Tag: UK

As France makes abortion a constitutional right, UK women see sharp rise in abortion convictions

Post By World , , , , ,

As France enshrines abortion access in its constitution, the UK is facing a sharp rise in abortion convictions. A law dating from 1861 is being used to prosecute women in England and Wales, in at least one case leading to incarceration.

France has become the only country in the world to protect the right to terminate a pregnancy in its constitution after abortion access was officially added to the freedoms guaranteed in the French constitution on Monday. The move was a direct reaction to the rollback of abortion rights in the United States and elsewhere.

But across the English Channel, women are still at risk of prosecution for having the procedure because abortion in the UK has not been decriminalised. Britain is facing a sharp rise in abortion convictions, with a law dating from 1861 being used to prosecute women and in at least one case leading to incarceration.   

Between 1967 and 2022, three women were convicted of having an illegal abortion in England and Wales. But in the last 18 months alone, six women have been prosecuted over suspected abortion offences.

Of the six prosecutions, three cases were dropped and two cases are awaiting trial, according to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). One woman was sent to prison.

Illegal abortion and life imprisonment

According to legislation passed 163 years ago, abortion is still a crime in England and Wales.

The Offences Against the Persons Act of 1861 states that it is illegal for a woman to procure her own abortion or provide the means for another woman to terminate a pregnancy.  

What makes abortions accessible today is the Abortion Act, passed by parliament in 1967. The law allows doctors to perform abortions and allows women access to them, but only if they have authorisation from two registered medical practitioners and meet at least one of a specific set of circumstances: These include potential injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children in her family, any substantial risk to her life, and any serious physical or mental abnormality the unborn child could have.   

A time limit of 24 weeks was added in 1990 but with exceptions, for example, if a woman faces the risk of death or “permanent damage” to her physical or mental health, or if there is a serious foetal abnormality.

But outside of these restrictions, women can still face a sentence of life imprisonment – one of the harshest penalties for having an illegal abortion in Europe.  

Many countries in Europe will punish you for performing your own abortion or getting an abortion outside of the healthcare system, says Mara Clarke, co-founder of Supporting Abortions for Everyone (SAFE), a pan-European charity for providing access to abortion.

“But none of [the punishments] is life in prison.”  

Read moreThe long and winding history of the war on abortion drugs

Doctors in England, Wales and Scotland have the final say on whether or not a woman can access an abortion. They determine whether a risk to health is serious enough to call for terminating a pregnancy, whether an abortion is necessary to avoid “grave permanent injury” to a woman’s mental or physical health, and can even opt out of providing abortion care if they object for reasons of conscience.

A woman in England or Wales can even be prosecuted if they purchase abortion pills online without the authorisation of the two required doctors, or if they terminate their pregnancy beyond the 10-week limit for at-home medical abortions or the 24-week limit for abortions at a vetted healthcare facility.   

Other health care professionals, including nurses, are not authorised to sign off on an abortion, with the necessary double approval restricted only to doctors.  And there is “no consideration of the reasons why a woman might want to end a pregnancy”,  according to a UK abortion rights campaign group run by healthcare professionals called Doctors for Choice.

“The law prevents nurses and midwives from having a full role in abortion care despite being more than capable of doing so,” the group says on its website.

The Independent newspaper reported that Dr Jonathan Lord, the co-chair of the British Society of Abortion Care Providers, knows of at least 60 criminal inquiries into suspected illegal abortions in England and Wales since 2018.

‘An aberration’

“We really have better things to be doing with our time and money,” sighs Clarke from SAFE. “There are 60 investigations, yes, but out of how many abortions – 200,000?” She feels frustrated by the fact that public attention is turned to the prosecutions rather than the safe and guaranteed provision of abortion care for all.

“How many times did Carla Foster have to turn up in court before her case was overturned?” For Clarke, the answer is “too many”.

Carla Foster is a mother of three who ended her pregnancy outside the legal 24-week legal limit in the early weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic. She took mifepristone – a medical abortion pill – after the limit expired during lockdown.  

Read moreUS Supreme Court ruling on abortion pill could ‘tie the hands of every state’

She received a 28-month custodial sentence in June 2023 and was sent to Foston Hall prison in Derbyshire, where she was incarcerated for 35 days.

Foster took her case to a court of appeal to reduce her sentence and won. A judge deemed the 46-year-old needed “compassion, not punishment” and reduced her punishment to a 14-month suspended sentence. She was released in July.

“UK public opinion is very liberal on abortion and is quite strongly pro-choice,” says Sally Sheldon, a professor at University of Bristol specialising  in healthcare law. “It’s relatively easy for people with access to the NHS (National Health Service) to receive abortion care. In that context, these cases are really an aberration.”

Nevertheless, the legal remedies – when applied – are severe.

“Most of these women are having their laptops and phones taken away … There have been reports of women having their children taken into care because they were seen as a risk to their kids,” says Sheldon. “It impacts the whole family. The impact is enormous.”

Sheldon surmises that the sudden uptick in prosecutions could be connected to an increased awareness of abortion pills. “Since the pandemic … women can have an online consultation and have the pills sent to them,” she says. “I think that has led to a climate of much greater suspicion around unexplained later pregnancy loss or premature delivery. It seems like most cases are being reported by healthcare professionals … who report it to the police.”

Earlier this year, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists released new guidance for abortion care. Stating their “concern at the increasing number of police investigations following later gestation abortion and pregnancy loss, and the impact this can have on women”, it urged healthcare professionals to “abide by their professional responsibility to justify any disclosure of confidential patient information”.

Labour MP Diana Johnson this month is expected to introduce an amendment to the UK’s Criminal Justice Act that would end prosecutions of women for terminating pregnancies after the 24-week limit.

“If that amendment gets selected for debate, I would hope it’s got a good chance of being passed,” says Sheldon. “But it’s very difficult to know.”

Source link

#France #abortion #constitutional #women #sharp #rise #abortion #convictions

Gaza war comments, ghosts of past anti-Semitism rows haunt UK’s Labour Party

Post By World , , , , , , , ,

Voters in the northern English town of Rochdale go to the polls Thursday in a by-election that has roiled the Labour party with a new anti-Semitism controversy. Britain’s main opposition party was the clear favourite until its candidate was disowned for espousing conspiracy theories about Israel. The row recalls the party’s anti-Semitism crisis under its previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and comes as current party leader Keir Starmer is at pains to show that Labour has changed.

Triggered by last month’s death of the sitting Labour MP Tony Lloyd, the Rochdale vote comes a fortnight after two other by-elections, in which Labour seized two seats from the ruling Conservatives. But it has been overshadowed by the type of controversy that Britain’s main opposition party was supposed to have put firmly in the past.

Over the weekend of February 10-11, it emerged that Labour’s candidate for Rochdale, Azhar Ali, had voiced an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attacks. In the shocking remarks, made at a meeting of the local Lancashire Labour Party and obtained by the Daily Mail on Sunday through a leaked recording, Ali claimed that Israel deliberately let the Hamas atrocities happen in order to have the “green light” to invade Gaza. While Israel did dismiss prior warnings about the Hamas attacks, there is no evidence that it knowingly let its own citizens be massacred.

For 48 hours, Labour stood by Ali, who issued an “unreserved” apology for his comments. But on February 12, after more of his anti-Semitic remarks came to light, the party suspended him and withdrew its support for his candidacy. However, the deadline had already passed to field another Labour candidate – meaning that if elected, Ali will have to sit as an independent MP in the House of Commons. To make matters worse, a second Labour parliamentary candidate, Graham Jones, had to be suspended the following day after a leaked recording emerged of him making anti-Israel comments at the same meeting as Ali.

When quizzed about the Ali debacle, party leader Starmer found himself on the back foot. “When I say the Labour Party has changed under my leadership, I mean it,” he insisted, referring implicitly to anti-Semitism.


Getting to grips with anti-Semitism

Ever since Starmer took over as Labour leader in April 2020, the 61-year-old centrist has made it a priority to get to grips with the party’s anti-Semitism problem, which reached crisis levels under his predecessor Corbyn. Starmer has come down hard on Labour MPs caught in controversy, as seen with last year’s suspension of left-winger Diane Abbott for minimising anti-Semitism in a letter to The Observer newspaper.

This month’s suspension of the two candidates suggests that Labour “is taking the issue very, very seriously”, said Steven Fielding, emeritus professor of political history at the University of Nottingham. “But there are still people in the party who at the very least are committing potentially anti-Semitic tropes, which the conspiracy talk [by Ali] clearly was.” 

He added: “There are still people on the left of the Labour Party who confuse Israel with Jews and conflate the two things together. It’s not so much [that] they are traditionally anti-Semitic, but they see Israel as part of the imperialist order backed by the United States.”

The shadow of Corbyn

During the leadership of left-winger Corbyn, from September 2015 to April 2020, Labour was plagued by allegations of anti-Semitism at all levels. Despite Corbyn’s denials, the controversies kept on coming: from Corbyn’s past defence of an anti-Semitic mural on social media, to Labour’s reluctance to embrace the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. Corbyn, a self-described socialist and lifelong supporter of the Palestinian cause, was also tainted by his past associations, such as inviting Hamas and Hezbollah representatives to parliament in 2009 and introducing them as “friends” – a term he only repudiated in 2016.

Watch moreBritain’s Labour Party: No home for Jews?

In October 2020, after a 16-month investigation, the UK’s human rights watchdog issued a damning report which found “serious failings in leadership and an inadequate process for handling anti-Semitism complaints across the Labour Party”. Starmer, now party leader, apologised to the Jewish community and vowed a “culture change” in Labour. This happened swiftly: Corbyn was suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party and the wider Labour Party for failing to fully accept the report’s findings.

A few weeks later, Labour’s ruling body readmitted Corbyn as a party member. But crucially, Starmer refused to “restore the whip” to his predecessor, meaning that Corbyn has to suffer the indignity of sitting as an independent MP. And in February 2023, Starmer announced that Corbyn would not be allowed to stand as a Labour MP at the next general election. The vote is expected to take place later this year, with Labour currently holding a double-digit lead over the ruling Conservatives in the polls.

As Fielding noted, anti-Semitism “was one of the issues that lost Labour the last election”, in a massive defeat under Corbyn in December 2019. Starmer “does not want to give anybody any grounds for claiming that he or his party is anti-Semitic”, Fielding explained. “As the Rochdale by-election has proven, [Labour is] willing to throw away a seat in order to make a stand on that issue,” he added.

But electoral calculations are only part of the story. Starmer’s wife Victoria is Jewish and the couple occasionally take their two children to the synagogue. In his new book “Keir Starmer: The Biography”, journalist Tom Baldwin recounts how at the height of Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis, Starmer began to feel the heat personally. He is quoted as saying: “People I had got to know a bit at the synagogue would come up to me, asking, ‘What’s happened to your party? Why can’t you do something? Are you embarrassed to be a Labour MP?’ I would go home feeling angry.”

Unease and division over support for Israel 

But Starmer has appeared so keen to distance himself from the party’s past anti-Semitism that he has caused deep unease with his support for Israel in its deadly offensive in Gaza.

Asked in a radio interview four days after the October 7 Hamas attacks whether Israel’s complete siege of Gaza was appropriate, he responded that Israel “does have that right” to cut off electricity and water – something that is prohibited under international law. The interview was particularly disastrous because Starmer is a lawyer by training and former top prosecutor. He later clarified his comments, saying he meant that Israel has “the right to self-defence”.

This position was at odds not only with public opinion, but also with a number of lawmakers within his own party. This disconnect culminated in November 2023, when Labour instructed its MPs to abstain on a motion in the House of Commons calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Some 56 of 198 Labour MPs rebelled and voted in favour of the motion brought by the Scottish National Party (SNP), leading to the resignation of 10 members of Starmer’s top team. More than 60 Labour councillors have also quit over the leadership’s reluctance to call for an immediate ceasefire.

Fast-forward to February 2024 and there has been a shift in Labour’s position. In mid-December 2023, Starmer aligned himself with the UK government position by calling for a “sustainable ceasefire” in Gaza. Speaking at Scottish Labour’s party conference in Glasgow on February 18, Starmer said a lasting ceasefire “must happen now”. On February 20, Labour officially adopted the position of calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The following day saw chaotic scenes in the Commons, with Starmer accused of pressuring the speaker to prioritise a Labour ceasefire motion over an SNP one in order to stave off another rebellion.


Cost-of-living crisis, not Gaza war, tops voters’ priorities

Back in Rochdale, Labour’s disowned candidate Ali remains on the ballot and “could still win”, Fielding noted. But populist firebrand George Galloway, a vocal critic of Israel who is standing for the Workers Party of Britain, is now the bookmakers’ favourite to take the seat. Some 30 percent of Rochdale’s population is Muslim. Galloway is openly courting those votes by focusing his campaign on the war in Gaza and channelling voters’ anger at Labour over its handling of the conflict. 

Neither candidate spells good news for Britain’s Jewish community. Galloway is “definitely anti-Israel and he’s definitely not averse to dipping into anti-Semitic waters within the Muslim community”, Fielding said. Anti-Semitic incidents reached an all-time record high in the UK last year, with most of them occurring after October 7.

But Fielding cautioned against seeing Rochdale as a bellwether for the upcoming UK general election. “Even if George Galloway does relatively well [in Rochdale], it’s very unusual circumstances,” he said. For Fielding, Labour’s wider loss of support among Muslim voters “won’t make a significant dent into what most people anticipate will be quite a big Labour majority [in the general election]. But it will cause some local worries”.

And although all of the UK’s House of Commons seats with significant Muslim populations are currently held by Labour, Fielding predicted that “the general election won’t be fought on Israel-Palestine”. Instead, the cost-of-living crisis is expected to be the key issue on voters’ minds: “Muslim voters, who are disproportionately poor [and] in insecure occupations, will benefit most materially from a Labour government. And clearly Israel-Palestine is an issue. But I think that if push comes to shove, if the choice is between Labour and Conservative, then they’ll vote for Labour.” He noted that some voters might still choose an “independent pro-Palestine candidate” as a protest vote if a Labour victory seems inevitable.

Notwithstanding Starmer’s belated change in position over Gaza, the Labour Party appears well aware of this electoral calculus. “The assumption is that Muslim voters might not like it, but they’ll still vote Labour, come the [general] election,” Fielding said of Starmer’s policy on Israel. Yet with the Conservative Party also embroiled in controversy linked to the conflict, one thing is for sure: the Israel-Hamas war is likely to permeate British politics for some time to come.



Source link

#Gaza #war #comments #ghosts #antiSemitism #rows #haunt #UKs #Labour #Party

US and UK launch new round of strikes against Houthi sites in Yemen

Post By World , , , , , ,

The U.S. and British militaries bombed multiple targets in eight locations used by the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen on Monday night, the second time the two allies have conducted coordinated retaliatory strikes on an array of the rebels’ missile-launching capabilities.

According to officials, the U.S. and U.K. used warship- and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles and fighter jets to take out Houthi missile storage sites, drones and launchers. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a military operation, said Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands contributed to the mission, including with intelligence and surveillance.

In a joint statement, the six allied nations said the strikes specifically targeted a Houthi underground storage site and locations associated with the Houthis’ missile and air surveillance capabilities. They added, “Our aim remains to de-escalate tensions and restore stability in the Red Sea, but let us reiterate our warning to Houthi leadership: we will not hesitate to defend lives and the free flow of commerce in one of the world’s most critical waterways in the face of continued threats.”

Britain’s Ministry of Defense confirmed that four Royal Air Force Typhoon jets struck “multiple targets at two military sites in the vicinity of Sanaa airfield” with precision-guided bombs. The strikes, said Defense Secretary Grant Shapps, were “aimed at degrading Houthi capabilities” and would “deal another blow to their limited stockpiles and ability to threaten global trade.”

One senior U.S. military official told reporters the strikes dropped between 25 and 30 munitions and hit multiple targets in each location, adding that the U.S. “observed good impacts and effects” at all sites, including the destruction of more advanced weapons in the underground storage facility. The official said this is the first time such advanced weapons were targeted.

The official also said fighter jets from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier conducted strikes, and other ships involved included the USS Gravely and USS Mason, both naval destroyers, and the USS Philippine Sea, a cruiser.

The joint operation comes about 10 days after U.S. and British warships and fighter jets struck more than 60 targets in 28 locations. That was the first U.S. military response to what has been a persistent campaign of Houthi drone and missile attacks on commercial ships since the start of the Israel-Hamas war in October.

The Houthis’ media office said in an online statement Monday that raids targeted Sanaa, Yemen’s capital. And Jamal Hassan, a resident from south Sanaa, told The Associated Press that two strikes landed near his home, setting off car alarms in the street. An Associated Press journalist in Sanaa also heard aircraft flying above the skies of Sanaa overnight Monday.

Al-Masirah, a Houthi-run satellite news channel, said there were raids on three areas of Sanaa: al-Dailami Air Base just north of the capital, Sarif, northeast of the city center, and al-Hafa, which is south of Sanaa.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak spoke with President Joe Biden earlier Monday. Sunak’s office said the two leaders agreed to take “as needed, targeted military action to degrade Houthi capabilities.”

Multiple US strikes

The latest barrage of allied attacks marks the eighth time the U.S. has conducted strikes on Houthi sites since Jan. 12. And it follows an almost-daily assault on Houthi missile launchers by U.S. fighter jets and ship-based Tomahawks over the past week. The rapid response missions, which officials said go after launchers that are armed and ready to fire, demonstrate the military’s increasing ability to watch, detect and strike militant activities in Yemen.

The chaotic wave of attacks and reprisals involving the United States, its allies and foes suggests that the retaliatory strikes haven’t deterred the Houthis from their campaign against Red Sea shipping, and that the broader regional war that the U.S. has spent months trying to avoid is becoming closer to reality.

For months, the Houthis have attacked ships in the region’s waterways that they say are either linked to Israel or heading to Israeli ports. They say their attacks aim to end the Israeli air-and-ground offensive in the Gaza Strip that was triggered by the Palestinian militant group Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack in southern Israel. But any such links to the ships targeted in the rebel assaults have grown more tenuous as the attacks continue.

The U.S. and allies warned of retaliation for weeks, and the White House and a host of partner nations issued a final warning on Jan. 3 to the Houthis to cease the attacks or face potential military action.

That threat, however, had little noticeable effect. The Houthis continued to attack ships in the region, including at times appearing to target U.S. Navy and U.S.-owned ships, in addition to the wide range of commercial vessels.

Of the eight strike missions on Yemen this month, all but the two with Britain were conducted by the U.S. military alone. Five of the latest strikes were labeled self-defense to take out missiles ready to fire. The most recent, on Saturday, struck and destroyed a Houthi anti-ship missile that was aimed into the Gulf of Aden and was prepared to launch, according to Central Command.

The Biden administration has also put the Houthis back on its list of specially designated global terrorists. The sanctions that come with the formal designation are meant to sever violent extremist groups from their sources of financing, while also allowing vital humanitarian aid to continue flowing to impoverished Yemenis.

U.S. defense officials have said they believe the strikes have degraded the Houthis’ weapons and strike capabilities. But Biden and others have acknowledged that the rebels are well-equipped by Iran and are likely to continue the attacks.

The Houthis, meanwhile, have made it clear that they have no intention of scaling back their assault. In the wake of the first U.S. and British joint attack, Hussein al-Ezzi, a Houthi official in their Foreign Ministry, said, “America and Britain will undoubtedly have to prepare to pay a heavy price and bear all the dire consequences of this blatant aggression.”

Read moreHundreds of thousands protest in Yemen after US and UK strike Houthi targets

The continued harassment of the ships has driven the U.S. and international partners to take extraordinary steps to defend them through a joint mission named Operation Prosperity Guardian, in which they provide a protective umbrella for vessels traveling the critical waterway that runs from the Suez Canal down to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

About 400 commercial vessels transit the southern Red Sea at any given time. And the ongoing violence has prompted companies to reroute their ships, sending them around Africa through the Cape of Good Hope instead — a much longer and less efficient passage.

(AP)

Source link

#launch #strikes #Houthi #sites #Yemen

US and UK strike Houthi targets in Yemen after weeks of Red Sea attacks

Post By World , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US and British forces struck rebel-held Yemen early on Friday after weeks of disruptive attacks on Red Sea shipping by Iran-backed Houthi rebels who say they act in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

The pre-dawn air strikes add to escalating fears of wider conflict in the region, where violence involving Tehran-aligned groups in Yemen as well as Lebanon, Iraq and Syria has surged since the Israel-Hamas war began in early October.

Iran “strongly condemned” the strikes, which the United States, Britain and eight other allies said aimed to “de-escalate tensions”.

Nasser Kanani, spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, said that the Western strikes “will have no result other than fuelling insecurity and instability in the region”, while “diverting the world’s attention” from Gaza.

China said it was “concerned about the escalation of tensions in the Red Sea”, and news of the strikes sent oil prices up more than 2 percent.

The Houthis have carried out a growing number of attacks on what they deem to be Israeli-linked shipping in the Red Sea, a key international trade route, since October 7, when the Hamas-led attack on Israel sparked the war which is still raging in the besieged Gaza Strip.

The rebels have controlled a major part of Yemen since a civil war erupted there in 2014 and are part of a regional Iran-backed “axis of resistance” against Israel and its allies.

Friday’s strikes targeted an airbase, airports and a military camp, the Houthis’ Al-Masirah TV station said, with AFP correspondents and witnesses reporting they could hear heavy strikes in Hodeida and Sanaa.

“Our country was subjected to a massive aggressive attack by American and British ships, submarines and warplanes,” said Hussein al-Ezzi, the rebels’ deputy foreign minister.

“America and Britain will have to prepare to pay a heavy price and bear all the dire consequences of this blatant aggression,” he added, according to official Houthi media.

US President Joe Biden called the strikes a “defensive action” after the Red Sea attacks and said he “will not hesitate” to order further military action if needed.

With fighter jets and Tomahawk missiles, 60 targets at 16 Houthi locations were hit by more than 100 precision-guided munitions, US Central Command said in a statement.

Unverified images on social media, some of them purportedly of Al-Dailami airbase north of the rebel-held capital Sanaa, showed explosions lighting up the sky as loud bangs and the roar of planes sounded.

Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree said at least five people had been killed.

‘Repeated warnings’

In a statement, Biden called the strikes a success and said he ordered them “against a number of targets in Yemen used by Houthi rebels to endanger freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways”.

Biden called the strikes a “direct response” to the “unprecedented” attacks by the Houthis which included “the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history”.

Blaming the Houthis for ignoring “repeated warnings”, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in a statement the strikes were “necessary and proportionate”.

Britain’s defence ministry released footage of Royal Air Force jets returning to their Cyprus base after the mission, and US Centcom video showed warplanes apparently taking off from a sea-based carrier.

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said the strikes “targeted sites associated with the Houthis’ unmanned aerial vehicle, ballistic and cruise missile, and coastal radar and air surveillance capabilities”.

A joint statement by the United States, Britain, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and South Korea said the “aim remains to de-escalate tensions and restore stability in the Red Sea”.

The Houthis said they will not be deterred.

“We affirm that there is absolutely no justification for this aggression against Yemen, as there was no threat to international navigation in the Red and Arabian Seas,” Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam posted on X, formerly Twitter.

He said there was no threat to any vessels apart from “Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of occupied Palestine”.

Prior to Friday’s strikes, Gerald Feierstein, a former US ambassador to Yemen, said bombing the Houthis would be “counterproductive”.

Strikes against the Houthis, who have weathered years of air raids by a Saudi-led coalition, would have little impact and would only raise their standing in the Arab world, said Feierstein of the Middle East Institute think-tank in Washington.               

Saudi Arabia calls for ‘restraint’

Yemen’s neighbour Saudi Arabia is trying to extricate itself from a nine-year war with the Houthis, though fighting has largely been on hold since a truce in early 2022.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is following with great concern the military operations,” a foreign ministry statement said after the US and British strikes.

Riyadh called for “self-restraint and avoiding escalation”.

US and allied forces in Iraq and Syria, where they are part of an anti-jihadist coalition, have also faced stepped-up attacks since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, with Washington responding to several by bombing the sites of pro-Iran groups.

Israel has also stepped up strikes against targets in Syria, and has exchanged regular fire with Lebanon’s Hezbollah over its northern border.

Washington, which has said it seeks to avoid a spreading conflict, in December announced a maritime security initiative, Operation Prosperity Guardian, to protect shipping in the Red Sea route which normally carries about 12 percent of global maritime trade.

Twelve nations led by the United States warned the Houthis on January 3 of “consequences” unless they immediately stopped attacks on commercial vessels.

On Tuesday, however, the Houthis launched what London called their most significant attack yet, with US and British forces shooting down 18 drones and three missiles.

The final straw for the Western allies appeared to come early Thursday when the US military said the Houthis fired an anti-ship ballistic missile into a shipping lane in the Gulf of Aden.

It was the 27th attack on international shipping in the Red Sea since November 19, the US military said.

The intensifying attacks have caused shipping companies to divert around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. Electric car manufacturer Tesla said it was suspending most production at its German factory because of a parts shortage due to shipping delays linked to Houthi attacks.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Source link

#strike #Houthi #targets #Yemen #weeks #Red #Sea #attacks

US and UK navies repel largest attack yet by Houthis in Red Sea

Post By World , , , , , , , ,

Yemen’s Houthi rebels fired their largest-ever barrage of drones and missiles targeting shipping in the Red Sea, forcing the United States and British navies to shoot down the projectiles in a major naval engagement, authorities said Wednesday. No damage was immediately reported. 

Issued on: Modified:

4 min

The attack by the Iranian-backed Houthis came despite a planned United Nations Security Council vote later Wednesday to potentially condemn and demand an immediate halt to the attacks by the rebels, who say their assaults are aimed at stopping Israel’s war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. 

However, their targets increasingly have little — or no — connection to Israel and imperil a crucial trade route linking Asia and the Middle East with Europe. That raises the risk of a U.S. retaliatory strike on Yemen that could upend an uneasy cease-fire that has held in the Arab world’s poorest country. 

The assault happened off the Yemeni port cities of Hodeida and Mokha, according to the private intelligence firm Ambrey. In the Hodeida attack, Ambrey said ships described over radio seeing missiles and drones, with U.S.-allied warships in the area urging “vessels to proceed at maximum speed.”

Off Mokha, ships saw missiles fired, a drone in the air and small vessels trailing them, Ambrey said early Wednesday. The British military’s United Kingdom Marine Trade Operations also acknowledged the attack off Hodeida. 

The U.S. military’s Central Command said the “complex attack” launched by the Houthis included bomb-carrying drones, anti-ship cruise missiles and one anti-ship ballistic missile.

It said 18 drones, two cruise missiles and the anti-ship missile were downed by F-18s from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, as well as by American Arleigh Burke-class destroyers the USS Gravely, the USS Laboon and the USS Mason, as well as the United Kingdom’s HMS Diamond. 


“This is the 26th Houthi attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea since Nov. 19,” Central Command said. “There were no injuries or damage reported.”

“Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity,” the UKTMO added. 

British Defense Secretary Grant Shapps described the assault as “the largest attack by the Iranian-backed Houthis in the Red Sea to date,” saying the Diamond used Sea Viper missiles and guns to shoot down multiple drones. 

“The U.K. alongside allies have previously made clear that these illegal attacks are completely unacceptable and if continued the Houthis will bear the consequences,” Shapps said in a statement. “We will take the action needed to protect innocent lives and the global economy.”


The Houthis, a Shiite group that has held Yemen’s capital of Sanaa since 2014, later claimed responsibility for the attack in a televised statement by rebel spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree. Saree claimed the attack “targeted an American ship that was providing support to the Zionist entity,” without offering any further information. He also described it as an “initial response” to American troops sinking Houthi vessels and killing 10 rebel fighters last week. 

The Houthis will “continue to prevent Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of occupied Palestine from navigating in the Red Sea until the aggression stops and the siege on our steadfast brothers in the Gaza Strip ends,” Saree said. 

The Houthis say their attacks aim to end the pounding Israeli air-and-ground offensive targeting the Gaza Strip amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. However, the links to the ships targeted in the rebel assaults have grown more tenuous as the attacks continue. 

The Red Sea links the Mideast and Asia to Europe via the Suez Canal, and its narrow Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The strait is only 29 kilometers (18 miles) wide at its narrowest point, limiting traffic to two channels for inbound and outbound shipments, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nearly 10% of all oil traded at sea passes through it and an estimated $1 trillion in goods pass through the strait annually.

A U.S. draft resolution before the U.N. Security Council, obtained late Tuesday by The Associated Press, says the Houthi attacks impede global commerce “and undermine navigational rights and freedoms as well as regional peace and security.” The resolution would demand the immediate release of the first ship the Houthis attacked, the Galaxy Leader, a Japanese-operated cargo ship with links to an Israeli company that the rebels seized in November along with its crew.

An initial draft of the resolution would have recognized “the right of member states, in accordance with international law, to take appropriate measures to defend their merchant and naval vessels.” 

The final draft is weaker, eliminating any U.N. recognition of a country’s right to defend its ships. Instead, it would affirm that the navigational rights and freedoms of merchant and commercial vessels must be respected, and take note “of the right of member states, in accordance with international law, to defend their vessels from attacks, including those that undermine navigational rights and freedoms.”

A U.S-led coalition of nations has been patrolling the Red Sea to try and prevent the attacks. There’s been no broad retaliatory strike yet, despite warnings from the U.S. However, Tuesday’s attack appeared to be testing what response, if any, would come from Washington. 

Meanwhile, a separate, tentative cease-fire between the Houthis and a Saudi-led coalition fighting on behalf of Yemen’s exiled government has held for months, despite the long civil war in Yemen. This has raised concerns that any wider conflict in the sea — or a potential reprisal strike from Western forces — could reignite those tensions in Yemen. It also may draw in Iran, which has so far largely avoided directly entering the wider Israel-Hamas war, further into the conflict. 

(AP)



Source link

#navies #repel #largest #attack #Houthis #Red #Sea

Explained | What is the row over UK’s Rosebank oil field?

Post By World , , , , , , , , ,

The story so far: Angering enivronmental activists across United Kingdom (U.K), the British government okayed one of the country’s biggest new oil and gas projects —the North Sea Rosebank field— on September 27. The Rishi Sunak government claims that the project was essential for securing the nation’s energy demands.

The move comes mere days after UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a delay in the ban on sales of new petrol cars from 2030 to 2035, claiming that he needed the public’s support in switching to net zero (carbon emissions). Mr. Sunak claims that Britain could afford to make slower progress in net zero emissions by 2050 as it was ‘so far ahead of every other country in the world’. The watering down of Britain climate action has triggered fears of other European nations following suit.

Mr. Sunak has stood firm by his decision to green light Rosebank, stating that it was a necessary domestic source of fossil fuel and that Britain would still be dependent on oil and gas as one of its fuel sources by 2050. His Energy Security Minister Claire Coutinho has stated that Rosebank will produce less emissions as it would eventually electrify the oil extraction process.

What is the Rosebank field project?

Located 130 kilometres north-west of Shetland islands, the Rosebank oil field was first discovered in 2004 by Chevron. While oil reserve capacity was demonstrated in 2019, the field has remained untapped till now. In 2019, Norwegian oil company Equinor acquired the licences for the project from Chevron. Known for tackling challenging deepwater untapped reserves, this joint venture by Equinor (80%) and British oil honcho Ithaca (20%) will drill for oil at a depth of 1100 metres under water. The project will be developed in two phases, with the first oil extraction scheduled for 2026.

Map of Rosebank oil field

Estimated to pump 300 million barrels of oil, the Rosebank field will comprise of 8% of UK’s total oil production and is estimated to generate 1,600 jobs during construction and 450 UK-based jobs throughout its lifetime — till 2051. Equinor estimates that the project investment will amount to £8.1 billion, of which £3.1 billion has already been invested in the first phase.

The project will reuse a Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO) previously owned by Altera Infrastructure. An FPSO is a ship-like structure which receives fluids through risers from subsea reservoirs and then separates them into crude oil, natural gas, water and impurities. In order to reduce carbon emissions, the FPSO will be prepared for future electrification, cutting down the upstream carbon dioxide (CO2) intensity from 12kg/boe (barrels of oil equivalent) to less than 3 kg/boe.

The Norwegian oil producer had first submitted its environmental proposal in August 2022, which was open for public consultation till September 2022. While initially questioning Equinor about the environmental impact of the project, the North Sea Transition Authority — UK’s oil and gas regulator— okayed the project after considering the project’s net zero action throughout its lifetime. After Equinor made a final investment decision, the Sunak government okayed the project on September 27, 2023, despite protests by climate activists.

The floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) unit for Rosebank, Petrojarl Knarr

The floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) unit for Rosebank, Petrojarl Knarr

Conservatives, Labour & Scotland: Where do they stand on Rosebank?

Throwing his weight behind Rosebank, Mr. Sunak highlighted how important the North Sea oilfield was for UK’s energy security and economy. In an interview with BBC Scotland, he said, “I don’t want our children to be dependent on foreign dictators like Putin for our energy”.

He added that while UK will switch to clean energy, he would prefer to use gas from domestic sources during the transition rather than “import [gas] from abroad at four times the carbon emissions.” The UK government has stated that if investment in new North Sea oil projects is stopped, the nation’s fuel imports will increase by 10% by 2035.

Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak leaves the stage after delivers a speech during a press conference on net zero targets, at the Downing Street Briefing Room, in central London, on September 20, 2023.

Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak leaves the stage after delivers a speech during a press conference on net zero targets, at the Downing Street Briefing Room, in central London, on September 20, 2023.
| Photo Credit:
POOL

Surprisingly, the Labour party, which opposes development in the North Sea, has said it will not reverse the approval to develop Rosebank if it wins the general election in 2025. Its leader Mr. Keir Starmer said that the party would accept the projects it inherits from this government to ensure stability, if it comes to power in 2025. His remarks were met by protests by Labour supporters outside shadow cabinet members’ offices.

Pulling up the Sunak government for reversing its net zero policies, Ed Miliband, the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security said that the Labour party will tackle cost of living crisis and the climate crisis in tandem. Claiming that Conservatives lacked a vision for future economic growth, Mr. Miliband asserted that the only way to bring down household bills and secure UK’s economic future was by switching to green energy.

Criticising Mr. Sunak, Scotland’s first Minister Humza Yousaf claimed that Downing Street was in ‘climate denial.’ Taking to the microblogging site X (formerly Twitter), Mr. Yousaf pointed out that as Equinor planned to sell Rosebank’s oil at global prices, the fuel extracted from the site would not remain in Scotland or UK. He also slammed the UK government’s decision to commit to approving 100 new oil & gas licences, posting, “That isn’t climate leadership. It is climate denial.”

Why are climate activists opposing Rosebank?

Climate activists have already been seething over Mr. Sunak’s decision to water down the UK’s climate goals. Activists say that by pushing the ban on new petrol and diesel cars to 2035 and easing transition of home gas boilers to heat pumps, the UK will not be able to achieve its legally-binding 2050 net zero target. By estimations, Rosebank’s carbon emissions will be three times that of the nearby Cambo oil field — approximately 200 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to operating 56 coal-fired power stations for one year.

Activists stage a protest against Rosebank outside a government Office in Edinburgh

Activists stage a protest against Rosebank outside a government Office in Edinburgh

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has indicatedthat for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, no new oil and gas projects can be developed. The IEA has also estimated that demand for fossil fuels will fall by 80% by 2050 as more and more people switch to electric cars and solar panels. Hence, big oil fields like Rosebank are unnecessary for meeting energy demands, says the IEA.

Several British lawmakers have pointed out that Rosebank will not aid in bringing down household electric bills as most of the oil extracted (90%) will be sold to the global market across Europe. Equinor, meanwhile, has stated that its oil will be transported via the West of Shetland pipeline to support Europe’s ‘energy security.’ This will ultimately end up in the UK grid, securing the nation’s energy needs, the company avers.

What are the ecological effects?

The North Sea’s Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt is host to deep sea sponges, a variety of clams and quahogs, already subject to a fragile ecosystem. In a protest held in January outside Downing Street, activists displayed a four-metre whale model — emphasizing the havoc oil pipelines will create when laid underwater along the migration corridor of the fin whale and the sperm whale.

During construction, noise pollution and sediment plumes would likely disrupt habitats of shellfish, marine mammals and cephalopods. Drilling may also harm delicate marine creatures like sponges, corals and slow-moving mammals. The biggest threat to marine life, however, is a deep-sea oil spill which would spread faster due to sea currents, damaging fauna like multiple species of fish, dolphins, orcas, and birds and disrupting the food chain in the area.

Windfall tax & oil incentives

Activists have also claimed that the UK tax-payers will hand over £3.75 billion to Equinor via tax breaks awarded to them by the government, just to develop Rosebank field for oil extraction. They further claim that once the plant is operational, the tax-payers are set to lose more than £750 million as Equinor will reap benefits from future tax breaks and profits earned in its oil sale.

Equinor’s Mariner field in the UK North Sea

Equinor’s Mariner field in the UK North Sea

However, Equinor and the UK government refuted any tax benefit for the oil company due to Rosefield. In the wake of the massive profits earned by oil companies during the initial days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the UK levied a 35% windfall tax called the Energy Profits Levy beyond the 40% corporation tax already imposed on oil and gas firms. Currently, oil companies like Equinor and Ithaca pay a 75% tax on their UK profits until 2028.

On the other hand, on June 9, 2023, the UK government announced the Energy Security Investment Mechanism which will go into effect post-March 2028. Under this scheme, if oil prices fall to normal levels (pre-Ukraine invasion rates) for a sustained period, then the tax for oil companies will return to 40%. The move is aimed attract investment in UK’s domestic oil fields — especially the North Sea region.



Source link

#Explained #row #UKs #Rosebank #oil #field

Tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son was killed in crash with Princess Diana, dies at 94

Post By World , , , ,

Few things were beyond the reach of billionaire Egyptian tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed who has died at the age of 94.

Hotels, yachts and a football club were bought with ease but he never acquired the recognition he craved.

His son Dodi’s fateful relationship with princess Diana might have been the moment Fayed finally gained acceptance by the British “Establishment” elite.

Instead it marked his permanent estrangement after he insisted – without evidence – that Queen Elizabeth II‘s husband Prince Philip had ordered the Paris car crash in which Diana and Dodi were killed to prevent her marrying a Muslim.

Fayed lived most of his life in Britain, where for decades he was never far from the headlines.

But to his frustration he was never granted UK citizenship nor admitted into the upper echelons of British society.

Fayed will be remembered most for his outspoken and often foul-mouthed manner, his revenge on the Conservative party, his controversial purchase of the Harrods department store, and his ownership of Fulham football club and the Ritz hotel in Paris.

Al Fayed owned the Harrods department store in west London. © Carl De Souza, AFP

With a business empire encompassing shipping, property, banking, oil, retail and construction, Fayed was also a philanthropist, whose foundation helped children in the UK, Thailand and Mongolia.

His gift for self-invention – he added the “Al-” prefix to his surname and a 1988 UK government report described his claims of wealthy ancestry as “completely bogus” – led segments of the British press to dub him the “Phoney Pharoah.”

Humble origins

Far from being the scion of a dynasty of cotton and shipping barons he made himself out to be, Fayed was the son of a poor Alexandrian school-teacher who, after an early venture flogging lemonade, set out in business selling sewing machines.

He later had the good luck to start working for the arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who recognised his business abilities and employed him in his furniture export business in Saudi Arabia.

He also owned the Ritz hotel in Paris, from where Diana and Dodi made their fateful final journey.
He also owned the Ritz hotel in Paris, from where Diana and Dodi made their fateful final journey. © Jacques Demarthon, AFP

He became an advisor to the Sultan of Brunei in the mid-1960s and moved to Britain in the 1970s.

Fayed bought the Ritz in 1979 with his brother and the pair snapped up Harrods six years later after a long and bitter takeover battle with British businessman Roland “Tiny” Rowland.

A subsequent government investigation into the takeover, officially published in 1990, found that Fayed and his brother had been dishonest about their wealth and origins to secure the takeover.

They called the claims unfair. Five years later, his first application for British citizenship was rejected.

Revenge followed swiftly. Soon after, Fayed told the press that he had paid Conservative MPs to ask questions in parliament on his behalf.

This brought down two prominent politicians, while Fayed also exposed Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken’s involvement in a Saudi arms deal.

Aitken was later jailed for perjury and perverting the course of justice.

Paris tragedy

The defining tragedy of Fayed’s life came in August 1997: Dodi and Princess Diana died when a car driven by one of Fayed’s employees, chauffeur Henri Paul, crashed in a Paris road tunnel.

For years afterwards, Fayed refused to accept the deaths were the result of speeding and intoxication by Paul, who also died.

Dodi's death in the tragedy was largely eclipsed by Diana's.
Dodi’s death in the tragedy was largely eclipsed by Diana’s. © Mohammed Al-Sehiti, AFP

The distraught Fayed accused the royal family of being behind the deaths and commissioned two memorials to the couple at Harrods.

One, unveiled in 1998, was a kitsch pyramid-shaped display with photos of Diana and Dodi, a wine glass purported to be from their final dinner and a ring that he claimed his son bought for the princess.

The other, a copper statue of the couple releasing an albatross, was entitled “Innocent Victims” – a reflection of his view that Dodi and Diana “were murdered”.

Fayed’s claims against the royal family came at a price.

Harrods lost a royal warrant bestowed by Prince Philip in 2000 after what Buckingham Palace called “a significant decline in the trading relationship” between the prince and the store.

Al-Fayed commissioned two memorials to the couple, insisting they were going to be married
Al-Fayed commissioned two memorials to the couple, insisting they were going to be married © John D. McHugh, AFP

Later that year, Fayed ordered the removal of all remaining royal warrants – effectively a regal seal of approval – for supplying the queen, queen mother and Prince Charles, the now King Charles III.

The Establishment “dislike my outspokenness and determination to get the truth”, he said, as he announced his exile to Switzerland in 2003 because of his claims and what he said was the “unfair” treatment at the hands of the tax authorities.

Sporting success

Fayed sold Harrods in 2010 to the investment arm of Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund for a reported £1.5 billion ($2.2 billion), although it was once reported he wanted to remain there even in death.

He told the Financial Times in 2002 that he wanted his body to be put on display in a glass mausoleum on Harrods roof “so people can come and visit me”.

Despite his paranoia, secrecy and eccentricities, Fayed’s success with the prestige department store was undeniable.

Al Fayed bought Fulham Football Club and commissioned a statue of pop star Michael Jackson for outside its ground.
Al Fayed bought Fulham Football Club and commissioned a statue of pop star Michael Jackson for outside its ground. © Glyn Kirk, AFP

Within a decade of his taking over, sales increased by 50 percent and profits rose from £16 million to £62 million.

Other successes included at Fulham, which he transformed from a struggling outfit into an top-flight side. But even here he was ridiculed and he eventually sold up.

He claimed in 2014 they were relegated because a giant statue he had commissioned of Michael Jackson outside the ground was removed.

Critics, he said characteristically, “can go to hell”.

According to Forbes list of the world’s billionaires, Fayed was worth $1.9 billion in November 2022.

(AFP)

Source link

#Tycoon #Mohamed #Fayed #son #killed #crash #Princess #Diana #dies

In the latest chapter in UK press phone-hacking scandal, Prince Harry gives testimony

Post By World , , , , ,

Prince Harry appeared in London’s High Court on Monday and Tuesday to argue that articles about him printed in UK tabloids run by Mirror Group Newspapers contained information obtained by illegal means. If the royal’s claims are found to be true it could prove phone hacking on an “industrial scale” at one of Britain’s largest newspaper groups.  

Issued on:

Two days in the witness box at London’s High Court have seen Prince Harry rake over the contents of dozens of articles stretching back into the early years of his life as a subject of tabloid interest. 

The Duke of Sussex claims 148 articles documenting events such as his mother Princess Diana visiting him at school, a bout of glandular fever, phone arguments with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy and instances of illegal drug-taking all contain details that journalists obtained by illegal means. 

The cumulative impact of a lifetime of intrusive articles created “huge amount of paranoia” the royal said in a witness statement, and the feeling that he couldn’t even trust his doctors. 

A lawyer for Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) said details in the articles were obtained by legal methods including buying information from the prince’s acquaintances, reprinting information that had already been published in other newspapers, and press briefings from members of royal staff. 

On the stand, Prince Harry said the articles can all be linked to the “hallmarks” of illegal information gathering such as mystery missed calls and voice messages that indicate phone hacking, and evidence of repeated instances of journalists making payments to private investigators.  

‘The heart of popular culture’

It is rare that such allegations go to trial. The legal muscle and deep pockets of many British media companies act as an effective deterrent: MGN has paid out around £100 million to around 600 claimants accusing them of phone hacking and obtaining stories through other unlawful means.  

But it is even rarer that a member of the royal family testifies in court – Prince Harry is the first senior royal to appear on the stand since 1891. 

He brings a unique profile to the case, suggestions of a personal axe to grind, his own deep pockets and a wealth of potential evidence. “Someone like Prince Harry is in a unique position that they will have been subjected to a large number of tabloid articles over a significant period of time,” says Professor Paul Wragg, director of campaign group Hacked Off, which supports victims of press abuse. 

In this instance, Prince Harry is the most high-profile one of more than 100 people who are suing MGN, publisher of the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the Sunday People tabloids, accusing them of widespread unlawful activities between 1991 and 2011.  

The royal is one of four claimants who are being heard at trial as “representative cases”.  

A court artist sketch by Elizabeth Cook shows Prince Harry being being cross examined by Andrew Green KC, at the High Court in central London on Wednesday, June 7, 2023. © Elizabeth Cook, AP

Traditionally the British tabloids hold a unique place in national discourse. “They are read right across the country and really set the agenda for public conversation,” says Adrian Bingham, Professor of Modern British History at the University of Sheffield. “Historically, they have been right at the heart of popular culture.” 

The period during which the articles submitted as evidence were published coincides with the peak of “a hugely competitive tabloid market, in which competition always trumped ethics”, Bingham adds. “The scoop was everything for the editors. There was little restraint.” 

The British public was widely shocked when in 2011 The Guardian newspaper revealed that journalists from Rupert Murdoch’s News of The World paper had interfered with police investigations into the disappearance of missing schoolgirl Millie Dowler by illegally listening to her voicemail messages.  

Further investigations revealed journalists had also hacked the phones of victims of the 2005 London bombings, relatives of deceased British soldiers and numerous celebrities, politicians and members of the royal family.  

Criminal cases were brought that saw three journalists and editors from News of the World convicted for illegally acquiring confidential information. Others convicted were private investigators and members of the police. 

A judicial public inquiry, chaired by Lord Justice Leveson in 2011-12, was based on the premise that within newsrooms, “any illegality that was taking place was done by a limited number of individuals”, Wragg adds. 

An ‘industrial scale’

MGN argues that Prince Harry has missed the six-year deadline for making his claim, but it does not deny that it has participated in illegal practice. Prior to the trial this week, the publisher “unreservedly” apologised to the royal for one instance of unlawful information gathering.  

Yet the Duke of Sussex and other claimants are aiming to show that practices such as phone hacking were happening on an “industrial scale” – and not just at one group of newspapers. 

The trial against MGN is the first of three the royal hopes to bring. He and other claimants are still waiting to hear whether courts will allow two separate cases against the parent companies of The Sun and the Daily Mail tabloids to go to trial.  

“Prince Harry’s certainly the figurehead, but what we’re talking about is hundreds of individuals claiming that there have been a serious significant number of breaches of law across a long period of time,” Wragg says. 

If found to be true, “it reopens the question of press regulation and the adequacy of press regulation in this country”, Wragg says. 

After the prince’s testimony ended on Tuesday defence lawyers said he had failed to produce a “single item” of evidence proving his phone was hacked by journalists working for MGN.  

The royal said this was because the journalists in question had used “burner phones” allowing them to destroy call logs.

The case continues. 

Source link

#latest #chapter #press #phonehacking #scandal #Prince #Harry #testimony

King Charles III: A radical environmentalist or mainstream ecologist?

Post By World , , , , , ,

Issued on: Modified:

King Charles III was mocked in the past as an eccentric for championing organic farming, but will demonstrate his continuing commitment at his coronation which will be steeped in symbols of nature and the environment. But will he be able to hold on to his beliefs as king, given that the role requires frequent travel etc and runs counter to the British monarchy’s many traditions?

As an environmentalist long before Greta Thunberg was even born, green issues ranging from climate change to biodiversity have been at the heart of Charles’s Royal work.

His coronation itself will be marked by his long-held environmentalism from his wearing clothes that belonged to previous monarchs and serving a vegetarian main course at the main meal. This fervent ecologist is thus making his “green” mark and making his mark on the ceremony.

Charles has always been forward-thinking on the issue of the planet, warning about the dangers in a speech in 1970 at just 21. He said that the planet was in danger and denounced chemical, air and oil pollution, “which almost destroys beaches and certainly destroys tens of thousands of seabirds”.

 


Organic farming and endangered pigs  

The British Crown’s property and Charles III’s own land introduced organic farming practices on some of it in far ahead of the curve as 1985. On his 440-hectare farm at Highgrove in south-west England, he has experimented with natural instead of chemical pesticides on his fields. The site is also home to over 73 species of rare animals, including Tamworth pigs, which are one of the oldest breeds in the country and currently endangered.


On his Dorset estate in the southern part of the country, he has also built a very popular village using only eco-friendly materials, waste separation and other principles of sustainable urban living and planning.

Later, he installed wood chip boilers in his homes and converted his Jaguar and Land Rover to run on biodiesel, made from used cooking oil, along with a host of other green measures. Over the years, his experiments have sometimes been met with further mockery, such as when he said at COP26 in 2021 that his Aston Martin runs on “surplus English white wine and whey from the cheese process”. This idea has obviously been dismissed for mass usage.

From 2007 onwards, Charles III began tracking and publishing his carbon footprint, which he has done every year since. He has committed to offsetting his emissions by investing in sustainable energy projects where it is not possible to reduce them. 

Big statements at the World Economic Forum 

Unlike his mother, who was thrust onto the throne as a child, the former Prince of Wales has had 70 years to observe how the world has changed. During all these years, he has taken advantage of his official travels and international speeches to put environmental conservation in the spotlight, even if it means shocking his audience. 

In 2020 at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, he supported the young climate activist Greta Thunberg and criticised the business world’s lack of ecological commitment. “What good is all the extra wealth in the world, gained from ‘business as usual’, if you can do nothing with it except watch it burn in catastrophic conditions?” asked Charles III during his speech. 

In partnership with the WEF, the sovereign created the Sustainable Markets Council a year ago, a body charged with encouraging best practice, identifying innovative technologies and linking investors to projects. 

 

In partnership with the WEF, the sovereign created the Sustainable Markets Council a year before this famous speech, a body charged with encouraging best practice, identifying innovative technologies and linking investors to projects. 

Political neutrality and mainstream ecology 

However, “Charles III’s positions are not radical,” says Thibaud Harrois, lecturer in contemporary British civilisation at Paris’ Sorbonne-Nouvelle University. “He has not called for the end of capitalism. He is doing what could be described as ‘mainstream’ ecology, accepted by all at a time when there is scientific consensus on the issue of global warming,” adds Harrois.    

In his role as monarch, the British sovereign is subject to political neutrality, says the lecturer, adding that he doubts Thunberg will ever be invited to Buckingham Palace. “It would be daring because she symbolises a type of activism – a climate strike – that is politically contested. It’s hard to imagine that the king would do something that could have a political impact and damage the British government,” says Harrois. He received a huge backlash in the UK for getting involved in the environmental movement so publically, for as a “working Royal” he is not supposed to interfere with UK government policy. Their role is as ambassadors to the UK — symbolic — and to work on social and charitable causes in the UK.

In 2004, however, Charles secretly sent a series of handwritten letters to several British ministers and politicians. In these very personal letters, the former prince shared his views on organic farming, global warming and urban planning, for which he was later severely criticised.

King Charles III’s private jet trips 

He is largely seen as a “’green monarch’ but he is criticised for his lifestyle; including his love of fox hunting and frequent air travel, which many feel run contradictory to his environmental stance. 

Even though Charles III is monitoring his carbon footprint, he continues to travel regularly by private plane and go on ski holidays every winter, an activity that is being increasingly criticised for its environmental impact. In 2020 alone, his carbon footprint was estimated at 3,133 tonnes of CO2 compared to the 8.3 tonnes emitted by the average British citizen.     

Britain’s King Charles III and Camilla, Queen Consort, exit their plane after landing at Berlin Brandenburg Airport in Schoenefeld, Germany, on March 29, 2023. © Odd Andersen, AFP

 

That same year, the Daily Mail criticised the former prince for flying 25,000 kilometres in a private jet 11 days before he attended the WEF in Davos, Switzerland, where he posed alongside Thunberg. During this short period, Charles III travelled by private jet three times, not counting the five empty trips to pick him up. He has been involved in other controversies, including when he travelled to New York in 2007 with a team of 20 people to receive an ecology award. 

At a time when global warming is more topical than ever, one thing is certain: the next British monarch will continue to be criticised even after he is crowned whatever he or she does and their overseas travel closely monitored.

This article has been translated from the original in French. 



Source link

#King #Charles #III #radical #environmentalist #mainstream #ecologist

Charles III’s ‘slimmed down’ coronation still aims to capture royal magic

Post By World , , , , ,

Charles III will be crowned king of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realm nations on Saturday in a ceremony imbued with religious and national symbolism. Yet some significant changes to protocol aim to bring the normally extravagant ceremony down to earth – while retaining some royal mystique. 

Many of the rituals and mythical-sounding objects that will be used for the coronation of Charles III draw deeply on national symbolism dating back hundreds – if not thousands – of years. 

London’s Westminster Abbey has been a venue for coronations since 1066, and artifacts such as the silver-gilt coronation spoon (used to transfer the holy oil for anointing the monarch) date back to 1349.

During the ceremony, King Charles III will wear the same lavish robes used for his grandfather George VI’s coronation and carry a 17th-century golden orb and sceptre last seen atop the coffin of Queen Elizabeth II. 

When he is crowned, the king will sit upon the Stone of Destiny – an ancient and sacred symbol of Scottish monarchy that some historians date back to biblical times.

At its heart, the ceremony will aim to convey the history, tradition and enigma the monarchy embodies.

“It will be a very mysterious-looking ceremony that may look bizarre to many people across the world. But what will look bizarre to some will look mesmerising for others,” says Luke Blaxill, lecturer in British political and constitutional history at the University of Oxford.  

Ardent fans are mesmerised already. Along The Mall – the long avenue leading up to the royal residence, Buckingham Palace ­– committed royal well-wishers began camping out in late April to ensure a prime view of the royal procession to and from the abbey. 

Royal enthusiasts camp along the king’s coronation route at The Mall with Buckingham Palace in the background in London, Tuesday, May 2, 2023. © Emilio Morenatti, AP

Although the ceremony will certainly be opulent, it is intended to be less ostentatious than coronations past.

“This event is streamlined and slimmed down,” says Ed Owens, royal historian and author of “The Family Firm”. “There’s a much greater emphasis on the democratisation of the ritual and the ceremony as a result.”  

This approach correlates with a decades-long effort among the royal family to boost its popularity by appearing more accessible, and means a more inclusive ceremony. Women bishops will take part in a coronation for the first time on Saturday, as will representatives of non-Christian faiths. In another first, texts will be read in Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic.   

The guest list for the ceremony has also been adapted: most of Britain’s 24 non-royal dukes, who normally attend in coronation robes and coronets, are not invited. Some 2,000 guests are expected, including 450 members of the public who have served their communities – a far cry from the more than 8,000 who squeezed into Westminster Abbey for Elizabeth II’s coronation 70 years ago. 

A down-to-earth monarch

As this will be the first coronation most viewers have witnessed, the more obscure changes are likely to go unnoticed. Time-consuming rituals, such as presenting the monarch with gold ingots, have been axed to bring the duration of the ceremony to just over an hour.  

Other details aim to convey the image of a more down-to-earth royal ceremony, quite literally. 

Invitations to the ceremony emphasised the king’s environmentalism, featuring flora from the British Isles and the Green Man, an ancient figure from British folklore symbolising spring and rebirth. State leaders have been encouraged to reduce emissions by travelling to the ceremony on charter flights instead of private jets and key items, such as the king’s coronation robes and throne chairs, are being repaired and reused instead of commissioned. 

Symbolic images of nature will be threaded throughout the ceremony; Catherine the Princess of Wales is reportedly considering wearing a floral headpiece instead of a tiara.  

A member of the Royal School of Needlework hand embroiders the Robe of Estate that will be worn by Camilla, the Queen Consort, at the coronation on May 6.
A member of the Royal School of Needlework hand embroiders the Robe of Estate that will be worn by Camilla, the Queen Consort, at the coronation on May 6. © Buckingham Palace via AP

Such changes mark a change in approach from the monumental display of royal pageantry for Elizabeth II’s state funeral eight months previously, and may be an acknowledgment that the public could be feeling fatigue from large-scale royal events.

“There’s only a certain amount of public appetite for royal pomp and ceremony, even in Britain,” Blaxill says. “There will be a reduction in the novelty element. And the important background context here is that there’s a cost-of-living crisis – this deliberately, slightly scaled-down ceremony is a quite deliberate attempt to reflect that.” 

Even though the ceremony has been “slimmed-down”, estimates of how much the coronation will cost have already drawn backlash amid reports that Charles III’s personal fortune runs into the billions. 

Tabloid newspaper “The Mirror” reported British taxpayers will foot a bill of £250 million for the ceremony, with £150 million (€170 million) being spent on security alone. For comparison, it reports that Elizabeth II’s coronation 70 years ago cost the equivalent of £47 million.  

Other media outlets have placed the total cost at closer to £100 million, still a seemingly extravagant sum at a time when inflation is pricing some Britons out of purchasing essential goods.  

The cost-of-living-crisis is not the only issue giving people pause. After Brexit, a series of short-lived prime ministers and the death of its longest-ruling monarch, Britain has lost the clear sense of national identity a large-scale coronation could help consolidate.

“The coronation is meant to be an event that projects a sense of British self-confidence, but Britain’s had a pretty tough time for the last seven years,” Owens says. “There’s nothing like the same level of positivity or optimism that characterised Elizabeth II’s coronation.” 

Royal magic 

Britain is far from a nation of ardent royalists; just over a third of British adults feel indifferent towards the coronation.

One ill-fated attempt to make the process less elitist has drawn near-universal ire. Instead of the traditional “Homage of Peers”, during which hereditary peers – historically members of the aristocracy – knelt to pledge their loyalty to the king, the “Homage of the People” will invite viewers at home to swear allegiance to King Charles III and his successors. Critics have called the attempt to democratise the ceremony “tone deaf”.

“Britain is a liberal democracy, where we believe in freedom of speech,” Owens says. “The idea that we are having words put in our mouths as part of this ceremony, and are swearing an oath of loyalty to the monarch and his successors, notably, has been problematic.” 

“I think, perhaps, asking people to say, ‘God save the king’ would have been about the limit,” Blaxill adds. 

And yet, almost half of adults in the UK plan to watch the ceremony or take part in coronation celebrations over the weekend.  

Notable republicans, including Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf, Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford and Sinn Fein’s Northern Ireland leader Michelle O’Neill have also said they will attend the ceremony in person.

They are, perhaps, hoping to witness a unique, historical spectacle – if not a moment of royal magic. 

The sacred act of anointing the monarch with holy oil will take place behind the anointing screen, pictured here in the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace in London on April 24, 2023.
The sacred act of anointing the monarch with holy oil will take place behind the anointing screen, pictured here in the Chapel Royal at St James’s Palace in London on April 24, 2023. © Victoria Jones, AFP

As much as the coronation of Charles III has been designed to give the impression of a humbler head of state than his predecessors, he must also retain some of the mystical power that allows people to see him as a monarch and not just a man in a golden crown. 

Historically, coronations were deliberately closed off from the public to project a sense of elite power and mystery – and one moment on Saturday will uphold this tradition. The most sacred part of the ceremony, dating back to the 7th century, will happen behind a specially designed screen. During the unction, the most senior bishop in the Church of England anoints the monarch with holy oil, thereby signalling that the king has been chosen by God. 

“It’s the moment where the mystique and the spiritual dimensions of the monarchy are made visible through their invisibility,” Owens says. A few minutes during which millions of viewers in Britain, the Commonweath and beyond are invited to suspend their disbelief and make a leap of faith to transform Charles III into a king.

Coronation of King Charles III
Coronation of King Charles III © Creative Department – France Médias Monde



Source link

#Charles #IIIs #slimmed #coronation #aims #capture #royal #magic