India and the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) have sustained and deepened their bilateral relations through a series of high-level political engagements, Ministerial meetings, and institutional consultations in recent years. A statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said that both countries have consistently reaffirmed their commitment to enhancing cooperation across a wide spectrum of areas including trade, innovation, defence, maritime, legal exchange, and digital transformation.
The foundation of this longstanding relationship has been reinforced through key high-level visits. President Nicos Anastasiades of RoC paid a State visit to India from 24–29 April 2017, while the then President of India, Ram Nath Kovind, visited Cyprus from 2–4 September 2018. In subsequent years, bilateral ties have continued to progress through meetings between top leadership and diplomatic representatives.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi met President Anastasiades during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York on 26 September 2019 and earlier during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in London on 20 April 2018.
External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar has had multiple engagements with his Cypriot counterparts in recent years. In a virtual meeting with then Foreign Minister Nikos Christodoulides on 16 February 2021, both sides expressed satisfaction over the growing trajectory of bilateral ties and agreed to maintain momentum across high-level exchanges, economic partnership, and people-to-people ties. EAM Jaishankar held further discussions with Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides on the sidelines of CHOGM 2022 in Kigali and again at the 77th UNGA in New York in September 2022.
EAM Dr. Jaishankar visited Cyprus from 29–31 December 2022. During the visit, he held meetings with Acting President and Speaker of the House of Representatives Annita Demetriou, and Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides. Two key agreements were signed: a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Defence and Military Cooperation and a Declaration of Intent on a Migration and Mobility Partnership Agreement (MMPA). Additionally, RoC joined the International Solar Alliance during this visit. EAM and his counterpart also addressed an Economic and Business Forum in Limassol on 30 December 2022.
Engagements between the two countries have continued at multilateral fora. EAM met with RoC Foreign Minister Dr. Constantinos Kombos on the sidelines of the EU-Indo Pacific Forum in Stockholm on 13 May 2023, and again during the 78th UNGA in New York on 23 September 2023, followed by another meeting during the 79th UNGA on 25 September 2024, and later during the Doha Forum on 7 December 2024.
Minister of State for Ports, Shipping and Waterways Shantanu Thakur visited Cyprus from 8–11 October 2023 to attend the “Cyprus Maritime 2023 Conference” in Limassol. The event, inaugurated by President Nikos Christodoulides, served as a platform to discuss maritime cooperation and future shipping partnerships. On the sidelines, MoS held a bilateral meeting with the Shipping Deputy Minister Marina Hadjimanolis and also engaged with the Indian shipping community and professionals based in Cyprus.
Dr. Nicodemos Damianou, Deputy Minister of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy of RoC, led a delegation to New Delhi from 5–6 September 2024 to participate in the “CII India Mediterranean Business Conclave.” He joined Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and EAM Jaishankar during a ministerial session on trade and investment.
Judicial and legal cooperation also received a boost when a high-level delegation from India, led by Justice Surya Kant and Attorney General R. Venkataramani, visited RoC to attend the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA) International Conference held at UCLan Cyprus from 7–8 October 2024.
To institutionalize the strategic dialogue, the sixth round of Foreign Office Consultations (FOC) was held on 26 November 2024 in Nicosia.
On September 28, 2020, Victor Vargotskii was arrested in Argentina on an international arrest warrant. Francisco Javier Jimenez Guerrero was arrested on October 24, 2019 in Spain.
Yesterday, RCMP police officers arrested 17 individuals involved in a vast international money laundering network. This major investigation targeted a criminal organization in Montréal and Toronto. The raid mobilized more than 300 police officers and partners.
The investigation was led by the Integrated Proceeds of Crime unit, in cooperation with RCMP investigators from Ontario and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The investigation was conducted from 2016 to 2018 following information received from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
An elaborate money‑laundering scheme
The network’s members facilitated the collection of money from criminal groups in Montréal and then laundered the results of their illegal business. In particular, the network offered a money transfer service to drug exporting countries.
The network moved money that was collected in Montréal through various individuals and currency exchange offices in Toronto. The network used an informal value transfer system (IVTS) with connections in Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, the United States and China. The funds were then returned to drug exporting countries, such as Colombia and Mexico.
This procedure allowed for the laundering of significant amounts of money originating from illegal activities, including drug trafficking. The criminal organizations could thus import drugs through this network.
The scheme set up by the network for criminal purposes was identified and dismantled.
Proceeds of crime seized
During the investigation and the searches, police officers seized significant quantities of drugs, such as cannabis, cocaine, hashish and methamphetamine, for a market value of close to $2.2 million. Bank accounts and money in Canadian and foreign currencies was also seized, for a value of $8.7 million. The CRA also proceeded with the restraint of six properties, of an estimated value of $15 million. The RCMP also seized a considered offence-related property of an estimated value of $7 million. To date, the estimated value of the assets that were seized or restrained is more than $32.8 million.
Individuals accused
Charges were laid against 17 individuals, including the two individuals who are the network’s alleged leaders, Nader Gramian-Nik, 56 years old, from Vaughan (Ontario cell) and Mohamad Jaber, 51 years old, from Laval (Quebec cell).
Quebec cell
Mohamad Jaber, 51 years old, Laval
Kamel Ghaddar, 39 years old, Laval
Eric Bradette, 36 years old, L’Assomption
Sergio Violetta Galvez, 43 years old, Laval
Alexei Parasenco, 26 years old, Montréal
Victor Vargotskii, 56 years old, Montréal
Mario Maratta 64, years old, Sainte-Sophie
Sorin Ehrlich, 62 years old, Montréal
Gary Maybee, 57 years old, Austin
Francisco Javier Jimenez Guerrero, 35 years old, address unknown
Ontario cell
Nader Gramian-Nik, 56 years old, Vaughan
Tania Geramian-Nik, 28 years old, Vaughan
Frederick Rayman, 71 years old, Unionville
Sahar Shojaei, 45 years old, Thornhill
Thomas Hsueh, 47 years old, Thornhill
Mohammadreza Sheikhhassani, 55 years old, Richmond Hill
Shabnam Mansouri, 38 years old, Maple
These individuals are facing a number of charges:
conspiracy
possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking
instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization
commission of offence for criminal organization
trafficking in property obtained by crime
laundering proceeds of crime
Three individuals arrested during yesterday’s operations were also interrogated and released without charges.
Fighting organized crime
This operation conducted by the RCMP and its partners disrupted the activities of criminal organizations that import drugs. It cut them off their money transferring network and allowed for the confiscation of significant sums.
Public appeal
Do you have information about the illegal activities of individuals or groups of individuals? Contact the RCMP at 514-939-8300 / 1-800-771-5401 or your local police department.
Over the last two weeks, our officers have worked tirelessly to find the suspects wanted in connection to the homicides in British Columbia.
While there were no confirmed sightings since July 22nd, our officers never gave up in their search efforts – following-up on every lead, considering all options, and using every available resource.
Our officers knew that we just needed to find that one piece of evidence that could move this search forward.
On Friday, August 2nd, that one critical piece of evidence was found – items directly linked to the suspects were located on the shoreline of the Nelson River.
Following this discovery, we were, at last, able to narrow down the search.
We immediately sent in specialized RCMP teams to begin searching nearby high-probability areas.
This morning, at approximately 10:00 am, RCMP officers located two male bodies, in the dense brush, within 1 kilometer from where the items were found. This is approximately 8 km from where the burnt vehicle was located.
At this time, we are confident that these are the bodies of the two suspects wanted in connection with the homicides in British Columbia. An autopsy is being scheduled in Winnipeg to confirm their identities and to determine their cause of death.
To the families of everyone affected by the series of events over the last few weeks, I know it has been so very difficult and I hope today’s announcement can begin to bring some closure.
I want to thank the communities and the leadership of Gillam, Fox Lake Cree Nation, Ilford War Lake First Nation and York Landing.
Your lives have been disrupted, many of you lived with uncertainty and fear, but throughout, you were resilient, you came together as communities and you helped our officers get the job done.
To the officers involved in the search efforts; I commend you for your determination, for your innovation, for never giving up, and for working night and day to bring this search to a conclusion.
This was a search that could not have been successfully achieved without the help from our partners at the Canadian Armed Forces, from RCMP employees who came in from across the country and from multiple private partners.
Above all however, it was a search that could only be successful if we had strong public engagement and support.
Thank you to all Canadians for remaining vigilant, for calling us with information and most importantly, for being our partners.
Seabed mining could become one of the defining environmental battles of 2025. Around the world, governments are weighing up whether to allow mining of the ocean floor for metal ores and minerals. New Zealand is among them.
The stakes are high. Deep-sea mining is highly controversial, with evidence showing mining activity can cause lasting damage to fragile marine ecosystems. One area off the east coast of the United States, mined as an experiment 50 years ago, still bears scars and shows little sign of recovery.
With the world facing competing pressures – climate action and conservation versus demand for resources – New Zealand must now decide whether to fast-track mining, regulate it tightly, or pause it entirely.
Who controls international seabed mining?
A major flashpoint is governance in international waters. Under international law, seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction is managed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
But the US has never ratified UNCLOS. In April this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to bypass the ISA and allow companies to begin mining in international waters.
The ISA has pushed back, warning unilateral action breaches international law. However, the declaration from the recently concluded UN Ocean Conference in France does not urge countries to adopt a precautionary approach, nor does it ban deep seabed mining.
The declaration does “reiterate the need to increase scientific knowledge on deep sea ecosystems” and recognises the role of the ISA in setting “robust rules, regulations and procedures for exploitation of resources” in international waters.
So, while the international community supports multilateralism and international law, deep-sea mining in the near future remains a real possibility.
Fast-track approvals
In the Pacific, some countries have already made up their minds about which way they will go. Nauru recently updated its agreement with Canadian-based The Metals Company to begin mining in the nearby Clarion Clipperton Zone. The deal favours the US’s go-it-alone approach over the ISA model.
By contrast, in 2022, New Zealand’s Labour government backed the ISA’s moratorium and committed to a holistic ocean management strategy. Whether that position still holds is unclear, given the current government’s policies.
Trans-Tasman Resources’ proposal to extract up to 50 million tonnes of Taranaki seabed material annually to recover heavy mineral sands that contain iron ore as well as rare metal elements titanium and vanadium.
McCallum Brothers Ltd’s Bream Bay proposal to dredge up to 150,000 cubic metres of sand yearly for three years, and up to 250,000 cubic metres after that.
Legal landscape changing
Māori and environmental groups have opposed the fast-track policy, and the Treaty of Waitangi has so far been a powerful safeguard in seabed mining cases.
Provisions referencing Treaty principles appear in key laws, including the Crown Minerals Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act.
In 2021, the Supreme Court cited these obligations when it rejected a 2016 marine discharge application by Trans-Tasman Resources to mine the seabed in the Taranaki Bight. The court ruled Treaty clauses must be interpreted in a “broad and generous” way, recognising tikanga Māori and customary marine rights.
But that legal landscape could soon change. The Regulatory Standards Bill, now before parliament, would give priority to property rights over environmental or Indigenous protections in the formulation of new laws and regulations.
The bill also allows for the review of existing legislation. In theory, if the Regulatory Standards Bill becomes law, it could result in the removal of Treaty principles clauses from legislation.
This in turn could deny courts the tools they’ve previously used to uphold environmental and Treaty-based protections to block seabed mining applications. That would make it easier to approve fast-tracked projects such as the Bream Bay and Taranaki projects.
Setting a precedent
Meanwhile, Hawai’i has gone in a different direction. In 2024, the US state passed a law banning seabed mining in state waters – joining California (2022), Washington (2021) and Oregon (1991).
Under the Hawai’i Seabed Mining Prevention Act, mining is banned except in rare cases such as beach restoration. The law cites the public’s right to a clean and healthy environment.
As global conflict brews over seabed governance, New Zealand’s eventual position could set a precedent.
Choosing to prohibit seabed mining in New Zealand waters, as Hawai’i has done, would send a strong message that environmental stewardship and Indigenous rights matter more than short-term resource extraction interests.
If New Zealand does decide to go ahead with seabed mining, however, it could trigger a cascade of mining efforts across New Zealand and the Pacific. A crucial decision is fast approaching.
Myra Williamson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Police are responding to a serious incident at North Motton in North West Tasmania. A police officer and offender have been injured during the incident. There is no ongoing threat to the wider community.
Seabed mining could become one of the defining environmental battles of 2025. Around the world, governments are weighing up whether to allow mining of the ocean floor for metal ores and minerals. New Zealand is among them.
The stakes are high. Deep-sea mining is highly controversial, with evidence showing mining activity can cause lasting damage to fragile marine ecosystems. One area off the east coast of the United States, mined as an experiment 50 years ago, still bears scars and shows little sign of recovery.
With the world facing competing pressures – climate action and conservation versus demand for resources – New Zealand must now decide whether to fast-track mining, regulate it tightly, or pause it entirely.
Who controls international seabed mining?
A major flashpoint is governance in international waters. Under international law, seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction is managed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
But the US has never ratified UNCLOS. In April this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to bypass the ISA and allow companies to begin mining in international waters.
The ISA has pushed back, warning unilateral action breaches international law. However, the declaration from the recently concluded UN Ocean Conference in France does not urge countries to adopt a precautionary approach, nor does it ban deep seabed mining.
The declaration does “reiterate the need to increase scientific knowledge on deep sea ecosystems” and recognises the role of the ISA in setting “robust rules, regulations and procedures for exploitation of resources” in international waters.
So, while the international community supports multilateralism and international law, deep-sea mining in the near future remains a real possibility.
Fast-track approvals
In the Pacific, some countries have already made up their minds about which way they will go. Nauru recently updated its agreement with Canadian-based The Metals Company to begin mining in the nearby Clarion Clipperton Zone. The deal favours the US’s go-it-alone approach over the ISA model.
By contrast, in 2022, New Zealand’s Labour government backed the ISA’s moratorium and committed to a holistic ocean management strategy. Whether that position still holds is unclear, given the current government’s policies.
Trans-Tasman Resources’ proposal to extract up to 50 million tonnes of Taranaki seabed material annually to recover heavy mineral sands that contain iron ore as well as rare metal elements titanium and vanadium.
McCallum Brothers Ltd’s Bream Bay proposal to dredge up to 150,000 cubic metres of sand yearly for three years, and up to 250,000 cubic metres after that.
Legal landscape changing
Māori and environmental groups have opposed the fast-track policy, and the Treaty of Waitangi has so far been a powerful safeguard in seabed mining cases.
Provisions referencing Treaty principles appear in key laws, including the Crown Minerals Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act.
In 2021, the Supreme Court cited these obligations when it rejected a 2016 marine discharge application by Trans-Tasman Resources to mine the seabed in the Taranaki Bight. The court ruled Treaty clauses must be interpreted in a “broad and generous” way, recognising tikanga Māori and customary marine rights.
But that legal landscape could soon change. The Regulatory Standards Bill, now before parliament, would give priority to property rights over environmental or Indigenous protections in the formulation of new laws and regulations.
The bill also allows for the review of existing legislation. In theory, if the Regulatory Standards Bill becomes law, it could result in the removal of Treaty principles clauses from legislation.
This in turn could deny courts the tools they’ve previously used to uphold environmental and Treaty-based protections to block seabed mining applications. That would make it easier to approve fast-tracked projects such as the Bream Bay and Taranaki projects.
Setting a precedent
Meanwhile, Hawai’i has gone in a different direction. In 2024, the US state passed a law banning seabed mining in state waters – joining California (2022), Washington (2021) and Oregon (1991).
Under the Hawai’i Seabed Mining Prevention Act, mining is banned except in rare cases such as beach restoration. The law cites the public’s right to a clean and healthy environment.
As global conflict brews over seabed governance, New Zealand’s eventual position could set a precedent.
Choosing to prohibit seabed mining in New Zealand waters, as Hawai’i has done, would send a strong message that environmental stewardship and Indigenous rights matter more than short-term resource extraction interests.
If New Zealand does decide to go ahead with seabed mining, however, it could trigger a cascade of mining efforts across New Zealand and the Pacific. A crucial decision is fast approaching.
Myra Williamson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
As part of ACT Government’s ‘One Government, One Voice’ program, we are transitioning this website across to our . You can access everything you need through this website while it’s happening.
Released 16/06/2025 – Joint media release
The ACT Government is delivering targeted cost of living relief in the 2025–26 ACT Budget, with new and continued support for Canberrans who need it most.
The Budget includes a permanent $50 increase to the Electricity, Gas and Water Rebate, bringing the total annual rebate to $800 for eligible low-income households. In partnership with the Australian Government, the ACT Government is also providing up to $150 in additional electricity bill relief through the Energy Bill Relief Fund.
Chief Minister Andrew Barr said the ACT Government continues to focus on equity and inclusion, ensuring support is directed where it’s needed most.
“While many Canberrans enjoy a high standard of living, we know that cost of living pressures are real and growing for people on low incomes,” the Chief Minister said.
“We are permanently increasing the electricity rebate to $800 per year to help ease household budgets, while also delivering additional energy bill relief in partnership with the Commonwealth.”
Treasurer Chris Steel said the Government is focused on practical support that makes a tangible difference.
“This permanent rebate increase for Canberrans, and extension of the rebate to health care card holders, will ensure that cost of living relief is provided to those who need it most,” Minister Steel said.
“Our cost of living measures have been designed to work alongside national initiatives like the Commonwealth’s Energy Bill Relief Fund to maximise the benefit.”
From 1 July 2025, eligible ACT households and small businesses will receive up to $150 in further electricity bill rebates under the Energy Bill Relief Fund. Most Canberrans will receive this rebate automatically on their electricity bills.
Finance Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith said the Budget balances immediate support with long-term financial responsibility.
“The ACT Government is making deliberate, targeted investments that make a real difference in people’s lives, while ensuring our Budget remains fiscally sustainable,” Minister Stephen-Smith said.
“By focusing support where it’s needed most, we’re helping low-income households manage day-to-day costs while continuing to invest in vital services and Canberra’s future.”
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 16, 2025.
‘No kings!’: like the LA protesters, the early Romans hated kings, too Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Edwell, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Macquarie University Protesters across the United States have brandished placards declaring “no kings!” in recent days, keen to send a message one-man rule is not acceptable. The defeat of the forces of King George III in the United States’ revolutionary
Keith Rankin Analysis – Clio: Whose side is ‘History’ on? Analysis by Keith Rankin. Is history binary? A judge of past behaviour with just two available options: thumbs-up, or thumbs-down? If you are not on the ‘right side’ of history, are you therefore on the ‘wrong side’? Can there be a ‘right side of history’? Given the contexts that we now proclaim to be the
A 3-tonne, $1.5 billion satellite to watch Earth’s every move is set to launch this week Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Petrie, Earth Observation Researcher, Swinburne University of Technology Artist’s concept of the NISAR satellite in orbit over Earth. NASA/JPL-Caltech In a few days, a new satellite that can detect changes on Earth’s surface down to the centimetre, in almost real time and no matter the time
Decades on from the Royal Commission, why are Indigenous people still dying in custody? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thalia Anthony, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney Rose Marinelli/Shutterstock Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that this article contains the name of an Indigenous person who has died. The recent deaths in custody of two Indigenous men in the Northern Territory have provoked
Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colette Southam, Associate Professor of Finance, Bond University The federal government wants to boost Australia’s productivity levels – as a matter of national priority. It’s impossible to have that conversation without also talking about innovation. We can be proud of (and perhaps a little surprised by) some
A solar panel recycling scheme would help reduce waste, but please repair and reuse first Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deepika Mathur, Senior Research Fellow, Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University tolobalaguer.com, Shutterstock Australia’s rooftop solar industry has renewed calls for a mandatory recycling scheme to deal with the growing problem of solar panel waste. Only about 10% of panels are currently recycled. The rest are stockpiled, sent
Why Israel’s shock and awe has proven its power but lost the war COMMENTARY: By Antony Loewenstein War is good for business and geopolitical posturing. Before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington in early February for his first visit to the US following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, he issued a bold statement on the strategic position of Israel. “The decisions we made in the war [since
Netanyahu has two war aims: destroying Iran’s nuclear program and regime change. Are either achievable? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could last for at least two weeks. His timing seems precise for a reason. The Israel Defence Forces and the country’s intelligence agencies have
Israel’s attacks on Iran are already hurting global oil prices, and the impact is set to worsen Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joaquin Vespignani, Associate Professor of Economics and Finance, University of Tasmania The weekend attacks on Iran’s oil facilities – widely seen as part of escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran – represent a dangerous moment for global energy security. While the physical damage to Iran’s production facilities
Vehicle issued to Fiji assistant minister involved in fatal accident – driver’s son implicated By Anish Chand in Suva The son of a Fiji assistant minister is under investigation for allegedly driving a government vehicle without authority and causing an accident that killed two men. The accident took place along Bau Road, Nausori, last night. The vehicle involved in the accident was the official government vehicle issued for the
Caitlin Johnstone: We are, of course, being lied to about Iran Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone Iran and Israel are at war, with the US already intimately involved and likely to become more so. Which of course means we’ll be spending the foreseeable future getting bashed in the face with lies from the most powerful people in the
A 28-year-old man is in custody facing several charges after an incident in Hobart on Sunday afternoon in which police allege he threatened a person with a firearm at a city hotel and attempted to dispose of two additional firearms in the CBD, while trying to outrun officers. A quick police response is being credited with the Hobart man’s timely arrest, without incident, in the Liverpool Street area when uniform police officers successfully chased him down on foot. Following the man’s arrest, a search was conducted of a property in Campbell Street, Hobart, where police seized another firearm and ammunition. In total, four firearms (including a stolen firearm), a quantity of ammunition and prescription medication have been seized. The man from will appear in Hobart Magistrates Court today charged with: • Aggravated assault • Possession of a stolen firearm • Possess a firearm when not the holder of a firearm licence of the appropriate category • Possess a firearm to which a firearms licence may not be issued • Possess ammunition when not the holder of the appropriate firearm licence • Possess a controlled drug. (minor offence) • Possess thing used for administration of controlled drug. (minor offence) Anyone that may have witnessed the incident, or may have information that can assist police can call 131 444 or report anonymously to Crime Stoppers at 1800 333 000 or online at crimestopperstas.com.au
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
WATCH: Padilla Condemns Trump’s Militarization of Los Angeles, Extreme Immigration Enforcement on Face the Nation, State of the Union
Padilla speaks out on rise in political violence and Trump’s polarizing rhetoric
Watch the full Face the Nation Interview here. Watch the full State of the Union interview here.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, joined CBS’ “Face the Nation” and CNN’s “State of the Union” to discuss the unprecedented militarization of Los Angeles and his forcible removal from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s press conference, where he was thrown to the ground and handcuffed after simply trying to ask a question. Padilla condemned the Trump Administration’s cruel immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles, utilizing unnecessary and excessive actions to repeatedly escalate tensions across the region.
Senator Padilla set the record straight against blatant Republican disinformation on his forcible removal, highlighting that he was already in the high-security building for a scheduled oversight meeting with the general in charge of the military presence in Los Angeles and was escorted into the briefing room by law enforcement.
Key Excerpts — CBS’ “Face the Nation”:
On his attempt to ask Secretary Noem a question:
“The reason I was at the press conference, I was at a scheduled briefing with representatives of Northern Command just a couple doors down the hall in the same federal building when I learned of the press conference, my briefing delayed because the folks I was supposed to meet with were at that press conference. So I asked if we could listen in. I was escorted over, and that’s what I was doing.”
“Why? Because for months and months, whether it’s in committee, the Secretary herself testifying and not providing substantive answers to questions, other representatives of the department, formal letters and inquiries that we’ve submitted, doing my job as a Senator to get information as part of our oversight and accountability responsibility. So to be able to ask a question of the Secretary directly when they offered the meeting after the incident, I took it, but sadly, no, nothing substantive, nothing informative.”
“When I had the audacity to try to ask a question, as a Senator, of a cabinet secretary, that’s what happened. And you saw the response, everybody’s seen the video. It wasn’t about me, right? If that’s how this Administration responds to a Senator with a question, don’t just imagine what they’re capable of, but what they are doing when the cameras are not there, to people without a title like United States Senator, that cruel disrespectful treatment of so many people who deserve much better.”
On the unprecedented deployment of military personnel to Los Angeles and the Trump Administration’s broken promise to target violent criminals:
“Among other things, their justification for the federalization of the National Guard, not only not necessary, but counterproductive as we’ve seen this last week in Los Angeles.”
“And also just truth. You know, for all the talk about the focus and targeting of violent criminals, if that’s all the Trump Administration was doing, there would be no debate. There is no disagreement on that. But as you’re hearing more and more stories of undocumented, long-term residents of the United States who are otherwise law abiding, working hard, paying taxes, raising families and, frankly, working in jobs that under the first Trump Administration, when the COVID pandemic hit, were deemed essential. Workers in restaurants, in agricultural fields, in health care, construction, etc. — that’s who’s being targeted now, and that’s why there’s so much fear and terror in communities, not just in Los Angeles, but throughout the country.”
On Trump’s sudden order to reduce ICE enforcement and what broader immigration reform looks like:
“Let’s hope there’s more to follow because they’re responding to what I and others have been saying for months, and what’s frankly, years, going back to the first Trump Administration.”
“The State of California, the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation, home to more immigrants than any state in the nation, mostly documented, some undocumented. This is the same California that is the largest economy of any state in the nation, fourth largest economy in the world, not despite the immigrant population, but thanks to the contributions of so many immigrants as a workforce, as consumers, and as entrepreneurs.”
“So again, focus on the dangerous, violent criminals. No disagreement there, but the folks who are otherwise law abiding, taxpaying, and enriching communities. There’s got to be a better way, a pathway towards legalization, a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, farm workers, and others.”
On the Trump Administration’s harmful rhetoric and rising political violence, including the tragic Minnesota killings:
“Look a lot of questions, a lot of concerns. I work directly with both the U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and they’re doing what they need to do to ensure the safety of members of Congress.”
“But I also think it’s more than appropriate to step back and say, why are tensions so high, not just in Los Angeles, but throughout the country? And I can’t help but point to the beginning of not just the first Trump term, but the beginning of the campaign, the tone with which the President launched his first campaign for president, served throughout his first term, and continues in this term. For a cabinet secretary, during a press conference, to not be able or be willing to de-escalate a situation when I was trying to ask a question — that’s just indicative of the tone of this [Administration].”
Video of Senator Padilla’s full “Face the Nation” interview is available here.
Key Excerpts — CNN’s “State of the Union”:
On why he felt the need to speak up:
“Surprise, surprise, no substance came from that press conference, just political attacks. You know, when I heard the Secretary, not for the first time in that press conference, talk about the needing to liberate the people of Los Angeles from their duly elected Mayor and Governor, it was at that moment that I chose to try to ask a question.”
“If all the Trump Administration was doing was truly focusing on dangerous, violent criminals, as they suggest, there would be no debate. There would be no disagreement. But we’ve seen story after story after story of hardworking women and men, maybe undocumented, but otherwise law abiding, good people being subject to the terror that the … immigration enforcement operations is subjecting the people to, I needed to speak up. I needed to try to get the information from the Secretary that they’ve refused to provide in hearing after hearing.”
On Republican disinformation that Sen. Padilla tried to “manufacture a viral moment” and that nobody knew who he was at the press conference:
“Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, what are the odds? I was in a federal building a couple of doors down awaiting a briefing from Northern Command, because I still believe the federalization of the National Guard troops and deployment in Los Angeles was not only unlawful, unjustified, but counterproductive. It’s what’s escalated the tensions in Los Angeles.”
“I was escorted during my entire time in that building, from showing up in the building, going through security screening, escorted by an FBI agent and a National Guard member to the conference room where I was awaiting a briefing. … They escorted me over to the press conference. They opened the door for me, and they stood next to me while I was listening for the entire time. And then, of course, once I was forcibly removed and handcuffed.”
On Secretary Noem and President Trump’s failed leadership:
“I do think there’s some serious questions, how does the Cabinet Secretary not know the Senator from California when she steps foot into Los Angeles? She came through the Senate for confirmation at one point. And certainly, how does the Secretary of Homeland Security not know how to de-escalate a situation? It’s because she can’t, or because they don’t want to, and it sets the tone — Donald Trump and Secretary Noem have set the tone for the Department of Homeland Security and the entire Administration in terms of escalation and extreme enforcement actions.”
Video of Senator Padilla’s full “State of the Union” interview is available here.
Senator Padilla has been outspoken in calling out the ICE raids in Los Angeles and Trump’s misguided deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marine Corps. Yesterday, Padilla led the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in demanding that President Trump immediately withdraw all military forces from Los Angeles and cease all threats to deploy the National Guard or active-duty servicemembers to American cities. Earlier this week, Padilla and Schiff demanded answers regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to deploy approximately 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Padilla has spoken at a spotlight hearing and on the Senate floormultiple times to blast President Trump for manufacturing a crisis by launching indiscriminate ICE raids across Los Angeles and deploying the National Guard and active-duty servicemembers to the region.
Auckland Council and NZ Police have signed a memorandum of understanding, cementing and enhancing the two organisations’ commitment to continue working together, now and for years to come, to keep Tāmaki Makaurau safe.
Phil Wilson, chief executive of Auckland Council, says he’s extremely pleased the council and police have formalised their working relationship through the memorandum.
“Auckland Council and NZ Police have had a healthy and effective working relationship for many years, which ultimately benefits Aucklanders.
“The memorandum of understanding cements the relationship and is a touchstone from which the council and police can continue to carry out the important mahi of keeping Aucklanders and visitors safe,” says Mr Wilson.
“The council owns and maintains a significant number of public spaces and public facilities in Auckland such as our streets, community halls, swimming pools and the regional and local parks network.
“Council teams work with police every day to keep these facilities and the community safe, and look after Auckland’s most vulnerable people. I’m especially proud of our efforts in the area of community safety – including our city centre.
Tāmaki Makaurau is a key contributor to New Zealand’s economy – in fact it contributes nearly 40% of GDP.
“Economic growth depends, in part, on law and order,” says Mr Wilson.
“In recent years Auckland has seen a raft of community safety issues such as ram raids, aggravated robberies and retail crime come to the fore with the public. These are complex issues that impact the whole region which no one organisation can effectively deal with alone.
“The newly enhanced council-police relationship will strengthen coordination between the two organisations and together, with Aucklanders’ help, we can continue to address concerns around safety around the region.”
Representatives of Auckland Council and the police met on 13 June, to sign the memorandum, that stipulates its purpose is to “promote a collaborative working relationship between the parties based on good-will and co-operation.”
It’s goes on to read: “It intends to support the parties to work together on areas of common interest to achieve agreed outcomes.”
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Northern Region Jill Rogers says NZ Police look forward to continuing the good work they do in partnership with Auckland Council.
“We have seen a decrease in the offending we experienced a couple of years ago. There has been a concerted and coordinated approach undertaken by Police and Council to address these concerns. Much has been made public about increased visibility and focussing on disorder and theft related crime. This partnership continues under a formal accord in the form of this MOU.”
Auckland Council has a range of regulatory enforcement responsibilities across Auckland under the following legislation and bylaws: Resource Management Act, Building Act, Dog Control Act, Food Act, Health Act, Litter Act, Biosecurity Act, Local Government Act, Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw and the Animal Management Bylaw.
The police have responsibilities through the Policing Act across New Zealand, including Auckland. Key functions of the police include maintaining public safety, enforcing the law, preventing crime, supporting and reassuring the community and managing emergencies.
The council and police have agreed to review the memorandum of understanding within the next five years.
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
1. On the execution of the federal budget for the first quarter of 2025
2. On amendments to the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 1, 2004 No. 703 (in terms of amendments to the Regulation on the Federal Treasury)
The draft act is aimed at bringing the terms and concepts defining the functions and powers of the Federal Treasury in the financial and budgetary sphere into line with the terms and concepts contained in Article 24213–1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.
3. On the draft federal law “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On State Registration of Real Estate”
The bill is aimed at establishing the possibility of entering into the Unified State Register of Real Estate information on the boundaries of agricultural lands within agricultural lands.
4. On the draft amendments of the Government of the Russian Federation to the draft federal law No. 776683-8 “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On State Cadastral Valuation” and Article 6 of the Federal Law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation”
The draft amendments are aimed at clarifying the provisions of the Federal Law of July 3, 2016 No. 237-FZ “On State Cadastral Valuation” and Article 6 of the Federal Law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation”.
5. On approval of the technical regulations on the safety of inland water transport facilities
The draft act is aimed at ensuring the safety of inland water transport facilities.
Moscow, June 15, 2025
The content of the press releases of the Department of Press Service and References is a presentation of materials submitted by federal executive bodies for discussion at a meeting of the Government of the Russian Federation.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Jetesh Bhula, Regional Manager Infrastructure delivery, says it is one of 12 sites being built on high-volume freight routes around the country and will be critical for improving road safety.
“Crashes involving heavy vehicles can and do have devastating consequences. Ensuring trucks and truckies are complying with heavy vehicle rules is about keeping the public safe, but also about keeping freight operators safe too.”
“Since 2013 there has been a 40 percent increase in fatal and serious injury crashes involving heavy vehicles compared to an increase of 16 percent for all road crashes. CVSCs are a critical tool to help fix this,” Mr Bhula says.
When it opens in mid-2026, the centre will work with Police to target non-compliant heavy vehicles and direct them into the CVSC for inspection.
Mr Bhula says it ensures all operators are following the rules.
“Those that do not follow the rules undercut and disadvantage responsible operators. CVSCs, like the one planned for Mackays Crossing, ensure there is a level playing field for everyone in the freight and trucking industry.
“They also help us measure risk. The data collected from enforcement helps identify problem areas and lets us know where we need to help the industry make improvements,” Mr Bhula says.
The CVSC will use advanced roadside technology to screen passing vehicles. Technology used includes in-road weigh-in-motion scales, automatic number plate recognition cameras, and electronic signs. It will screen and collect truck and operator information to monitor behaviour 24/7.
The CVSC centre is being built by Downer and has an approximate construction cost of $6.5 million.
More Information
From 2012 to 2021, heavy goods vehicles were involved in 20.5 percent of all fatality crashes. CVSCs are an important tool to address this and deliver a safer transport system.
Approximately 30,000 vehicles travel on the adjacent section of SH1 daily. Of these, around five percent are heavy vehicles.
It is estimated that the CVSC will process around 11 vehicles during morning peak traffic (8–9am) and seven during evening peak traffic (5–6pm)
Because the CVSC will be located off the state highway, the bulk of its construction will not affect traffic.
Weigh-in motion systems planned for SH59 and SH1 will require traffic management when they are installed. Details on this work will be shared when its timing is confirmed.
Man arrested following Hawks v Crows Match at UTAS Stadium
Saturday, 14 June 2025 – 9:15 am.
A 42-year-old man from Launceston was arrested following an incident at UTAS Stadium on Friday night. Shortly after the final siren of the AFL match, the man entered the playing surface, disrupting post-match activities while players and umpires were leaving the ground. Security personnel swiftly intervened, but during the incident, two security guards were assaulted. Police attended and arrested the man, who appeared to be intoxicated. No injuries were reported. The man was charged with trespass, assault and disorderly conduct, and will appear in court at a later date.
Emergency Services were contacted at 11:37pm on 14 June 2025 regarding a serious traffic crash on Pages Road, Moorleah near the intersection of Cryans Road. The vehicle, a grey 2004 Holden Calais sedan, was travelling east, has left the road and then hit trees. The occupants of the vehicle were a 44-year-old man (driver), a 26-year-old woman and a 10-year-old child. The female passenger was transported to the North-West Regional Hospital by ambulance and then flown to the Royal Hobart Hospital via helicopter in a serious condition with head injuries. The male driver and child were uninjured. It is not believed there were any other vehicles involved in the crash. The crash is under investigation by Western Crash Investigation Services. Anyone with information, or relevant dash cam footage, is asked to contact police on 131 444 or Crime Stoppers Tasmania on 1800 333 000 or at crimestopperstas.com.au. Information can be provided anonymously.
Stronger, mandatory child safety measures have been signed off by every Australian Education Minister to strengthen child safety in early childhood education and care services.
This forms part of the significant progress that has already been made since the release of the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) Review of Child Safety Arrangements under the National Quality Framework.
In July 2024, a new National Code and Guidelines were released that recommended only service-issued devices can be used when photographing and filming children.
From 1 September 2025, further key changes include:
Mandatory 24 hour reporting of any allegations, complaints or incidents of physical or sexual abuse – down from the current 7 day window
A ban on vapes in all early education and care services
Stronger protections around digital technology use, with services required to have clear policies on taking photos and videos of children, parent consent, CCTV practice and using service-issued devices.
Child safety will also be explicitly embedded into the National Quality Standard from 1 January 2026.
ACECQA will issue new guidance and resource materials to support the early education sector implement these changes.
These changes are in addition to the furtherreforms flagged by the Albanese Labor Government in March this year to crack down on unscrupulous early childhood education and care providers and strengthen integrity across the care economy.
These include measures to:
Prevent providers who persistently fail to meet minimum standards and repetitively breach the National Law from opening new Child Care Subsidy approved services.
Take compliance action against existing providers with egregious and continued breaches, including the option to cut off access to Child Care Subsidy funding where appropriate.
Strengthen powers to deal with providers that pose an integrity risk.
Education Ministers will meet next week to consider additional actions to strengthen child safety in education and care services.
Quotes attributed to Minister for Education Jason Clare:
“The safety and protection of children in early childhood education is our highest priority.
“Australia has a very good system of early childhood education and care, but more can be done to make sure safety guidance and measures are fit-for-purpose.
“That’s why Education Ministers are acting on this key recommendation to make sure the right rules are in place to keep our children safe while they are in early education and care.”
Quotes attributed to Minister for Early Childhood Education Dr Jess Walsh:
“Children’s health and safety is paramount at early childhood centres, and these changes will help to ensure that we continue to provide that assurance.
“The Australian Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that children have a positive, rewarding and safe early education experience to get the best possible start in life.”
Quotes attributed to ACT Minister for Education and Early Childhood Yvette Berry:
“The safety and wellbeing of children in early childhood education is our highest priority. Access to quality early childhood education sets children up for lifelong learning and success.
“Valuing children and investing in their learning and development requires us also to value and invest in the early childhood workforce.
“I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the Commonwealth, to strengthen the National Quality Framework.”
Quotes attributed to Victorian Minister for Children Lizzie Blandthorn:
“The safety and wellbeing of children is our highest priority – and here in Victoria we work every day to make sure they are safe, supported and ready to thrive.
“We welcome these new changes, and we’ll continue to work with the Commonwealth, states and territories to review and improve safety for all children.”
Quotes attributed to acting NSW Minister for Education and Early Learning Courtney Houssos:
“These measures are an important first step. While we work with our colleagues on a national approach, the national law allows states to cater to their own needs.
“NSW welcomes these measures and looks forward to providing additional measures in response to our most recent review.”
Quotes attributed to Queensland Minister for Education and the Arts John-Paul Langbroek:
“We must all be persistent in our efforts to strengthen safety measures at childhood education and care services.
“These changes are a step in the right direction, and I welcome this national approach which will ensure Queensland kids are better protected while providing consistency across all states and territories.”
Quotes attributed to Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Early Education Jo Hersey:
“The Northern Territory Government welcomes the Child Safety Review, particularly its focus on strengthening supervision and improving the physical environment to keep children safe.
“As part of our commitment to addressing the root causes of crime, we recognise that safeguarding children is fundamental to long-term community safety.”
Quotes attributed to Western Australia Minister for Education; Early ChildhoodSabine Winton:
“The Cook Labor Government is committed to ensuring the safety of children who attend early childhood education and care services in Western Australia.
“I know there are incredible early learning centres and early childhood educators that help children learn and thrive each and every day.
“I look forward to working alongside the Albanese Labor Government to further strengthen child safety in early childhood education services, to ensure children have the best possible start to life.”
Quotes attributed to South Australian Minister for Education, Training and Skills Blair Boyer:
“I’m pleased to see all states and territories working together to strengthen the regulations around education and care services to ensure children are safe no matter where the live.
“The Malinauskas Labor Government recently provided an extra $7 million to the Education Standards Board to increase and improve regulatory services. This has seen a 63 per cent increase on the previous year in the number of service visits.
“I look forward to meeting with my colleagues next week to discuss in more detail how we can ensure we as state and federal governments are doing everything we can to provide safe and secure environments for our youngest Australians.”
For more information
NQF changes information sheet
Review of Child Safety Arrangements under the National Quality Framework
This year alone, 12 Indigenous people have died – 31% of total custodial deaths.
The raw numbers are a tragic indictment of government failure to implement in full the Commission’s 339 recommendations.
We are potentially further away from resolving this crisis than we were 34 years ago.
Recent deaths
Kumanjayi White was a vulnerable young Warlpiri man with a disability under a guardianship order. He stopped breathing while being restrained by police in an Alice Springs supermarket on May 27. His family is calling for all CCTV and body camera footage to be released.
Days later a 68-year-old Aboriginal Elder from Wadeye was taken to the Palmerston Watchhouse after being detained for apparent intoxication at Darwin airport. He was later transferred to a hospital where he died.
Alice Springs protest over the death of Kumanjayi White.
Both were under the care and protection of the state when they died. The royal commission revealed “so many” deaths had occurred in similar circumstances and urged change. It found there was:
little appreciation of, and less dedication to, the duty of care owed by custodial authorities and their officers to persons in care.
Seemingly, care and protection were the last things Kumanjayi White and the Wadeye Elder were afforded by NT police.
Preventable deaths
The royal commission investigated 99 Aboriginal deaths in custody between 1980 and 1989. If all of its recommendations had been fully implemented, lives may have been saved.
For instance, recommendation 127 called for “protocols for the care and management” of Aboriginal people in custody, especially those suffering from physical or mental illness. This may have informed a more appropriate and therapeutic response to White and prevented his death.
Recommendation 80 provided for “non-custodial facilities for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons”. Such facilities may have staved off the trauma the Elder faced when he was detained, and the adverse impact it had on his health.
More broadly, a lack of independent oversight has compromised accountability. Recommendations 29-31 would have given the coroner, and an assisting lawyer, “the power to direct police” in their investigations:
It must never again be the case that a death in custody, of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal persons, will not lead to rigorous and accountable investigations.
Yet, the Northern Territory police has rejected pleas by White’s family for an independent investigation.
Another audit?
Northern Territory Labor MP Marion Scrymgour is calling on the Albanese government to order a full audit of the royal commission recommendations.
She says Indigenous people are being completely ostracised and victimised:
People are dying. The federal government, I think, needs to show leadership.
It is unlikely another audit will cure the failures by the government to act on the recommendations.
Instead, a new standing body should be established to ensure they are all fully implemented. It should be led by First Nations people and involve families whose loved ones have died in custody in recognition of their lived expertise.
In 2023, independent Senator Lidia Thorpe moved a motion for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner to assume responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations. While the government expressed support for this motion, there has been no progress.
Another mechanism for change would be for governments to report back on recommendations made by coroners in relation to deaths in custody. Almost 600 inquests have issued a large repository of recommendations, many of which have been shelved.
Leadership lacking?
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently conceded no government has “done well enough” to reduce Aboriginal deaths in custody. But he has rejected calls for an intervention in the Northern Territory justice system:
I need to be convinced that people in Canberra know better than people in the Northern Territory about how to deal with these issues.
Albanese is ignoring the essence of what is driving deaths in custody.
Reflecting on the 25-year anniversary of the royal commission in 2016, criminology professor Chris Cunneen wrote that Australia had become much less compassionate and more ready to blame individuals for their alleged failings:
Nowhere is this more clear than in our desire for punishment. A harsh criminal justice system – in particular, more prisons and people behind bars – has apparently become a hallmark of good government.
There are too many First Nations deaths in custody because there are too many First Nations people in custody in the first place.
At the time of the royal commission, 14% of the prison population was First Nations. Today, it’s 36%, even though Indigenous people make up just 3.8% of Australia’s overall population.
Governments across the country have expanded law and order practices, police forces and prisons in the name of community safety.
This includes a recent $1.5 billion public order plan to expand policing in the Northern Territory. Such agendas impose a distinct lack of safety on First Nations people, who bear the brunt of such policies. It also instils a message that social issues can only be addressed by punitive and coercive responses.
The royal commission showed us there is another way: self-determination and stamping out opportunities for racist and violent policing. First Nations families have campaigned for these issues for decades.
How many more Indigenous deaths in custody does there have to be before we listen?
Thalia Anthony receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Eddie is an Independent Representative on the Justice Policy Partnership under the Closing the Gap Agreement.
Protesters parade through the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans as part of the nationwide No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, on June 14, 2025. Patt Little/Anadolu via Getty Images
In the last few months, large numbers of anti-Trump protesters have come out in the streets across the U.S., on occasions like the April 5 Hands Off protests against safety net budget cuts and government downsizing. Many of those protesters assert they are protecting American democracy.
The Trump administration has decried these protesters and the concept of protest more generally, with the president recently calling protesters “troublemakers, agitators, insurrectionists.” A few days before the June 14 military parade in Washington, President Donald Trump said of potential protesters: “this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”
As co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium, which compiles information on each day’s protests in the U.S., I understand that protests sometimes can advance the goals of the protest movement. They also can shape the goals and behavior of federal or state governments and their leaders.
Opportunity for expressing or suppressing democracy
Protests are an expression of democracy, bolstered by the right to free speech and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
At the same time, clamping down on protests is one way to rebut challenges to government policies and power.
Widespread, well-attended demonstrations can represent a mass movement in favor of democracy or other issues as well as serve as an opportunity to expand participation even further. Large events often lead to significant press coverage and plenty of social media posting. The protests may heighten protesters’ emotional connection to the movement and increase fundraising and membership numbers of sponsoring organizations.
Though it is not an ironclad law, research shows that when at least 3.5% of the total population is involved in a demonstration, protesters usually prevail over their governments. That included the Chilean movement in the 1980s that toppled longtime dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chileans used not only massive demonstrations but also a wide array of creative tactics like a coordinated slowdown of driving and walking, neighbors banging pots outside homes simultaneously, and singing together.
Protests are rarely only about protesting. Organizers usually seek to involve participants in many other activities, whether that is contacting their elected officials, writing letters to the editor, registering to vote or running a food drive to help vulnerable populations.
In this way of thinking, participation in a major street protest like No Kings is a gateway into deeper activism.
Risks and opportunities
Of course, protest leaders cannot control everyone in or adjacent to the movement.
Other protesters with a different agenda, or agitators of any sort, can insert themselves into a movement and use confrontational tactics like violence against property or law enforcement.
In one prominent example from Los Angeles, someone set several self-driving cars on fire. Other Los Angeles examples included some protesters’ throwing things like water bottles at officers or engaging in vandalism. Police officers also use coercive measures such as firing chemical irritants and pepper balls at protesters.
When leaders want to concentrate executive power and establish an autocracy, where they rule with absolute power, protests against those moves could lead to a mass rejection of the leader’s plans. That is what national protest groups like 50501 and Indivisible are hoping for and why they aimed to turn out millions of people at the No Kings protests on June 14.
But while the Trump administration faces risks from protests, it also may see opportunities.
Misrepresenting and quashing dissent
Protests can serve as a justification for a nascent autocrat to further undermine democratic practices and institutions.
Take the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles protesting the Trump administration’s immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
Autocrats seek to politicize independent institutions like the armed forces. The Los Angeles protests offered the opportunity for that. Trump sent troops from the California National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to contain the protests. That domestic deployment of the military is rare but not unheard of in U.S. history.
And the deployment was ordered against the backdrop of the president’s partisan June 10 speech at a U.S. military base in North Carolina. The military personnel in attendance cheered and applauded many of Trump’s political statements. Both the speech and audience reactions to it appeared to violate the U.S. military norm of nonpartisanship.
This deployment of military personnel in a U.S. city also dovetails with the expansion of executive power characteristic of autocratic leaders. It is rare that presidents call up the National Guard; the Guard is traditionally under the control of the state governor.
The contrast on June 14 was striking. In Washington, D.C., Trump reviewed a parade of troops, tanks and planes, leaning into a display of American military power.
At the same time, from rainy Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to sweltering Yuma, Arizona, millions of protesters embraced their First Amendment rights to oppose the president. It perfectly illustrated the dynamic driving deep political division today: the executive concentrating power while a sizable segment of the people resist.
Jeremy Pressman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A man is appearing in court today after an aggravated robbery at a Hauraki bar on Saturday night.
Police were called to the North Shore bar on Lake Road after 7.30pm on 14 June.
Detective Senior Sergeant Megan Goldie, from Waitematā Crime Squad, says a sole offender entered the bar.
“He was allegedly carrying a weapon, and threatened a staff member working at the time,” she says.
“The offender quickly made off with an amount of cash and took off in a stolen vehicle.”
Sometime later, a stolen vehicle was detected travelling into central Auckland.
Detective Senior Sergeant Goldie says the vehicle was seen in the Newton area.
“The car was located by Auckland City staff parked on Fenton Street, and they were waiting when the offender left a nearby venue to return to his vehicle,” she says.
“After initially being arrested over the stolen vehicle, Police located a large amount of cash on his person.
“The staff were aware of the earlier aggravated robbery and the man was spoken to further.”
He was transported back to the North Shore and was charged with aggravated robbery.
The 28-year-old man is due to appear in the North Shore District Court today.
“Police will be opposing this man’s bail when he appears in court,” Detective Senior Sergeant Goldie says.
“It’s a pleasing result and I acknowledge the teamwork between the staff working on Saturday night.
“While the staff member in the bar was uninjured, over the weekend we have ensured a referral to Victim Support has been made.”
Taz and Peg are now based in the FBI’s Atlanta and Dallas field offices, respectively. That way, they can quickly deploy nationwide to the scenes of violent crimes, mass violence incidents, courtroom appearances, forensic interviews, and other sensitive scenarios to support victims.
While the dogs recently completed their last round of training, their journeys to public service actually started as soon as they were born into human hands at ADW’s puppy enrichment center in New Mexico.
ADW trainers begin exposing their puppies to unfamiliar smells, sounds, and other stimuli while some of their senses are still fully forming.
“So, of course, they cannot see, they cannot hear until about 14 days old, but they can smell,” said ADW Lead Instructor and Trainer Aimee Brown. “They’re moving around. They feel vibrations. They have taste. And so, they’re being exposed to a wide variety of things.”
The puppies also learn to love people from their earliest days.
As they grow, the trainers keep an eye on traits that can make or break their success as service or facility dogs—such as their gait and their ability to take commands from multiple people. The trainers also look for natural areas of interest or aptitude, essentially allowing the dogs to choose their own vocational adventure.
“They tell us through the training,” explained Jill Felice, founder, vice president, and program director at Assistance Dogs of the West.
The dogs’ presence in the immediate aftermath of a crisis has a scientifically proven ability to decrease the likelihood of victims’ bodies storing their experiences as long-term trauma.
According to Assistance Dogs of the West Vice President and Program Director Jill Felice, this is because the mere act of petting a dog causes the human body to release oxytocin—a hormone that induces calmness.
“What they’re finding now with the release of oxytocin,” she added, “is the faster you can get oxytocin into your brain when a traumatic event has happened, the less it stays in long-term memory and long-term trauma. And that’s one of the hardest things about crises.”
And over the course of an investigation and judicial process, crisis response canines can help victims calm their nerves enough to share their stories with investigators and juries, alike. In turn, this helps our Justice Department partners secure convictions in violent crime and terrorism cases.
The dogs also help the Bureau establish rapport and build trust with victims.
“Victims are volunteers,” explained Staci, a victim services coordinator. Staci became the Bureau’s second-ever crisis-response canine handler when she was paired with English Labrador Wally. “They don’t have to speak with us.
“In a lot of cases, without victims, you don’t have a case. And so, if we can implement tools to assist victims to be able to want to speak with us—to make it easier for them to speak with us—it’s a win-win, because if victims speak with us, it gives us more information to help with our investigations and hopefully holding people accountable for their victimization, which keeps our streets safer and really helps society overall.”
In this way, these canine-handler teams are critical to the Bureau’s efforts to crush violent crime, defend the homeland, and rebuild public trust.
Following in unparalleled paw prints
The FBI’s inaugural crisis response canines, Wally and Gio, joined the Bureau in October 2015 after their ADW training.
“Early on, the mission of the program really was to leverage the canine-human bond to mitigate stress and anxiety of victims following mass violence incidents,” said Melody, who was paired with Gio in what became one of the Bureau’s first crisis response canine teams.
“Soon after that, we branched out, and we started providing support to critical incidents and violent crime. So, that means Gio and Wally would assist across all threat programs in the Bureau. And that could look like court support, forensic interviews, briefings, hostage reunifications, and so on.”
The December 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, marked their first deployment to a mass violence incident. The canines and their handlers went on to support victims in the wake of eight additional mass violence incidents—including the Pulse nightclub, Parkland, and Route 91 Harvest Festival mass shootings.
But they’ve also supported victims in other settings. Notably, Gio and Wally became the first two facility dogs to ever support victims in a courtroom setting.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
Pending fighting in a public place and death on arrival case in Cheung Sha Wan reclassified as affray and manslaughter
Police reclassified a pending fighting in a public place and death on arrival case in Cheung Sha Wan yesterday (June 14) as affray and manslaughter.Issued at HKT 22:56
Protesters parade through the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans as part of the nationwide No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, on June 14, 2025. Patt Little/Anadolu via Getty Images
In the last few months, large numbers of anti-Trump protesters have come out in the streets across the U.S., on occasions like the April 5 Hands Off protests against safety net budget cuts and government downsizing. Many of those protesters assert they are protecting American democracy.
The Trump administration has decried these protesters and the concept of protest more generally, with the president recently calling protesters “troublemakers, agitators, insurrectionists.” A few days before the June 14 military parade in Washington, President Donald Trump said of potential protesters: “this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”
As co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium, which compiles information on each day’s protests in the U.S., I understand that protests sometimes can advance the goals of the protest movement. They also can shape the goals and behavior of federal or state governments and their leaders.
Opportunity for expressing or suppressing democracy
Protests are an expression of democracy, bolstered by the right to free speech and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
At the same time, clamping down on protests is one way to rebut challenges to government policies and power.
Widespread, well-attended demonstrations can represent a mass movement in favor of democracy or other issues as well as serve as an opportunity to expand participation even further. Large events often lead to significant press coverage and plenty of social media posting. The protests may heighten protesters’ emotional connection to the movement and increase fundraising and membership numbers of sponsoring organizations.
Though it is not an ironclad law, research shows that when at least 3.5% of the total population is involved in a demonstration, protesters usually prevail over their governments. That included the Chilean movement in the 1980s that toppled longtime dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chileans used not only massive demonstrations but also a wide array of creative tactics like a coordinated slowdown of driving and walking, neighbors banging pots outside homes simultaneously, and singing together.
Protests are rarely only about protesting. Organizers usually seek to involve participants in many other activities, whether that is contacting their elected officials, writing letters to the editor, registering to vote or running a food drive to help vulnerable populations.
In this way of thinking, participation in a major street protest like No Kings is a gateway into deeper activism.
Risks and opportunities
Of course, protest leaders cannot control everyone in or adjacent to the movement.
Other protesters with a different agenda, or agitators of any sort, can insert themselves into a movement and use confrontational tactics like violence against property or law enforcement.
In one prominent example from Los Angeles, someone set several self-driving cars on fire. Other Los Angeles examples included some protesters’ throwing things like water bottles at officers or engaging in vandalism. Police officers also use coercive measures such as firing chemical irritants and pepper balls at protesters.
When leaders want to concentrate executive power and establish an autocracy, where they rule with absolute power, protests against those moves could lead to a mass rejection of the leader’s plans. That is what national protest groups like 50501 and Indivisible are hoping for and why they aimed to turn out millions of people at the No Kings protests on June 14.
But while the Trump administration faces risks from protests, it also may see opportunities.
Misrepresenting and quashing dissent
Protests can serve as a justification for a nascent autocrat to further undermine democratic practices and institutions.
Take the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles protesting the Trump administration’s immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
Autocrats seek to politicize independent institutions like the armed forces. The Los Angeles protests offered the opportunity for that. Trump sent troops from the California National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to contain the protests. That domestic deployment of the military is rare but not unheard of in U.S. history.
And the deployment was ordered against the backdrop of the president’s partisan June 10 speech at a U.S. military base in North Carolina. The military personnel in attendance cheered and applauded many of Trump’s political statements. Both the speech and audience reactions to it appeared to violate the U.S. military norm of nonpartisanship.
This deployment of military personnel in a U.S. city also dovetails with the expansion of executive power characteristic of autocratic leaders. It is rare that presidents call up the National Guard; the Guard is traditionally under the control of the state governor.
The contrast on June 14 was striking. In Washington, D.C., Trump reviewed a parade of troops, tanks and planes, leaning into a display of American military power.
At the same time, from rainy Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to sweltering Yuma, Arizona, millions of protesters embraced their First Amendment rights to oppose the president. It perfectly illustrated the dynamic driving deep political division today: the executive concentrating power while a sizable segment of the people resist.
Jeremy Pressman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Protesters parade through the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans as part of the nationwide No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, on June 14, 2025. Patt Little/Anadolu via Getty Images
In the last few months, large numbers of anti-Trump protesters have come out in the streets across the U.S., on occasions like the April 5 Hands Off protests against safety net budget cuts and government downsizing. Many of those protesters assert they are protecting American democracy.
The Trump administration has decried these protesters and the concept of protest more generally, with the president recently calling protesters “troublemakers, agitators, insurrectionists.” A few days before the June 14 military parade in Washington, President Donald Trump said of potential protesters: “this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”
As co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium, which compiles information on each day’s protests in the U.S., I understand that protests sometimes can advance the goals of the protest movement. They also can shape the goals and behavior of federal or state governments and their leaders.
Opportunity for expressing or suppressing democracy
Protests are an expression of democracy, bolstered by the right to free speech and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
At the same time, clamping down on protests is one way to rebut challenges to government policies and power.
Widespread, well-attended demonstrations can represent a mass movement in favor of democracy or other issues as well as serve as an opportunity to expand participation even further. Large events often lead to significant press coverage and plenty of social media posting. The protests may heighten protesters’ emotional connection to the movement and increase fundraising and membership numbers of sponsoring organizations.
Though it is not an ironclad law, research shows that when at least 3.5% of the total population is involved in a demonstration, protesters usually prevail over their governments. That included the Chilean movement in the 1980s that toppled longtime dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chileans used not only massive demonstrations but also a wide array of creative tactics like a coordinated slowdown of driving and walking, neighbors banging pots outside homes simultaneously, and singing together.
Protests are rarely only about protesting. Organizers usually seek to involve participants in many other activities, whether that is contacting their elected officials, writing letters to the editor, registering to vote or running a food drive to help vulnerable populations.
In this way of thinking, participation in a major street protest like No Kings is a gateway into deeper activism.
Risks and opportunities
Of course, protest leaders cannot control everyone in or adjacent to the movement.
Other protesters with a different agenda, or agitators of any sort, can insert themselves into a movement and use confrontational tactics like violence against property or law enforcement.
In one prominent example from Los Angeles, someone set several self-driving cars on fire. Other Los Angeles examples included some protesters’ throwing things like water bottles at officers or engaging in vandalism. Police officers also use coercive measures such as firing chemical irritants and pepper balls at protesters.
When leaders want to concentrate executive power and establish an autocracy, where they rule with absolute power, protests against those moves could lead to a mass rejection of the leader’s plans. That is what national protest groups like 50501 and Indivisible are hoping for and why they aimed to turn out millions of people at the No Kings protests on June 14.
But while the Trump administration faces risks from protests, it also may see opportunities.
Misrepresenting and quashing dissent
Protests can serve as a justification for a nascent autocrat to further undermine democratic practices and institutions.
Take the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles protesting the Trump administration’s immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
Autocrats seek to politicize independent institutions like the armed forces. The Los Angeles protests offered the opportunity for that. Trump sent troops from the California National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to contain the protests. That domestic deployment of the military is rare but not unheard of in U.S. history.
And the deployment was ordered against the backdrop of the president’s partisan June 10 speech at a U.S. military base in North Carolina. The military personnel in attendance cheered and applauded many of Trump’s political statements. Both the speech and audience reactions to it appeared to violate the U.S. military norm of nonpartisanship.
This deployment of military personnel in a U.S. city also dovetails with the expansion of executive power characteristic of autocratic leaders. It is rare that presidents call up the National Guard; the Guard is traditionally under the control of the state governor.
The contrast on June 14 was striking. In Washington, D.C., Trump reviewed a parade of troops, tanks and planes, leaning into a display of American military power.
At the same time, from rainy Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to sweltering Yuma, Arizona, millions of protesters embraced their First Amendment rights to oppose the president. It perfectly illustrated the dynamic driving deep political division today: the executive concentrating power while a sizable segment of the people resist.
Jeremy Pressman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:
Download logo
Today, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi met with Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Martyrs and Victims Honoring Fund, Major General El-Sayed El-Ghaly, and the Fund’s Executive Director, Major General Ahmed Al-Ashaal. The fund honors the martyrs, as well as victims, missing and the injured of military and security operations and terror attacks and their families.
Spokesman for the Presidency, Ambassador Mohamed El-Shennawy, said the President was briefed on the progress of the Fund’s activities and the services extended to beneficiaries, including the families of martyrs, victims, and those injured in military, terrorist, and security operations, in coordination with relevant state entities.
President El-Sisi was also updated on the Fund’s upcoming initiatives. The President emphasized the need to further improve the services offered by the Fund, develop its resources, and foster its management mechanisms to strengthen its ability to respond to the needs of its beneficiaries.
The President approved the launch of the “Egypt is with You” initiative for underage children of martyrs and victims from the Armed Forces, Police, and civilians. This initiative focuses on investing the allocated funds to ensure the highest investment return for these minor children when they reach legal age, in coordination with the Central Bank, the Sovereign Fund of Egypt, and Misr Insurance Company.
President El-Sisi also approved the inclusion of martyrs and injured officers and other ranks from the Armed Forces in special operations, as well as civilian martyrs in the war effort during previous wars, under the umbrella of the Fund. The President stressed that Egypt will never forget the sacrifices of its loyal sons, and that fitting tributes are being offered to the martyrs and injured who sacrificed their lives for the nation.
Furthermore, the President directed the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research to take the necessary measures to determine exemption and discount rates for various scholarships from public, private, and national universities, as well as private higher institutes, for the Fund’s beneficiaries, along with the method and mechanisms for implementation.
The President affirmed that the Egyptian people hold deep respect and appreciation for all their sons, the martyrs and those injured in military, terrorist, and security operations, who paid a heavy price for the Egyptian people to live in security and prosperity.
– on behalf of Presidency of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)
This morning, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on MSNBC’s The Weekend to discuss the violent attacks against Minnesota lawmakers and the need for leaders that bring America together rather than tear us apart.
EUGENE DANIELS: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joins us now. Leader Jeffries, thank you so much for coming on. The thing that I kind of can’t get around is how we unring this bell. It feels to me, and I think to a lot of Americans, that the normalization of violence in our politics, the normalization of assassination attempts in our politics, something we haven’t seen since maybe the Civil Rights Era of the 60s, when those were happening. How do we, how can we actually unring that bell realistically?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, it’s going to be imperative that everyone, across the political spectrum, demonstrate the type of leadership that actually is designed to bring people together, to lift people up and to appeal to the greater values of the American people, the things that should bind us together, patriotic Americans. We can have spirited debates, but we should never allow those spirited debates to inspire others to engage in behavior that’s unlawful. That’s going to fall on the President. It’s going to fall on the House, the Senate, governors, mayors, people all across the country because the trajectory that we are on right now, the violent culture that exists, is not sustainable.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: And Leader Jeffries, then, is the President doing enough to lower the temperature? Are Republican leaders in the House and the Senate doing enough to lower the temperature or are they exacerbating the tensions in the country by some of the things they say and some of the things they do?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, that certainly remains to be seen in terms of how the President, how my colleagues in Congress handle this moment moving forward. This should be another wake up call amongst many that have happened over the last several years, including, of course, the violent attack on the Capitol that took place on January 6. But at this particular moment in time, the President is going to have to step forward, as is the case with any President when tragedy strikes the United States of America. Now, of course, it’s complicated at this moment by the fact that there’s an ongoing manhunt. All of us should support our law enforcement officials who are engaged in a dangerous endeavor to try to apprehend this suspect, who is clearly violent and likely very disturbed. And we’re thankful for the effort that is being done—city, state and federal officials—to try to apprehend this suspect who engaged in a political assassination of Speaker Hortman. And that’s shocking. That should shock the conscience of everyone. But we also have to come together, and we’re going to need some executive branch leadership partnering with us in the Congress and the Judiciary to keep people safe. It’s not sustainable that Members of Congress, perhaps members of the Judiciary, are being threatened and targeted simply for doing their jobs.
ELISE JORDAN: Leader Jeffries, are you going to be pushing for any additional security for your members? One of your members, Congresswoman Morrison, was on the list as a target. What has to be done in terms of concrete steps to make sure that Members of the House and also the Senate here in Washington are safe?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Yeah, this is going to require additional resources, in all likelihood, so that Members of Congress, Democrats, Republicans, people in the House, people in the Senate, you know, have the ability to actually vigilantly and vigorously represent their constituents, articulate views that are designed to advance the best interests of their constituents and not be targeted in the process. And so I expect to have a conversation with the four corners of leadership across the Congress sooner rather than later, because we’re going to need to speak in one voice on this issue. And of course, early next week, we’ll convene directly with the Sergeant at Arms and the head of the Capitol Police Department to have a conversation with House Democrats about the steps that can be immediately taken to put people in a position where they can be safe and do their jobs actively and aggressively at the same time.
EUGENE DANIELS: Leader Jeffries, also yesterday we saw these kind of, you know, split screen moment of what was happening in this country with people taking to the streets and protesting and these ‘No Kings’ protests just while President Trump was having his military parade here. There’s a lot of energy, right? We were seeing folks in big cities, small towns and townships. I was driving to a friend’s baby shower yesterday, and I saw one woman just standing out there with a sign by herself on her street corner. How do you, as a leader, how do Democratic leaders take what seems to be an energy that folks are feeling, both Democrats, Republicans and even some Independents, and channel that into something moving forward? What does that look like?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, yes. Well, you know, it was very inspirational to see that across 50 states, you had peaceful demonstrators coming out in community, after community, after community to make a few things clear—primarily that we need to defend our democracy, uplift and cherish the Constitution and create a better America moving forward that’s less divided and more unified. There’s this principle that is an important part of who we are as a country, that we don’t have kings, we don’t have monarchs, we don’t have dictators. We’re a democracy, and in that democracy, you have three separate and co-equal branches of government. And what we need at this moment is to make sure that the legislative branch actually functions in the way that was intended: a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. And the way to do that in this current moment is that we just need a handful of Republicans to actually come to the conclusion that they don’t work for Donald Trump, they don’t work for Elon Musk, they don’t work for JD Vance, they work for the American people.Just a handful—four in the House, four in the Senate to do the right thing, to push back against the reckless Republican efforts to jam this GOP Tax Scam down the throats of the American people, the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, on top of the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history, literally ripping food out of the mouths of children, seniors and veterans. And all of it is being done to give massive tax breaks to GOP billionaire donors. That’s unacceptable. It’s an attack on the American way of life, an attack on the rule of law, an attack on democracy itself. And we need people in the Congress to step up and we need to also support the efforts of the Judiciary branch, which by and large, have been tremendous in upholding the rule of law and pushing back against this administration.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Leader Jeffries, as you noted a couple times in that response, you just need a handful of Republicans to step forward and do the right thing. Why won’t they step forward? Is it because they are in fear of going against this President, and what that would mean in terms of their constituents and also some of the folks who maybe might go a little too far? Or is the problem also that you actually have true believers within the Republican Party now, more true believers than the handful you need to step forward to do the right thing for the American people?
LEADER JEFFRIES: It’s a great question, Jonathan, and I think you have 220 Republicans in the House of Representatives. The overwhelming majority of them are true believers in terms of the far-right extremism the Trump administration is trying to jam down the throats of the American people. There are a handful who are not, but we need them to show, with respect to defending our democracy and the rule of law, what I would call Liz Cheney-like courage. And when it comes to policy issues and the extreme efforts to, you know, end Medicaid as we know it, or wipe away the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans or snatch food out of the mouths of children, we need them to show John McCain-like courage when John McCain, of course, several years ago, was the decisive vote in defeating the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We’re going to continue to work on them every day, every week, every month until a handful of them finally decide to cross over. It’s why we’ve been having town hall meetings in our districts and in Republican districts and rallies and speeches and press conferences and hearings and being very aggressive as Democrats in trying to make sure that you have some Republicans partner with us to do the right thing on behalf of our great country.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: And that John McCain moment was iconic as he walked to the Senate Floor and did a thumbs down on the effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, thank you very much for coming to The Weekend.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has confirmed that South Africa has substantially completed all 22 recommended action items outlined in the Action Plan adopted when the country was placed on the organisation’s grey list in February 2023.
South Africa was placed on the FATF grey list due to deficiencies in its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) regime.
During its plenary session held in Strasbourg, France, the FATF made the initial determination that South Africa has substantially completed its action plan and warrants an on-site assessment. The on-site assessment will be to verify that the implementation of AML/CFT reforms has begun and is being sustained, and that the necessary political commitment remains in place to sustain implementation in the future.
According to the National Treasury, the completion of the Action Plan paves the way for the final step before the FATF can delist South Africa, which is an on-site visit to South Africa by the FATF Africa Joint Group (JG).
A statement by FATF on (Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring – 13 June 2025) noted that South Africa has undertaken a range of key reforms, including demonstrating a sustained increase in investigations and prosecutions of serious and complex money laundering and the full range of [terror financing] TF activities in line with its risk profile; and updating its TF Risk Assessment to inform the implementation of a comprehensive national counter financing of terrorism strategy.
The National Treasury emphasised that the improvements to South Africa’s AML/CFT regime are particularly important for South Africa, given the legacy of state capture, one element of which was that law enforcement and prosecuting institutions were deliberately weakened.
“Improvements in these domains are critical not just for getting off the greylist, but for strengthening the fight against crime and corruption, and for contributing to the integrity of the South African financial system. Exiting the FATF greylist is a significant step forward as South Africa continues to improve and strengthen its supervisory and criminal justice systems,” National Treasury said on Friday.
The on-site visit will take place before the next FATF Plenary, and, if the outcome of the visit is positive, the FATF will delist South Africa from the greylist at its next Plenary in October 2025. Preparations for the on-site visit have commenced.
During this visit, the JG will confirm the country’s ongoing commitment in the implementation of the country’s fight against money laundering, terror financing and other financial crimes.
“National Treasury commends the efforts and commitment of the law enforcement entities, especially the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) of the South African Police Service, the State Security Agency, and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), for the sustained increase in investigations and prosecutions of serious and complex money laundering and terror financing activities.
“This made it possible for South Africa to secure the upgrades of the last two remaining action items, often considered to be the most difficult, in the current reporting cycle,” National Treasury said.
South Africa also commended Mali and Tanzania, who were delisted from greylisting by the FATF Plenary.
“We also congratulate Nigeria, Mozambique and Burkina Faso, who like South Africa, were deemed to have substantially completed their action plans, and for whom on-site assessments were also approved.
“National Treasury pays tribute to the late Advocate Rodney de Kock of the NPA, who played a leading role in preparing the groundwork for South Africa to address the action items, but sadly passed away in January 2025.”
The South African Reserve Bank (SARC) has welcomed the confirmation by the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) that South Africa has completed all 22 of its action items.
“This is a significant step forward – but not the time for complacency,” the SARB said on Saturday.-SAnews.gov.za
The 30-year-old who was fatally shot in an incident in Claxton Grove, Hammersmith, on Wednesday, 11 June, has been named as Northolt resident Jordan Oliver Rodney.
In a statement, Mr Rodney’s family said: “It is with unimaginable heartbreak that we confirm the tragic loss of our beloved Jordan Olivier Rodney, who was taken from us far too soon.
“Jordan was a man who touched the lives of everyone who knew him. He was warm, funny, and loving. Always quick with a smile or a joke that could brighten the dark day.
“His kindness, generosity, and humour left a lasting impression on friends and family alike. Our son, brother, uncle, and friend was so much more than the circumstances of his death. He brought joy to our lives every single day, and his absence leaves a hole that can never be filled.
“We will remember Jordie for the love he shared so freely, the laughter he inspired, and the way he made us all feel seen and valued. We ask for privacy as we grieve this devastating loss and whilst we work to come to terms with what has happened.
“We are eternally grateful for the outpouring of love and support during this incredibly difficult time.”
A post-mortem examination has taken place.
A second victim, also in his 30s, has been discharged from hospital.
Jahmel Joseph, 28 (05.12.1996), of Eaton Rise, Ealing, has been charged with murder, attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a prohibited weapon and dangerous driving.
Joseph appeared in custody at Bromley Magistrates’ Court on Saturday, 14 July. He has been remanded to appear before the Old Bailey on Wednesday, 18 July.
Considering that fiction by women now regularly makes the shortlists of major prizes, it seems timely to ask: do we still need a prize dedicated to women?
We explored this question by creating a new dataset containing information on 15 British literary prizes, with demographic information for 682 shortlisted and winning authors. Our analysis of the dataset shows how there is still a ways to go before women’s writing is valued — awarded, remunerated and read — equally to men’s.
Who wins what prizes?
We are four research collaborators affiliated with the University of Alberta’s Orlando Project, a project that harnesses the power of digital tools and methods to provide new knowledge about feminist literary scholarship. The Orlando Project has published a searchable digital archive with original coding that focuses of women’s relationship to literary production.
We compiled a new dataset to explore how gender, ethnicity and educational achievement impacts who wins what prizes.
When the Women’s Prize first came on the scene in 1996, the average percentage of women winning other U.K. literary prizes actually dropped. The average only began to rise around 2003 when it steadily increased until 2012.
Women won just eight per cent of the prizes in our dataset in 2003, whereas they won 53 per cent in 2012. But that increase plateaued in 2012, and for the next decade it held steady at a running average of 45 per cent. As well, we note no steady linear progression upwards or downwards on average, but there were highs and lows (21 per cent in 2016 followed by 64 per cent in 2017).
Booker winners
Some fluctuation in the winners’ genders is, of course, to be expected. But as is apparent by looking at the percentage of women winners year to year, we should not assume things will always get better.
Other insights from our dataset suggest caution is required in assuming women’s fiction is now equally valued by the literary establishment.
Thirty-nine per cent of Booker shortlisted writers were women, but women have only won 32 per cent of the time. The claim that we don’t need a prize for women since many recent shortlists have been dominated by women needs to be tempered with the fact that while women have made up 57 per cent of the Booker’s shortlist since 2016, only 33 per cent of winners have been women.
Gender and genre
While we expected some differences between genres, we were surprised by just how gendered certain genres are. Seventy-one per cent of the winners of the (now defunct) Costa Children’s Book Award were women, whereas women only constituted 21 per cent for the British Science Fiction Award and 31 per cent for the Crime Writers Association Gold Dagger Award.
Our dataset includes demographic information on race and ethnicity. It shows that amplifying women’s voices is not simultaneously connected with amplifying all women’s voices.
The Women’s Prize may have succeeded in pushing the Booker to include more women’s fiction (from zero shortlisted when the Women’s Prize was announced in 1990, to 26 per cent when it made its first award in 1996, to 58 per cent in 2022). But the Booker marginally out-performed the Women’s Prize in relation to racialized writers over the period of our dataset (26 per cent for the former, 22 per cent for the latter).
A recent book on white literary taste concentrates on the Women’s Prize to show how prizes in general are part of a literary eco-system that is racially biased.
The Orlando Project’s research on 800 years of women’s writing in Britain reveals a pattern around gender and genre when in comes to remuneration and literary prestige. Genres where women writers dominate, like children’s literature and romance, tend to be the least lucrative.
Novels in the time of Jane Austen illustrate the point. Before Walter Scott and other male writers developed a highbrow “serious” Victorian novel over what they saw as trashy romances, women writers temporarily dominated fiction like they do today. As one of us has argued, when women writers published more novels than men did in the 1790s, novels were the literary genre that paid the least.
There remains a gender pay equity gap in writing: British women earned 58.6 per cent of what men did in 2022, mostly because the genres they chose to write in do not garner the highest earnings.
Rewarding women authors
One way to answer our question of whether we still need a Women’s Prize is this: we will no longer need it when women begin to dominate prizes for prestige genres such as non-fiction; when men read as much writing by women as that by men; and when we pay authors as much as football players.
We encourage readers to take all the Women’s Prize-winning and nominated books to the beach this summer.
Binhammer, Katherine receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Kanika Batra receives funding from Fulbright Canada.
Maryse Jayasuriya and Theo Gray do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
