Iran has released five US-Iranian dual nationals into house arrest, US officials say.

Siamak Namazi, Emad Shargi and Morad Tahbaz, who also has a British passport, were released alongside a fourth unidentified man, a lawyer for one of the men said.

A fifth American had already been released, a US national security official said.

Talks had taken place between Iran and the US to secure their release.

“While this is an encouraging step, these US citizens… should have never been detained in the first place,” said National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson.

“Of course, we will not rest until they are all back home in the United States,” she added.

Iran’s mission to the UN confirmed the release of dual nationals from Tehran’s Evin prison, according to state media.

US-Iranian Siamak Namazi is among those freed from prison under the deal

It said the deal had been “mediated by a third country” and that as part of it, frozen funds in South Korea would be “unblocked and transferred to Qatar,” according to Reuters, citing state news agency IRNA.

US media report that the Iranian funds frozen in South Korea are worth around $6bn (£4.7bn).

Mr Namazi’s brother Babak said: “While this is a positive change, we will not rest until Siamak and others are back home; we continue to count the days until this can happen.”

The 51-year-old was first arrested in 2015 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison on security charges.

The sister of Mr Shargi, 58, said she “has faith in the work of President Biden and government officials” to secure his release following his detention in April 2018.

Mr Tahbaz, a 67-year-old businessman and wildlife conservationist, was first arrested during a crackdown on environmental activists in January 2018.

Iran has detained and imprisoned a number of dual nationals in recent years, usually on national security charges.

State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said two of the five individuals released “wish to remain private”.

He continued: “We are in touch with the families of US citizens involved, and we continue to monitor these individuals’ health and welfare closely.”

Negotiations have been taking place for years to try to secure their release as part of a prisoner swap with Iranians now incarcerated in American and other western prisons, as well as the easing of US sanctions on Iran.

Citing sources close to the talks, Reuters said it could still take several weeks for the US citizens to leave Iran.

The New York Times reported that Iranian prisoners in US jails could also be freed as part of the deal, but the White House has not confirmed any details of what it offered to Tehran in order to secure the prisoners’ release.

World Opinions + BBC News

L’article Analysis. Iran releases US dual nationals into house arrest, lawyer says est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

It won’t stop undocumented migrants. But it will kill many more families trying to cross the frigid border.

Razak Iyal and Seidu Mohammed recently celebrated becoming Canadian citizens. Their stories have been intertwined since they crossed the Canada-United States border to seek asylum near Emerson, Manitoba, on Christmas eve of 2016.

Their lives nearly ended on that frigid night at the side of a rural road. The two men survived but both lost all their fingers to frostbite. Others have not survived. On March 31, two families perished at the Quebec-US border, including an infant and a three-year-old.

Stories like Razak and Seidu’s have captured intense political and public attention in Canada. Why aren’t people going to official ports of entry? The answer is that the law, specifically the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between the US and Canada, deters people from using official border entry points because they will be turned away and denied the opportunity to make a refugee claim.

Canada has acknowledged these crossings by erecting pop-up border stations like one at Roxham Road, facilitating the movement of migrants. Quebec’s premier and main opposition leader have called for this makeshift port of entry to be shut down. And now, as part of US President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Canada, the two countries have decided to do just that, under a renegotiated STCA that came into effect starting midnight on Friday, March 24.

Now anyone crossing any point of the Canada-US land border to make a refugee claim will be turned away. They will not be able to make a refugee claim and will be sent back to the US side of the border. Until now, this agreement only applied at official land ports of entry which pushed people seeking asylum to cross at unofficial points and made the remote Roxham Road that dead-ends at the boundary line between Hemmingford, Quebec, and Champlain, New York, a legal and well-travelled option.

The newly expanded STCA now applies across the entire Canada-US land border, including areas between official ports of entry and certain bodies of water. Anyone making an asylum claim within 14 days of crossing without authorisation or valid immigration status will be brought back to a US port of entry and excluded from being able to make a claim in Canada.

This expanded protocol is a response to heightened political rhetoric that paints people crossing at Roxham Road as illegal and taking advantage of Canada’s immigration system. In recent weeks, this processing centre has become a lightning rod for debates about migration and border policy in Canada.

Yet while Roxham Road will no longer be a viable crossing route for refugee claimants, this will not stop people from seeking safety and security across the border. The legality of the additional protocol will be tested in courts. In fact, the STCA’s constitutionality is before the Supreme Court of Canada right now.

Advocates argued that the agreement not only infringes migrants’ rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also violates Canada’s international legal obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention which calls on states to provide a meaningful opportunity to ask for refugee protection.

Rather than suspending the agreement as many refugees and their advocates have long called for, the Canadian government has instead expanded it even though its legality is in question. Further, rather than trusting the tools and procedures at our official ports of entry, the Canadian government has chosen a less efficient and inhumane way to manage the movement of people at the border.

The story of Roxham Road is not separate from the wider global context of increasing anti-migration sentiments and stricter border controls, underpinned by systemic racism and discrimination, even as more people are forced to flee their homes due to instability, war and environmental degradation.

Policies like the STCA are short-sighted because stricter border policies, militarisation and surveillance do not stem migration. Instead, people desperate for protection simply take more dangerous routes, leading to loss of life, broken families and lifelong trauma.

Iyal and Mohammed survived their journey across a remote and dangerous segment of the Canada-US border. Their refugee claims were accepted in 2017, opening their pathway to becoming citizens this March.

They narrowly avoided freezing to death. Others were not so lucky, dying at the border.

How many deaths and other casualties of the STCA will it take before Canada reconsiders its reliance on increasingly restrictive and short-sighted policies? For the answer is blowing in the frigid wind along the US-Canada border: the Safe Third Country Agreement offers no real safety to either desperate people or the nations involved.

• Jamie LiewLawyer and associate professor, University of OttawaJamie Liew is a lawyer, Director of the Institute of Feminist & Gender Studies and Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. Twitter: @thechaiyun
• Petra MolnarAssociate Director of the Refugee Law LabPetra Molnar, lawyer and Associate Director of the Refugee Law Lab, York University and Fellow with Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society Twitter: @_PMolnar
• Julie YoungCanada Research Chair (Tier 2) in Critical Border Studies and Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Environment, University of Lethbridge.Julie Young is the Canada Research Chair (Tier 2) in Critical Border Studies and Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Environment, University of Lethbridge.

World Opinions – Aljazeera

L’article Analysis. The new US-Canada border deal is inhumane — and deadly est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a bill banning most abortions after six weeks, paving the way for drastic changes in access to the procedure across the state.

Opponents argue six weeks is before many women know they are pregnant.

The law will not go into effect until a court rules on an ongoing legal challenge to the existing 15-week ban.

“We are proud to support life and family in the state of Florida,” the governor said in a statement.

He claimed the law would “defend the dignity of human life and transform Florida into a pro-family state”.

The state has been a safe haven for those seeking abortion in the country’s south-east since Roe v Wade – which gave women in the US the constitutional right to abortion – was overturned last year.

The state’s current 15-week limit on abortion is one of the most lenient in the south-east, with many travelling from other states to Florida to have the procedure.

The six-week ban makes exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest, as long as the woman can provide documentation such as a police report or a restraining order.

Mr DeSantis’ signed the bill late Thursday night just hours after Florida’s Republican-led House of Representatives approved the ban on Thursday, with 70 voting for and 40 voting against. It had been passed in the state Senate on 3 April.

“A woman’s right to choose, I’ve heard people talk about that,” Republican lawmaker Kiyan Michael said during the debate, as quoted by CNN. “Well, that right to choose begins before you have sex.”

In a statement shortly after Mr DeSantis signed the bill, the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates said the ban’s exceptions for rape or incest would not provide “meaningful access to patients in need”.

The group argued the bill as a whole would “shut down a critical abortion access point for millions across the southeast, Caribbean, and Central and South America”.

The fate of the new six-week abortion law is still contingent upon another ruling from Florida’s Supreme Court.

Florida’s highest court is hearing a challenge brought by abortion clinics to the state’s existing 15-week ban. The latest law signed by Mr DeSantis contains language that says the six-week ban would only go into effect if Florida’s highest court upholds the 15-week law that is already in place.

Florida’s conservative Supreme Court is expected to side with anti-abortion activists and rule the 15-week ban is constitutional.

National debate over abortion in the US has been raging since a federal judge suspended the original approval of a widely used abortion drug, mifepristone, last week.

That suspension was later blocked by an appellate court, and the Biden administration has said it will ask the Supreme Court to restore full access to the drug.

By Alys Davies – BBC News

L’article Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs six-week abortion ban into law est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

A student who survived the Uvalde shooting by covering herself in a classmate’s blood has told Congress of witnessing the moment her teacher was killed during the massacre.

“He told her goodnight, and shot her in the head,” Miah Cerillo, 11, said.

“And then he shot some of my classmates.”

The school shooting claimed the lives of 21 people, including 19 young children, and has renewed a national debate over gun laws.

But efforts to advance national gun-control regulations have often stalled.

In an emotional pre-recorded testimony before a congressional panel on US gun violence, the young Ms Cerrillo recalled her experience, which for her began when a teacher told students to hide after seeing the gunman, an 18-year-old local.

The gunman shot her teacher as children took cover behind her desk and their book bags.

Ms Cerrillo was wounded by fragments in her shoulders and head. During the incident, she pretended to be dead before using her teacher’s phone to call 911 and ask for police.

“I thought he was going to come back to the room, so I grabbed the [her classmate’s] blood and put it all over me,” she said. “I just stayed quiet.”

Miah’s father, Miguel Cerrillo, said that his daughter is suffering from lingering trauma from the event.

“She’s not the same little girl I used to play with,” he said tearfully. “Schools are not safe anymore. Something really needs to change.”

Lawmakers also heard from the parents of Lexi Rubio, one of the students killed in the Uvalde shooting.

“Somewhere out there, a mom is hearing our testimony and thinking to herself ‘I can’t imagine the pain’,” Kimberly Mata-Rubio said. “Our reality will one day be hers, unless we act now.”

The testimonies from the Cerrillo and Rubio families came the same day as a Department of Justice announcement that it will review the police response to the shooting to look into policies and procedures for future active shooter events. The review will also examine school safety measures and support for victims and families in the wake of incidents.

Later on Wednesday, the complete US House of Representatives is scheduled to debate a bill that would see the minimum age to buy some guns raised from 18 to 21. The bill is unlikely to pass in the Senate.

Only a handful of the 50 Republican senators appear open to new gun legislation, with Democrats seeking narrower gun measures to compromise with their Republican colleagues.

Proposals with the greatest support include a “red flag” law that would prevent individuals with mental illness or a criminal history from purchasing firearms and expanded background checks on gun purchasers that would include private gun sales.

Speaking at a rally in Washington DC, Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun control advocacy organisation, told the BBC that the testimony of survivors and widespread public calls for change can be a “powerful” call to action.

“There’s focus on the issue,” she said. “When there’s a national shooting tragedy, we finally see more people in America decide they are going to get off the side lines.”

Ms Watt’s comments were echoed by Steven Kling, an army veteran and gun owner who said he feels a “change in the air”.

“There’s evil everywhere,” he said. “But we make it really easy to get guns here. That has to stop.”

By Bernd Debusmann Jr & Chelsea Bailey – BBC News

L’article Analysis. Uvalde mass shooting: Survivor, 11, testifies before US lawmakers est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

The departure of Munira Mirza, Downing Street’s head of policy, suggests that time is running out for Boris Johnson’s government. Sliding in opinion polls and under investigation by the police over illegal lockdown parties in No 10, the administration has a fin de régime aura. Ms Mirza, reputed to be the prime minister’s most trusted and influential aide, said that she was quitting over a matter of principle – a rare thing in Mr Johnson’s shrinking circle. She was unwilling to stay silent over his scurrilous slur against Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer.

After working with Mr Johnson for 14 years, Ms Mirza must have been acquainted with his modus operandi. But his claim that Sir Keir spent “more time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile” from the dispatch box was a smear too far. Sir Keir had been director of public prosecutions when Savile was questioned under caution by police in 2009. But he was not involved in the decision not to pursue the case and there is nothing to suggest he knew that Savile was a serial sexual abuser and failed to prosecute him. A day after Mr Johnson’s deplorable attack, he was rebuked by the Commons Speaker, but refused to backtrack.

This appears to have been the final straw for Ms Mirza. Her resignation letter reveals that she understood the damage that peddling such conspiracy theories could do, even when her boss did not. Ms Mirza wrote that “this was not the usual cut and thrust of politics; it was an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse”. She called on Mr Johnson to apologise: “I appreciate that our political culture is not forgiving when people say sorry, but regardless, it is the right thing to do.”

The departure of the prime minister’s most trusted aide does nothing to dispel the fin de régime aura of this Conservative government

This plea went unanswered. During a visit to Blackpool, Mr Johnson claimed that his comments were about Sir Keir’s “responsibility for the [CPS] as a whole”. This is a justification, not an apology. The prime minister is constitutionally incapable of expressing remorse for what he has done wrong.

The deliberate and intentional misleading of fellow lawmakers and the public is a serious matter. Parliamentary privilege confers immunity in respect of what MPs say. It can be a valuable tool. It is not an excuse for lying in parliament. Mr Johnson rose to the top by flouting such conventions, but his way of shaping taunts has come back to haunt him. While others were unable to see dying parents, he attended parties, then claimed shock that they were social events. The pain-free Brexit he promised cannot be delivered. Britain won’t be levelled up anytime soon.

Tellingly, Downing Street’s press chief also left on Thursday. As Tory MPs continue to pen letters demanding that the prime minister goes, these departures are evidence that he is running out of people to betray.

World Opinions By The Guardian View

L’article View on a Downing Street resignation: a smear too far est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Theresa May has made her first intervention in the row over Downing Street parties, saying she was angry to hear about them.

The former prime minister, who has frequently criticised Boris Johnson on other issues, has been conspicuously silent in the weeks since the “partygate” allegations first emerged at the end of November.

Now, however, she has said that if evidence were to emerge of deliberate wrongdoing then “full accountability” should follow and that “nobody is above the law”.

In a letter to her local newspaper, the Maidenhead Advertiser, she wrote: “It is vital that those who set the rules, follow the rules … This is important for ensuring the necessary degree of trust between the public and government.

“Like so many, I was angry to hear stories of those in No 10, who are responsible for setting the coronavirus rules, not properly following the rules. All those working at the heart of government should conduct themselves with the highest of standards which befits the work they do, and this applies as much to those working in No 10 as to other parts of government.”

The letter was sent before the Metropolitan police launched an inquiry into alleged parties after receiving evidence from Sue Gray, the senior official who has been asked by Downing Street to investigate possible Covid rule-breaking in Whitehall.

Former prime minister breaks silence to express her anger and expectation of full accountability

May said that “if there is evidence of deliberate or premeditated wrongdoing, I expect full accountability to follow”.

News of May’s intervention came as it emerged that key parts of Gray’s report into the parties could be pared back at the request of the police. Scotland Yard revealed it had asked for references to matters it was now investigating to be removed.

Johnson’s resignation from May’s cabinet was seen as one of the blows to her authority that led to her leaving No 10 in 2019.

She has since been a vocal critic of her successor, making a number of sharp interventions in the Commons and the media. She accused him last year of abandoning Britain’s “position of global moral leadership” by threatening to break international law during Brexit trade negotiations.

She also attacked the government’s decision to cut foreign aid, saying it had “turned its back on some of the poorest in the world”, and she dismissed government assurances on post-Brexit security arrangements as “utter rubbish”.

World Opinions – theguardian.com

L’article UK. ‘Nobody is above the law’: Theresa May wades into Downing Street parties row est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that abortion providers can sue to challenge a controversial Texas abortion law.

The law, known as SB8, gives people the right to sue doctors who perform an abortion past six weeks, before most women know they are pregnant.

In its ruling, however, the court said that the law can remain in effect, leaving it in place.

Doctors, women’s rights groups and the Biden administration have heavily criticised the law.

The divisive law – which came into effect on 1 September – bans abortion after what some refer to as a foetal heartbeat. The law makes an exception for cases of medical emergency, but not for rape or incest.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says that at six weeks a foetus has not yet developed a heartbeat, but rather an “electronically induced” flickering of tissues that will become the heart.

The Texas law is enforced by giving individuals – from Texas or elsewhere – the right to sue doctors who perform an abortion past the six-week mark.

At issue at the Supreme Court was whether two groups – Texas abortion providers and the federal government – can sue to block the law.

Friday’s 8-1 ruling means that lawsuits from the providers can proceed. With the decision, the ruling will head back to the district court.

Once back in the district court, the providers will now be able to file for a stay of enforcement and ultimately challenge the law’s constitutionality.

In the meantime, the law will stay in place. In a separate order, the Supreme Court dismissed a separate challenge brought by the Biden administration.

In a written dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with allowing the lawsuits to move forward but was critical of leaving the law in place, saying that “the court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before SB8 went into effect”.

The ban has led to a steep drop in abortions, experts say.

Research from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project found that abortions in the state fell by nearly 50% after the law went into effect, leading to an influx of patients seeking abortion care in neighbouring states.

What has been the reaction?

The abortion provider who brought the case, Whole Woman’s Health, called the Supreme Court ruling a victory “on very narrow grounds”.

Its decision to leave SB8 in place, despite allowing challenges to go forward, was “unjust, cruel and inhumane”, the group’s CEO Amy Hagstrom Miller said.

“Our staff are heartbroken, scared and discouraged”.

Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion organisation that supports SB8, praised the Supreme Court for showing “judicial restraint” and dismissing the Biden administration’s legal challenge and vowed to “fight for this policy in the lower courts”. The group celebrated the law remaining in place but expressed frustration that the ruling allowed lawsuits to proceed.

What other abortion cases are there?

In December, the Supreme Court heard a separate case regarding a Mississippi law that bans abortions after the first 15 weeks.

Anti-abortion activists consider the Mississippi case as among their best opportunities to overturn Roe v Wade, a landmark Supreme Court case that legalised abortions across the country.

The 1973 decision gave women the constitutional right to abortions during their first 12-week trimester of pregnancy.

A ruling in Mississippi case could mean that individual states can decide on the legality of abortions in their own jurisdictions.

An end to Roe v Wade “is overwhelmingly the most likely outcome” according to Jessie Hill, a reproductive rights law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.

“I think the writing is on the wall here,” Ms Hill said. “The decision about Texas only adds to that perception. It was not a very favourable decision to the clinics.”

A ruling in the Mississippi case could mean that individual states can decide on the legality of abortions in their own jurisdictions.

In addition to Texas and Mississippi, several states – including Idaho, Oklahoma and South Carolina – have passed six-week ban bills so far this year. All have so far been stalled by legal challenges and haven’t been put into effect.

“It’s really unlike any other time in US history since 1973,” Ms Hill said. “To the extent that the Texas case provides tea leaves to read, they all point in the same direction.”

World Opinions – BBC News

L’article US Supreme Court says Texas abortion clinics can sue over law est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

To understand what’s going on at the Capitol today as the House considers impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time, it’s helpful to look at a bit of recent history.

Throughout much of 2009, progressives watched in deep frustration as President Barack Obama and his allies kept chasing bipartisan buy-in for the massive health care law under consideration in Washington. Democrats, against all realism, thought they might be able to win over some Republican colleagues through the merits of the legislation, the political upsides of getting onboard or even personal affinity.

Democrats included a stunning 188 concessions to Republicans, including allowing small businesses to band together to increase their negotiating power and forcing members of Congress to use it as their provider. White House negotiators spent hours monitoring the bipartisan Gang of Six in the Senate, chasing a way to get Republican buy-in. The genuine friendship between Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Bachus and top Republican Chuck Grassley led to some fun conversations about how to structure this part or that to make a deal less toxic to Republicans.

In the end, though, Republicans never got to yes. Grassley started talking about “death panels” and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled that the future of lawmakers in his chamber hinged on toeing the line on this major vote. In the end, Obamacare became law without any meaningful Republican support.

In Washington, there are few lines as strong as a critique of a bill that “passed without a single vote from the other party.” It means the result was entirely one-sided — and it gives the other party implicit permission to scrap it as soon as it gets a majority. (One GOP House member, after the bill passed, cast his vote in support of Obamacare.) The 2009 economic stimulus package also passed without a single vote in the House, as did the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, which attracted zero GOP yays in the House. Taken together, they all all served to unify Republicans to start to tear down the laws’— and Obama’s — legitimacy.

But there’s another, possibly equal power to be harnessed. Let’s call it the Power of Non-Zero. Even a few votes in support of a piece of opposition-led legislation insulates it from total demonization, for to call it evil incarnate and corrupt at its core implies members of your own tribe betrayed your common sense of values. Want to neutralize your critics? Hire their best friends.

It’s why on questions of national importance, you usually see lawmakers reach across the aisle, even if they have the numbers they need to get something passed. President George W. Bush and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy were about as different as they came, but found common ground on education with No Child Left Behind. A year later, when it came time for Bush to get the greenlight for wars in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, Bush’s White House lobbied for a bipartisan resolution. In the end, only one member of the House voted against Afghanistan and no Senators joined Rep. Barbara Lee in doing so. When it came to Iraq, roughly 40% of House Democrats backed it, and 60% of Senate Democrats did the same.

If you want to do big, durable things in Washington, you seldom can do it along party lines.

Which brings us to today, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to set in motion Trump’s second impeachment. A little more than a year ago, the House voted in favor of his first impeachment in a pretty straight, party-line vote. No Republicans in the House voted for it, and only Sen. Mitt Romney was willing to cross the President. Romney cast his vote to convict only on one of the two charges.

Now, you’re starting to see the floodgates break. Most significantly, Rep. Liz Cheney, a member of her party’s Leadership team, isn’t whipping votes away from Pelosi. She’s calling it a “vote of conscience,” meaning members can do what they think is best, and on Tuesday evening said she would be voting for impeachment. “There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the President,” she said.

In the Senate, Republican lawmakers like Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney have also been urging Trump to resign. It would take a massive flood of GOP defections to convict and remove Trump from office, though it might be possible. The rift between Establishment Republicans and the White House clearly is agape. But getting to the necessary 67 votes required in the upper chamber has always been tough, and purposefully so.

Ultimately, it doesn’t seem that enough Republicans in the Senate will defect, at least not right now. But that may not matter. The measure already has the Power of Not-Zero behind it, which may ultimately be what tells Trump that his career in politics is over next week.

World Opinions News – time.com

L’article Republicans Are Breaking Ranks on Impeachment. That’s Good for Democrats — and Bad for Trump est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.