Head of Boeing 737 MAX programme out amid safety concerns at planemaker
Ed Clark oversaw the Renton factory where the Alaska Airlines plane involved in blowout was completed. The head of Boeing’s troubled 737 MAX programme has left the planemaker, according to a company memo, amid scrutiny around production and safety measures following a mid-air blowout on a plane last month. The company also reshuffled its leadership team at the Commercial Airplanes division, according to the memo sent to staff by Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) CEO Stan Deal and first reported by the Seattle Times on Wednesday. Ed Clark, an 18-year Boeing veteran who was vice president of the MAX programme, will leave the company, the memo said. The Seattle Times reported that he had been pushed out. Clark is being replaced by Katie Ringgold as vice president and general manager, according to the memo. Boeing has been scrambling to explain and strengthen its safety procedures after the January accident on a brand new Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9, in which a cabin panel became detached and flew off in midair. Clark was general manager at the company’s factory in Renton, Washington, where the plane involved in the accident was completed. In the memo, Deal said the leadership changes were intended to drive BCA’s “enhanced focus on ensuring that every airplane we deliver meets or exceeds all quality and safety requirements”, The Seattle Times reported. The leadership changes come in advance of Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun’s planned meeting with US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) Administrator Mike Whitaker next week after the regulator travelled to Renton to tour the Boeing 737 plant. The FAA grounded the MAX 9 for several weeks in January and has capped Boeing’s production of the MAX while it audits the planemaker’s manufacturing process. The door panel that flew off the jet appeared to be missing four key bolts, according to a preliminary report from the US National Safety Transportation Board in early February. According to the report, the door plug in question was removed to repair rivet damage, but the NTSB has not found evidence the bolts were re-installed. The panel is a plug on some 737 MAX 9s instead of an additional emergency exit. This is the second crisis involving Boeing in recent years, after two crashes of MAX planes that killed 346 people. Adblock test (Why?)
Zelenskyy invites Poland’s leaders to border to resolve farmers’ protests
Polish farmers have been protesting Ukrainian food imports, angry at what they say is unfair competition. Ukraine’s president has invited Polish leaders to meet him at their shared border to resolve a blockade by Polish farmers protesting Ukrainian food imports. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on social media on Wednesday that he hoped the proposed border meeting for him, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and a European Union representative could happen before the two-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Saturday, February 24. “This is national security,” Zelenskyy said. “I am ready to be at the border with our government.” “We have had enough misunderstanding. We should not humiliate each other; we should not humiliate either Ukrainian or Polish farmers. We need unity. We need solutions – between us, Ukraine and Poland, and at the level of the whole of Europe,” Zelenskyy said in a statement. There was no immediate reaction from the Polish government. Zelenskyy added that Ukraine could not accept the appearance of slogans supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin at the protests, after one such banner was displayed on Tuesday. Earlier, Polish authorities voiced concern over the slogans praising Putin and his war against Ukraine. Poland, a member of NATO and the European Union, has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion, accepting unlimited numbers of refugees and providing Ukraine with weaponry. Poles, with past oppression by Moscow rooted deeply in generational memory, are largely supportive of Ukraine. But tensions have been growing as Polish farmers blame imports of Ukrainian grain and other food for pushing down prices and harming their livelihoods. Polish farmers are among farmers across Europe who have been protesting competition from Ukraine as well as EU environmental policies, which they say will increase their production costs. On Tuesday they staged a major day of protest, blocking almost all traffic on the border with Ukraine, angering Kyiv, in an escalation from previous demonstrations. ‘Under the influence of Russian agents’ Earlier Wednesday, Poland’s Foreign Ministry said it believed that extreme groups were trying to take over the protest movement “perhaps under the influence of Russian agents”. It noted “with the greatest concern the appearance of anti-Ukrainian slogans and slogans praising Vladimir Putin and the war he is waging”. On Tuesday, a tractor at a protest in the southern Polish region of Silesia carried a Soviet flag and a banner that said: “Putin, put things in order with Ukraine, Brussels, and our rulers.” A photograph was published by the Gazeta Wyborcza daily. Poland’s Interior Minister Marcin Kierwinski called the banner “scandalous” and said it was immediately secured by police, and prosecutors were investigating. “There will be no consent to such criminal activities,” he said. The public promotion of a totalitarian system can be punished with up to three years in prison under Polish law. The Foreign Ministry called on protest organisers “to identify and eliminate from their movement” the initiators, arguing it was necessary for Poland’s interest. “The current situation of Polish farmers is the result of Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine and the disruption of the global economy, not because Ukrainians are defending themselves against the aggression,” the ministry said. Polish farmers blocked eight major roads on Wednesday. Police said protests continued at border crossings to Ukraine in Medyka and Korczowa, but passenger traffic was smooth and some trucks were also being let through. Adblock test (Why?)
UK parliament speaker gives Labour Gaza ceasefire vote reprieve
The UK’s House of Commons has descended into chaos as the government and the Scottish National Party (SNP) condemned Speaker Lindsay Hoyle for his handling of a key vote on support for a ceasefire in Gaza. SNP members of parliament (MPs) and some Conservatives walked out of the chamber on Wednesday in an apparent protest at the speaker’s actions as the debate reached its conclusion. Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt claimed Hoyle had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence” of the House in its longstanding rules by allowing MPs to vote on a Labour amendment to an SNP motion calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza and Israel. The initial SNP motion also called for an end to the “collective punishment of the Palestinian people” by Israel. But Labour’s motion included language that caveated calls for a ceasefire by noting that “Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence”. It had been expected that Hoyle would prioritise a government amendment to the SNP motion, which sought an “immediate humanitarian pause” – and not a ceasefire – to Israel’s war on Gaza. However, by instead prioritising the opposition Labour Party’s rival motion, Hoyle was accused of breaking precedent. More importantly, the decision allowed Labour to avoid a potentially damaging split over the SNP motion, with some Labour MPs willing to support it, but party leadership telling its parliamentarians not to vote for it without the Labour amendment. The number of Labour MPs willing to vote against the directive from party leader Keir Starmer would likely have led to the biggest revolt against his leadership since he became leader of the opposition in 2020. Instead, by bringing the Labour motion forward, Hoyle gave potential rebels the opportunity to support their party leadership instead of the SNP, while still backing a ceasefire – even if the motion’s language was less blunt than the Scottish party’s. Israel’s assault on Gaza has led to a damaging split within Labour ahead of what many observers believe will be a return to power for the party in the next UK general elections, which must be held before the end of January next year. Much of the party’s traditional voter base, and previous leader Jeremy Corbyn, are vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause. But, with Starmer attempting to move away from Corbyn’s legacy, the man regarded as prime minister in waiting has avoided heavy criticism of Israel and has been accused of ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. This is an absolute disgrace. Labour and the government have managed to turn what should have been a solemn vote on ending the killing in Gaza into a spectacle. They should be completely ashamed. — Rohan Talbot (@rohantalbot) February 21, 2024 Speaker denies accusations SNP MPs were understood to have headed to the voting lobby after the walkout from the chamber. Ian Blackford, an SNP MP, told Al Jazeera that the day’s events in parliament had distracted from events in Gaza and made the eventual vote less impactful. “[The Labour Party] came up with this proposition that allowed them to have a vote, and the purpose of that – particularly when the government party [the Conservatives] wouldn’t participate in it – meant that our meaningful vote … wasn’t taken,” Blackford said. “I regret that tonight we’re having to discuss this, rather than discuss the need of protecting the people in Gaza that need that ceasefire to take place.” One Conservative MP, William Wragg, has brought forward a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in the speaker, a sign of the anger of some parliamentarians at what is perceived to be a deviation from the speaker’s traditionally neutral role. Hoyle returned to the House of Commons later in the evening and apologised. “I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House,” Hoyle said. “It is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decision didn’t end up in the place that I wished.” According to Al Jazeera’s Harry Fawcett, reporting from London, Hoyle denied favouring “one set of politicians over the other”. “It has ended in this real farce,” Fawcett added. “The Labour amendment [went] through because no Conservatives took part in the vote. The SNP motion, which began the whole story, was not voted on at all; the SNP and Conservatives are furious.” “Keir Starmer [and] his Labour Party have kind of gotten out of a sticky mess, but it leaves parliament looking extremely compromised. What was a serious debate about this crucial issue about civilian life in Gaza has ended in this procedural nightmare.” Adblock test (Why?)
Why has the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos are ‘children’?
The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law, a decision that has drawn criticism from the White House and the top US infertility association. Here is more about last week’s ruling and its implications for fertility treatment in Alabama. What has the Alabama court ruled about embryos? Three couples filed a lawsuit against a fertility clinic after their frozen embryos for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) were destroyed. The embryos, stored in a cryogenic nursery, were destroyed by a patient who wandered into the nursery and accidentally dropped several of them on the floor. A lower court ruled the embryos could not be defined as people or children and dismissed the wrongful death claim. However, in a 7-2 ruling, the all-Republican Alabama Supreme Court disagreed. Citing Bible verses and an 1872 state law called the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, Justice Jay Mitchell declared parents may sue over the death of a child regardless of whether the child is born or unborn. Mitchell said the court had previously ruled that fetuses killed while a woman is pregnant are covered under the same act and nothing excludes “extrauterine children from the act’s coverage”. What are frozen embryos? IVF is an assisted reproduction method in which eggs are removed from the ovaries and fertilised with sperm outside the body. The resulting embryos can be frozen through a process called cryopreservation and then saved for later use. The embryos can be placed in a woman’s uterus to cause pregnancy. This treatment method is used by couples who have been unable to conceive due to health issues in either the male or female partner. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says a person is a citizen when they are born. This implies an unborn fetus does not have the same rights as a citizen. In the 1970s, lawyers representing Texas in the landmark Roe v Wade abortion case before the US Supreme Court argued that a fetus is a person, entitled to the rights detailed under the 14th Amendment. In 1973, the court ruled that Texas was wrong and the constitution protected a right to abortion. However, when Roe v Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, many states quickly introduced laws to ban abortion. Not all these abortion laws establish fetal personhood or the idea that fetuses have the same rights as fully developed, born children. Many also do not specify if an embryo, which does not develop into a fetus until the end of the 10th week of pregnancy, is included in this. Now, it seems, Alabama has decided it should be. What are critics of the ruling saying? The Alabama ruling is “a cause of great concern for anyone that cares about people’s reproductive rights and abortion care”, said Dana Sussman, deputy executive director of Pregnancy Justice, an advocacy organisation for reproductive rights. She called the decision a “natural extension of the march toward fetal personhood”. The Medical Association of the State of Alabama warned in a brief to the court of the possible detrimental impact of the ruling on IVF treatment in Alabama. The ruling could possibly substantially increase the costs associated with IVF, it explained. The fear of being sued may result in Alabama’s fertility clinics closing and fertility specialists moving to other states, potentially making fertility treatments such as IVF inaccessible to people in Alabama. Could this ruling have an impact on reproductive healthcare in Alabama? The ruling could potentially impact fertility treatments and the freezing of embryos, which had previously been considered property by the courts. “This ruling is stating that a fertilised egg, which is a clump of cells, is now a person. It really puts into question the practice of IVF,” Barbara Collura, CEO of Resolve: The National Infertility Association, told The Associated Press. In a statement, Resolve described the decision as a “terrifying development for the 1-in-6 people impacted by infertility” who could be helped by in vitro fertilisation. As an immediate result of the ruling, at least one Alabama fertility clinic has been instructed by their affiliated hospital to pause IVF treatment, according to Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Dr Paula Amato, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said a decision to treat frozen fertilised eggs as the legal equivalent of a child or gestating fetus could limit the availability of modern health care. “No healthcare provider will be willing to provide treatments if those treatments may lead to civil or criminal charges,” Amato said. “Without IVF, I would have to probably go through several more miscarriages before I even had an option of having a baby that is my own,” said 26-year-old Gabby Goidel, who had been pursuing IVF treatment in Alabama. What is the ethical case? While some Americans believe that embryos are children, many researchers, scientists, doctors and academics do not agree. Ethics studies assert that what makes us human is our brain, which gives us consciousness. “The fertilised egg is a clump of cells with no brain,” wrote Michael S Gazzaniga, a cognitive neuroscience professor at Dartmouth College, in his book The Ethical Brain. Gazzaniga added that no sustainable or complex nervous system is in place until about six months of gestation. Jonathan Crane, a professor of bioethics and Jewish thought at the Center for Ethics at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, said in an interview with an Ohio publication in 2018 that embryos are not equivalent to humans and can develop into fetuses only inside the uterus. How have reproductive healthcare laws affected other states? After Roe v Wade was overturned, 24 US states had enacted laws designed to ban all or nearly all abortions by January 2023. In North Dakota and Wisconsin, abortion is not available at all, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a global research organisation for reproductive rights. While the overturning of Roe v Wade brought a storm of abortion bans across the US, it
Israeli parliament backs Netanyahu’s rejection of a Palestinian state
Lawmakers vote to support PM’s rejection of any ‘unilateral’ recognition of a Palestinian state. Israeli lawmakers have voted to back Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of any “unilateral” recognition of a Palestinian state as international calls have grown for the revival of Palestinian statehood negotiations. Wednesday’s symbolic declaration, issued during Israel’s war on Gaza, also received backing from members of the opposition with 99 of 120 lawmakers voting in support, a Knesset spokesperson said. The Israeli position is that any permanent accord with the Palestinians must be reached through direct negotiations between the two sides and not by international dictates. That is despite Netanyahu openly stating his opposition to a Palestinian state, and presenting himself to the Israeli public as a bulwark against any such state. No talks on Palestinian statehood talks have been held since 2014, when Israel refused to accept a state encompassing all of the Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel. “The Knesset came together in an overwhelming majority against the attempt to impose on us the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would not only fail to bring peace but would endanger the state of Israel,” Netanyahu said. The vote was condemned by the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, which accused Israel of holding the rights of the Palestinian people hostage by occupation of territories where Palestinians seek to establish a state. “The ministry reaffirms that the State of Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations and its recognition by other nations does not require permission from Netanyahu,” it said in a statement. Willem Marx, reporting from occupied East Jerusalem, said that over the past few weeks, there have been calls from senior figures worldwide for Palestinian statehood to be recognised as part of any long-term agreement to bring the current bloodshed to an end. “What we saw just a few days ago from Israel’s cabinet was a vote that was symbolic, saying that they would reject the establishment, the recognition of a Palestinian state if it was forced upon Israel from outside of Israel,” Marx said, referring to the international pressure on Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and agree to a two-state solution. “In terms of the symbolism [regarding Wednesday’s parliamentary vote], this was designed as a message from Netanyahu, as he made clear, to send to the world that Israelis are united on this specific issue of Palestinian statehood being imposed upon them by external powers.” Little progress has been made towards achieving a two-state solution – establishing a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza alongside Israel – since the signing of the interim Oslo Accords in the early 1990s. Among the obstacles impeding Palestinian statehood are expanding illegal Israeli settlements in territories Israel captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. The settlements, which in many areas cut Palestinian communities off from each other, are regarded as a violation of international law. The two-state solution has long been a core Western policy in the region. Since the outbreak in October of the latest Gaza war, the United States has been trying to promote steps towards the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a broader Middle East deal that would include Saudi Arabia and other Arab states officially normalising relations with Israel. However, many critics point out that Israel’s actions towards Palestinians – most notably the expansion of the settlements – has made any prospect of a sovereign Palestinian state impossible and a one-state future, whether that be a continuation of the occupation or a state with equal rights for all, more of a reality. Adblock test (Why?)
Haley’s campaign a giant step for GOP women, but bigger still for Trump
With polls showing Nikki Haley trailing Donald Trump by a wide margin heading into this weekend’s South Carolina Republican primary, many political analysts characterise the vote as Haley’s last stand in her quixotic bid to win the party’s 2024 presidential nomination. Regardless of the result, however, scholars have said that Haley’s campaign is a historic one. By outdistancing a field dominated by men to effectively challenge the immensely popular Trump, she has moved women one step closer to political parity in electoral politics. Polls indicate that Trump is leading Haley by as many as 36 percentage points heading into Saturday’s South Carolina primary, even though Haley is a native and former governor of the Palmetto State. And while winning the South Carolina primary would open the door for Trump to capture the party’s nomination outright when 15 states hold their primaries simultaneously next month, Haley’s campaign has, at least in theory, charted a path to remain in the race until Super Tuesday, which could give the former United Nations ambassador an advantage in the 2028 presidential ballot. Haley, for her part, has pledged to remain in the race despite the odds. Speaking at her alma mater, Clemson University, on Tuesday, she said, “Some of you — perhaps a few of you in the media — came here today to see if I’m dropping out of the race,” she said. “Well, I’m not. Far from it.” Haley’s emergence as the last woman standing in what was a crowded race stands in stark contrast to candidates like former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and ex-Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who styled themselves as “anti-Trump” candidates. Conversely, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis hewed close to Trump in both style and substance before dropping out in January, after failing to distinguish himself from the frontrunner and presumptive nominee. Haley, on the other hand, has staked out a middle ground, portraying herself as a would-be “accountant” in the White House, and consequently a calming alternative to Trump’s four years of “chaos”. Initially circumspect in her criticism, Haley has turned up the heat as the GOP field has narrowed, attacking Trump’s efforts to insert loyalists in the Republican National Convention, highlighting his rising stack of legal troubles, and taking more direct aim at Trump’s “insecurity” and temper tantrums. Her policy proposals, however, are not substantively different from her former boss, and as recently as this month, Haley told reporters in South Carolina that her campaign is not an “anti-Trump movement”, according to the Washington Post. Part of Haley’s strategy is to walk a tightrope when it comes to addressing her gender and Indian ancestry in a modern Republican party that is slow to change, Kelly Dittmar, director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, told Al Jazeera. For instance, Dittmar said that Haley has, in many ways, leaned into her role as the rare woman in a Republican presidential race, but she has not necessarily portrayed gender as a “point of merit”, underscoring the conservative “idea that somehow hearing about gender and racial identity is anti-meritocratic … and [Republicans] don’t play into identity politics.” “If you go back to Hillary Clinton in 2016, she used to say, ‘I’m not asking you to vote for me because I’m a woman, I’m asking you to vote for me on the merits. But one of those merits is I’m a woman,’” Dittmar said. In contrast, Haley has used gendered imagery to boost “masculine credentials” and an image of male toughness that still resonates in the party, repeatedly referring to her high-heeled shoes as “ammunition”. In the advertisement launching her campaign, she proclaimed, “When you kick back, it hurts them more if you’re wearing heels.” Moreover, on the issue of race, Haley has tacked to the right, consistent with Trump’s own views, sparking controversy by failing to cite slavery as a reason for the US Civil War. And she has repeated a regular Republican line, most recently in an interview in late January. “I don’t think America’s racist,” she said. “I think we have racism in America.” A historical benchmark In turn, Trump’s attacks on Haley suggest that there remains a tolerance – if not appetite – for racism and sexism among his supporters, Dittmar said. In January, Trump referred to Haley as “birdbrained” and “not presidential timber”. Trump has amplified the conspiracy that Haley, who is of Indian descent, was not born in the US, redolent of a tactic known as “birtherism” which he championed during Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, falsely alleging that the nation’s first African American president was born in Kenya, and was therefore ineligible to run for president. The former president has also referred to Haley as “Nimbra”, an apparent debasement of her first name, Nimarata (Nikki, the name she uses, is her middle name). Many have said that Trump’s remarks are hardly surprising for a candidate who had previously bragged about sexually assaulting women, derided his 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton as a “nasty woman” who did not look presidential and suggested in 2015 that a female debate moderator had “blood coming out of her whatever”. While such attacks have come to be seen as part and parcel of a Trump campaign, Dittmar noted that studies have regularly indicated high measures of “hostile sexism” and “racial resentment” among his supporters. “It is not surprising that Trump would use sexist or racist language or strategies, because that’s actually been beneficial for him to mobilise a lot of these voters,” Dittmar told Al Jazeera. “[Nikki Haley] brings that out, but perhaps to his advantage, at least among his base”. Haley has fought back, launching the National Women for Nikki Coalition, a 50-state effort that many see as a last-ditch effort to energise the voting bloc. And while it may ultimately be a matter of too little, too late, Haley’s staying power in the race represents a historical benchmark for a political party that has traditionally been dominated by white men. And
US lawyers urge UK court to block Julian Assange extradition appeal bid
London court deciding if WikiLeaks founder should have further opportunities to argue his case before a UK court. Lawyers for the United States have urged a London court to block a last-ditch bid by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to appeal his extradition from the United Kingdom to face espionage charges. On the second and final day of a hearing at London’s High Court on Wednesday, lawyers representing the US said Assange is being prosecuted for publishing sources’ names and not for his political opinions. The US is seeking to put Assange on trial for WikiLeaks’ release of vast troves of confidential US military records and diplomatic cables. They argue the leaks imperilled the lives of their agents. Assange’s supporters, however, hail him as a hero who is being persecuted for exposing US wrongdoing, while rights groups are concerned that his prosecution could curb press freedom more broadly. On Tuesday, Assange’s lawyers told the court the case was politically motivated, arguing their client was targeted for his exposure of “state-level crimes” and that Donald Trump had requested “detailed options” on how to kill him. But, on Wednesday, lawyers for the US said Assange’s prosecution was “based on the rule of law and evidence”. Assange “indiscriminately and knowingly published to the world the names of individuals who acted as sources of information to the US”, lawyer Clair Dobbin said. “It is these core facts which distinguish the position of the appellant from the New York Times and other media outlets,” she added. “It is this which forms the objective basis for his prosecution. It is these facts which distinguish him, not his political opinions.” Assange himself was again not in court on Wednesday nor watching remotely because he was unwell. ‘Protect press freedom’ Assange, 52, has been indicted in the US on 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks’ publication of classified US documents some 15 years ago. The UK government approved Assange’s extradition to the US in June 2022, after a judge initially blocked it. The High Court in London is now determining whether Assange will have further opportunities to argue his case before a UK court, or whether he has exhausted all appeals in the country and must therefore enter the process of extradition. If Assange loses permission to appeal, he will be at risk of prosecution in the US under the Espionage Act of 1917 and could face a sentence of up to 175 years. But his supporters say an extradition would be an inadvertent death sentence. “His life is at risk every single day he stays in prison, and if he’s extradited, he will die,” his wife Stella Assange recently told reporters. Jameel Jaffer, a professor of law and journalism at Columbia University, said the case is the first in which the US government has relied on the 1917 Espionage Act as the basis for the prosecution of a publisher. “A successful prosecution of Assange on the basis of this indictment would criminalise a great deal of the investigative journalism that is absolutely crucial to democracy,” he told Al Jazeera. Rights groups have expressed similar concerns. “If Julian Assange is extradited, it will establish a dangerous precedent wherein the US government could target publishers and journalists around the world for extradition and prosecution,” Rose Kulak, Amnesty International’s Australia campaigner, said in a statement this week. Reporters Without Borders called on the US government to cease Assange’s “endless persecution” and drop the case. “No one should face such treatment for publishing information in the public interest,” said Rebecca Vincent, the media watchdog’s director of campaigns. “It’s time to protect journalism, press freedom, and all of our right to know. It’s time to free Assange now.” The two justices hearing the case in London could deliver a verdict today or at a later date. If it is in Assange’s favour, a full appeal hearing will be held to again consider his challenge. But if the WikiLeaks founder loses, his only remaining option would be at the European Court of Human Rights. Adblock test (Why?)
Photos: Greek farmers drive tractors to parliament to demand financial help
Scores of brightly coloured tractors have been parked outside Greece’s parliament, horns blaring, as thousands of farmers angry at high production costs protested in Athens. “Without us, you don’t eat,” one banner at Tuesday’s rally said. Some farmers carried mock coffins and funeral garlands as symbols of their plight. The farmers, whose demands are similar to those at farmer protests elsewhere in Europe, have spent weeks staging sporadic blockades along highways and in rural towns. Farmers in central Greece are also still reeling from floods last year. The centre-right government has expressed sympathy with the farmers but said budgetary constraints prevent it from meeting all their demands beyond substantial electricity cost reductions. Protesters say that’s not enough. They want tax-free fuel, debt forgiveness, measures against foreign competition and speedier compensation for damage from natural disasters. Farmers also criticise the substantial markup in shelf prices compared with what wholesalers pay them for their produce. Manolis Liakis, a farmer from the southern island of Crete, singled out fuel costs. He said farmers pay more than three times as much for petrol as shipping companies due to tax disparities. Farmers can’t sell their products “for ridiculously low prices while the consumer buys them at extremely high prices”, he said. The rally ended peacefully. Some farmers stayed outside parliament all night and left with their tractors on Wednesday. In a show of solidarity, hundreds of students joined the farmers and protested against government plans to end the state monopoly on university education. The government took back a previous threat to block Tuesday’s protest. Police were deployed to help divert highway traffic, and much of central Athens was blocked to motorists and public transport. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said on Monday that he could not support additional tax breaks and concessions but wanted to continue discussions with protesters. Adblock test (Why?)
US congressman tells pro-Palestine activist ‘we should kill ’em all’
NewsFeed US Congressman Andy Ogles was filmed telling pro-Palestinian activists, “I think we should kill them all” when talking about Hamas in Gaza. Published On 21 Feb 202421 Feb 2024 Adblock test (Why?)
Julian Assange’s last stand?
[unable to retrieve full-text content] WikiLeaks founder fights extradition to US in what’s been called ‘the most important press freedom case in the world’.