Sean Gough. Mrs Docherty, a 74-year-old grandmother, told The Telegraph she was the first person arrested under a new Scottish law creating buffer zones outside abortion clinics. She said, “All I did was stand peacefully offering consensual conversation to anyone who wanted to take up my offer to talk. I didn’t break the law, I didn’t influence, I didn’t harass, I didn’t intimidate. And yet, I was arrested just for standing there, peacefully, within 200m of a hospital. This can’t be just. It’s heartening that others around the world, including the US government, have realised this injustice and voiced their support.” Vaughan-Spruce, who was arrested in 2023 for praying silently outside a clinic in Birmingham, said, “Since I was arrested simply for the prayers I held in my head, the support from both here in the UK and around the world has been overwhelming. I’m glad that the US administration has highlighted this injustice and hope that UK politicians can be bold enough to make the changes necessary to restore freedom.” The Trump administration’s interest is not limited to these individual cases. Elon Musk, an adviser to Donald Trump and a vocal critic of online censorship, is reportedly among those inside the administration concerned about UK regulatory overreach. Officials also raised the issue of buffer zone laws with UK authorities during trade discussions, with a US source stating, “No free trade without free speech.” Adam Smith-Connor, an Army veteran who received a two-year conditional discharge for breaching a protest ban in Bournemouth, was cited by US Vice President JD Vance during a speech in Munich as an example of why “free speech in Britain and across Europe was in retreat.” The case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, who also received a conditional discharge and a £20,026 fine for praying within a buffer zone, reportedly alarmed US negotiators to the extent that it nearly derailed trade discussions. Her case, like the others, is being defended by the US-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal group. ADF legal counsel Lorcan Price said, “Because these peaceful individuals held thoughts and beliefs of which the state disapproved, they find themselves fighting to defend their very right to free thought. Now, fellow Western nations are noticing this erosion of freedom – and we should take heed. We hope our own legislators, witnessing this injustice impacting citizens, will step up to clarify that silent prayer, and consensual conversation, are lawful activities in this country.” Concerns from across the Atlantic extend beyond pro-life activism. Right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk raised the case of Lucy Connolly with the White House. Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor, was jailed for 31 months after posting a racist outburst on X following a knife attack by Axel Rudakubana that killed three girls in Southport. Her appeal was rejected, and critics claim her sentence exemplifies the imbalance in how speech is policed in the UK. Nigel Farage, a long-time Trump ally, commented, “The Lucy Connolly case alone shows that two-tier Britain is really here. My American friends cannot believe what is happening in the UK.” A spokesperson for the US State Department stated, “US-UK relations share a mutual respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, as Vice-President Vance has said, we are concerned about freedom of expression in the UK. It is important that the UK respects and protects freedom of expression.” The UK Cabinet Office has declined to comment on the matter. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-26 -
0
The Dangerous Cost of Modern Misinformation: From Trump’s Claims to Anti-Israel Narratives
The Dangerous Cost of Modern Misinformation: From Trump’s Claims to Anti-Israel Narratives In an era where information is more accessible and verifiable than ever before, it’s ironic—and troubling—that blatant misinformation continues to flourish, often perpetuated by influential public figures. The disinformation age isn't confined to authoritarian regimes; it's very much alive in democratic societies, where leaders face little consequence for spreading untruths. Donald Trump, with his well-documented disregard for facts, is a familiar example. But he is far from alone. This week, Trump orchestrated one of his typical Oval Office performances, confronting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with what he claimed was evidence of a genocide against white South African farmers. The visuals included dramatic imagery and supposed burial sites, intended to portray widespread killings. BBC Verify swiftly debunked the spectacle. What Trump presented as a mass grave was actually a temporary memorial for a single murdered farming couple, and a photo he brandished was, in fact, taken in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Although white farmers in South Africa do face violence, the BBC found no evidence to support Trump’s exaggerated claim of genocide—a conclusion they perhaps reached with added relish due to their institutional disdain for the former president. Yet while Trump’s fabrications may be familiar, misinformation is being spread with even more damaging consequences elsewhere. On Tuesday, the BBC’s flagship Today programme hosted Tom Fletcher, a former British diplomat now serving as the UN’s humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator. Fletcher, who has been critical of Israel for years, accused the country of using "starvation as a weapon of war." On air, he warned dramatically that “14,000 babies will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them,” should Israel not allow humanitarian food aid to pass. This apocalyptic assertion was not just wrong—it was absurd. Even if one were to wrongly assume that Israel alone was obstructing aid, it would be impossible to make such a precise prediction about mass infant deaths within a two-day window. The BBC later revisited Fletcher’s statement, explaining that he had based his claim on a report from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). However, the IPC had projected that 14,100 cases of acute malnutrition might occur over the course of a year if the current level of aid remained unchanged—not in 48 hours. Fletcher had wildly misrepresented the data. Still, no apology was issued, and no formal reprimand seems forthcoming. The impact of this exaggeration was immediate and widespread. In Parliament, 13 MPs parroted Fletcher’s false narrative while backing Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s criticisms of Israel. News outlets including the New York Times, NBC News, Time, The Guardian, and ABC cited Fletcher’s statement, with the BBC itself serving as the original source. As of Friday, Fletcher’s dramatic “14,000 babies” claim was still on the BBC’s website. Tom Gross, a veteran analyst of Israel-related media coverage, acknowledged the suffering in Gaza but noted, “I follow it incredibly closely, and so far as I can tell, no one has yet died of hunger in this conflict.” Despite this, starvation scares are a constant feature in BBC coverage of the war. Rarely is it mentioned that Israel is not blocking aid entirely, but rather working to ensure safer distribution. One initiative, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, aims to channel aid under foreign security oversight, with backing from the United States. Fletcher likely sees himself as morally righteous and may even feel emboldened by the attention his comments received. The BBC, seemingly sympathetic to his motives, has not held him accountable. But in Gaza, where the conflict is also waged through propaganda, such distortions have real consequences. Repeated accusations of “genocide” against Israel go beyond rhetorical excess—they dehumanize Israelis and by extension, Jews, evoking comparisons to Nazi atrocities. Tragically, these narratives can inspire real-world violence. In Washington DC on Thursday, a young Israeli couple, recently engaged, were murdered by an alleged member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation—an individual reportedly driven by radical anti-Israel ideology. The same sentiments echo across pro-Gaza marches in Britain, where slogans often blur into incitement. Labour, which counts many Muslims among its supporters, risks long-term consequences from indulging such delusions. Civil unrest and even terrorism could follow if this misinformation-fueled radicalization continues unchecked. At Policy Exchange this week, Jonathan Hall KC, the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, argued for a renewed focus on “subversion”—a concept the intelligence community once treated seriously. In France, Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau has just made public a report on the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence, including its connections to Hamas. Britain, meanwhile, continues to tolerate the likes of Tom Fletcher, whose misleading pronouncements face no scrutiny and no consequence. Related Topics: BBC Faces Backlash Over Alleged Bias in Coverage of White Farmer Killings in South Africa French Report Warns of Islamist Infiltration Threatening National Unity BBC Accused of Bias in Israel-Hamas Coverage: Over 1,500 Breaches of Guidelines Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-26 -
0
How a Three-Minute Placard Sparked an Eight-Month Legal Ordeal “two-tier policing in action”
Satire on Trial: How a Three-Minute Placard Sparked an Eight-Month Legal Ordeal A Jewish counter-protester who dared to mock Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah with a hand-drawn cartoon has finally been cleared, ending what he calls a “distressing” eight-month saga that exposed “two-tier policing in action”. The Londoner, who has asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons, spent fewer than three minutes on 20 September holding a sign that pictured Nasrallah clutching a pager above the words “beep, beep, beep” – a nod to Israel’s 1997 “Operation Grim Beeper”, in which explosives hidden in communications devices killed dozens of Hezbollah fighters. He was standing in Swiss Cottage alongside a multi-faith group protesting a larger pro-Palestinian march. Police did not arrest him that day, but when he returned to the same spot a week later two vans and six officers arrived. They searched his home – even, he says, rifling through his partner’s underwear drawer – then held him overnight at Islington police station and charged him under the Public Order Act with racially or religiously aggravated harassment. “It beggars belief that police could think this placard might offend supporters of Hezbollah,” he told The Telegraph. “If Hezbollah sympathisers were really present, why weren’t they facing terror charges instead of me?” Interview footage shows an officer pressing him: “Do you think that showing this image to persons protesting who are clearly pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel would stir up racial hatred further than it is already?” His lawyer, Carl Woolf, replied incredulously, “Are you saying there were pro-Hezbollah people there? It is a proscribed terrorist organisation.” The incident fuelled accusations that the Metropolitan Police are harsher on pro-Israel speech than on overt support for extremist causes. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp called it “two-tier policing in action”, adding that officers “sometimes turn a blind eye when confronted with protesters calling for jihad, yet over-police at other times. The law should be applied equally to all – that is not what happened here.” Peers echoed the criticism. Lord Walney, a former government extremism adviser, said intervening “on the side of supporters of a proscribed terrorist organisation is grotesque” and urged the Met to apologise if the man’s account is upheld. Lord Austin, previously investigated for labelling Hamas “Islamists” online, remarked, “It beggars belief that someone would be arrested and charged because a sign might upset supporters of Islamist terrorists, rather than action being taken against the terror supporters themselves.” Confronted with the video, the Met later insisted the interviewing officer had “misspoke” by describing demonstrators as pro-Hezbollah when she meant pro-Palestinian, and promised to “reflect on the CPS decision” to drop the case. Prosecutors finally abandoned proceedings on 10 May, citing insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. The counter-protester learned the news with relief: “I didn’t realise how relieved I was until I heard I wasn’t going to court.” His ordeal comes amid wider concern about anti-Semitic hate and police tactics since Hamas’s 7 October attacks. The same September afternoon, a pro-Palestinian activist was filmed near the Israeli ambassador’s home shouting “I love the 7th of October.” He was arrested under terrorism legislation but never charged; Scotland Yard says it is still contesting that decision with the Crown Prosecution Service. For the Jewish protester, the takeaway is grim: “The Met are still out of their depth policing the hate marches we’ve seen week in, week out. Political satire shouldn’t land you in a cell.” Yet, with the case closed, he hopes at least one lesson is clear: mocking a terrorist is not a crime in Britain. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-26 -
0
Trump Administration Targets New Jersey Cities Over Immigration Stance
Trump Administration Targets New Jersey Cities Over Immigration Stance In a move that intensified the national debate over immigration enforcement, the Trump administration filed a federal lawsuit against four New Jersey cities—Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken—accusing them of obstructing federal immigration efforts through their sanctuary policies. The Justice Department lodged the suit in New Jersey’s federal court, seeking a judgment that would prevent the municipalities from continuing what the administration characterizes as interference with federal authority. “While states and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way,” the lawsuit declares, emphasizing that federal immigration enforcement cannot be impeded by local ordinances or policy decisions. This legal action represents another chapter in the Trump administration’s ongoing battle against so-called sanctuary cities. Prior to targeting these New Jersey locations, the administration had already taken legal action against cities such as Chicago, Denver, and Rochester, as well as the entire state of Colorado. While there is no single legal definition of a sanctuary city, the term is generally used to describe jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE, which enforces immigration law nationwide, often seeks help from local agencies in civil immigration cases. Sanctuary policies, however, typically prohibit this cooperation unless ICE provides a judicial criminal warrant. These policies do not interfere with cooperation on criminal enforcement matters, but according to the lawsuit, the four New Jersey cities failed to notify ICE even when criminal arrests were made. In response, local leaders denounced the lawsuit and defended their policies. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who is a Democratic gubernatorial hopeful, dismissed the administration’s claims. “The lawsuit against Newark is absurd. We are not standing in the way of public safety,” Baraka said in an emailed statement. He argued that residents are more inclined to report crimes when they are not living in fear of deportation. Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh expressed similar resolve. “We will not be intimidated,” he stated via text, describing the lawsuit as “an egregious attempt to score political points at Paterson’s expense.” Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla also rejected the administration’s actions, reaffirming the city’s inclusive values. “The City of Hoboken will vigorously work to defend our rights, have our day in court, and defeat the Trump Administration’s lawlessness. To be clear: we will not back down,” he said in a statement. All four mayors are Democrats and have consistently supported immigrant-friendly policies. Their city-level directives align closely with a statewide order issued by New Jersey’s Attorney General in 2018. Known as the Immigrant Trust Directive, it restricts local police from assisting federal immigration authorities, underscoring a broader state commitment to limiting involvement in federal immigration enforcement. Although the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals previously upheld the legality of New Jersey’s statewide directive, it remains uncertain how this decision might influence the federal government’s case against the individual cities. The outcome could set new legal precedents regarding the extent to which local governments can chart their own course on immigration policy within the bounds of federal law. Adapted by ASEAN Now from AP 2025-05-26 -
0
European Leaders Demand ECHR Reform to Regain Control Over Migration Policies
European Leaders Demand ECHR Reform to Regain Control Over Migration Policies A growing coalition of European leaders is calling for reforms to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that it is preventing nations from protecting their borders and effectively managing migration. Led by Italy and Denmark, a group of eight countries has issued an open letter demanding greater national autonomy in expelling criminal migrants and enforcing stricter asylum policies. The letter, also signed by Poland, Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic, expresses deep frustration with how the ECHR has interpreted the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights. It states, “We have seen cases concerning the expulsion of criminal foreign nationals, where the interpretation of the convention has resulted in the protection of the wrong people and posed too many limitations on the states’ ability to decide whom to expel from their territories.” At a joint press conference in Rome, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen emphasized that their citizens are losing faith in the ability of governments to manage immigration. “We don’t have much time, in almost all European countries people believe the situation is out of control,” said Frederiksen. Meloni added that the time had come for a “courageous reflection” on the convention, stressing that it has led to scenarios “when the convention is applied and states are not allowed to protect citizens by expelling immigrants accused of serious crimes.” While the letter acknowledges the positive contributions of many migrants who have embraced European values and integrated into society, it also warns about the emergence of “parallel societies.” It states, “Others have come and chosen not to integrate, isolating themselves in parallel societies and distancing themselves from our fundamental values of equality, democracy and freedom.” The letter further argues that although the principles enshrined in the European Convention are timeless, the current scale of global migration requires new approaches. “The world has changed fundamentally since many of our ideas were conceived in the ashes of the great wars. The ideas themselves are universal and everlasting. However, we now live in a globalised world where people migrate across borders on a completely different scale. What was once right might not be the answer of tomorrow.” The European Court of Human Rights has recently been at the centre of several high-profile cases that have angered national governments. It has ruled against Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland over their treatment of migrants and has pressured Denmark to relax restrictions on family reunification for migrants. In Italy, a court blocked Meloni’s plan to create a migrant processing centre in Albania, a case that has now been referred to the European Court of Justice. In the UK, the ECHR prevented the first flight carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda as part of a controversial offshore asylum processing plan. In response to what they see as external interference in national migration policies, the signatories of the letter are calling for “more room” for national decision-making, particularly in light of what they describe as the “instrumentalisation” of migration by hostile states like Russia and Belarus. These countries have been accused of deliberately directing migrant flows toward EU borders as a form of geopolitical pressure. Poland, for example, suspended the right to claim asylum at parts of its border in response to a surge in migrant crossings. The letter concludes with a warning and a commitment: “We have to restore the right balance. And our countries will co-operate to further this ambition. Although our aim is to safeguard our democracies, we will likely be accused of the opposite.” This push comes as tighter controls across the continent have already led to a 38 per cent drop in irregular border crossings into the EU last year, with 239,000 cases detected, according to the EU’s border agency, Frontex. In a symbolic shift, Germany recently reversed the 2015 policy under Angela Merkel that allowed hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers into the country—a move widely seen as a catalyst for mass migration to Europe. Merkel, however, has defended her decisions, warning that unilateral actions by EU members could threaten the Schengen zone. “Otherwise Europe could be destroyed,” she said at a recent public event, calling instead for a unified strategy to secure the EU’s external borders. As the debate intensifies, the future role of the ECHR in shaping European migration policy hangs in the balance, with growing pressure from national governments to reclaim authority over who can stay—and who must go. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-26
-
-
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