‘Kill the Gays’: Uganda Resurrects Overturned Bill Introducing Death Penalty for Homosexuals

The Ugandan government has announced plans to reintroduce legislation paving the way for the execution of homosexual people, five years after the bill was thrown out by the constitutional court on a technicality.

The bill, dubbed ‘Kill the gays’ within Uganda, will be reintroduced within weeks, according to officials. Currently, Ugandans face life imprisonment if convicted of having sex with another person of the same gender.

Ethics and Integrity Minister Simon Lokodo said the bill is being reintroduced because of allegedly “massive recruitment of gay people” and current laws are too limited in scope.

“We want it made clear that anyone who is even involved in promotion and recruitment has to be criminalised,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “Those that do grave acts will be given the death sentence."

The minister said he’s confident the measure will get the backing of the two-thirds of parliamentary members required to pass a bill.

Several countries cut their financial support and aid to Uganda when the ‘Kill the gays’ bill was first brought forward in 2014, but Lokodo said the country is prepared to stand up to a fresh backlash over the legislation, adding “we don’t like blackmail.”

In March, Brunei introduced an amendment to its Islamic penal code that included stoning gay people to death, but suspended the measure following international outcry. 

60 Hospitals in Romania Won’t Do Abortions as More Doctors Refuse to Kill Babies

 Abortion backlash in Romania

And they haven't even seen 'Unplanned' yet

INTERNATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER  

BUCHAREST, ROMANIA

Romania has one of the highest abortion rates in all of Europe, but a growing number of doctors in the country are refusing to abort unborn babies.

EU Observer reports 60 of the 189 hospitals in the country (about 30 percent) will not abort unborn babies because of their doctors’ moral or religious objections.

“The law does not oblige us to do this, as it is a service on request, and we can accept or not,” said Robert Danca, manager of Cuza Voda hospital.

Abortions are legal in Romania for any reason up to 14 weeks, without even required counseling or waiting periods, according to the report. While public hospitals must provide abortions by law, doctors may refuse under Romanian conscience protection laws.

Reporters with The Black Sea publication recently contacted all the public hospitals in the country to ask if they do abortions. The investigation found that 60 would not.

One doctor, Daniela Chiriac, told the news outlet that she quit doing abortions seven years ago at the Municipal Clinical Emergency Hospital in Timisoara because she now believes they are a sin.

“I thought that if I could avoid a sin, then I should do it,” she said. “There are many patients who ask me to recommend someone else and I refuse, because it is also a sin.”

According to the report:

Individual doctors in Romania have the right to refuse to perform abortions.

The 2016 professional code for medics outlines that any doctor can decline to provide services if it affects their professional independence or moral values, or contravenes their professional principles.

These “conscience-based refusal” laws are common in most European countries – but when every doctor in a hospital invokes them, women find their access to healthcare faces restrictions.

Human rights lawyer Iustina Ionescu argues that any woman refused an abortion by her local hospital could sue, drawing a distinction between individual doctors and the healthcare provided.

“The doctor might not be held responsible,” she says, “but ‘the unit’ is a service provider covered by the healthcare law, and does not have such an explicit provision. I would say it is illegal for the healthcare unit to refuse, but we would need [to bring] a case.”

Abortion activists are pushing to overturn conscience protections for these reasons. Some now argue that doctors should be forced to abort unborn babies, even if it goes against their religious or moral beliefs. Earlier this week in America, Democrats in Congress voted against several measures to strengthen conscience protections for medical workers who oppose the killing of unborn babies.

In Romania, some politicians are working to combat the high abortion rate with pregnancy support programs. According to the report, MP Matei-Adrian Dobrovie proposed providing state funding to pregnancy resource centers that provide support to mothers and babies. He said Romania has the second highest rate of abortions per live birth in the European Union.

“These centers exist in other countries, such as the United States, and in Romanian legislation they are not regulated,” Dobrovie said. “I proposed to the ministry of labour that these centers should be included and the occupation of assistant and counselor in the pregnancy crisis to be included in the social services.”

Bless you MP Debrovie. May the hearts of other legislators be so inclined.

Big Tech ‘Indenture Entire Populations into Servitude’ to Corporations & Govts – Snowden

Tech giants such as Google or Facebook store vast amounts of personal data for their own gain but they are also “happy to hand over” this data to governments, making people vulnerable to persecution, Edward Snowden warned.

Any person can pretty much be sure that “everything you've done, everything you've typed into their search box, everything you have clicked on, everything you've liked” is duly recorded and stored in the enormous databanks of the big tech corporations, the NSA whistleblower said addressing the UK Open Rights Group Conference (ORGCON19) in London via a video link from Moscow.

“Your communications, as they happen largely today, don't actually take place between you and the person that you are talking to. They happen between you and Facebook, who then provides a copy of it to the person you are talking to, or you and Gmail, who then gives a copy of it to the person that you are talking to and every time these transactions occur through these service providers, they keep a record of it.”

The corporations do that primarily to advance their own financial and economic interests, yet they seek to not only “better their class” but also to “better their state” and are, thus, more than happy to share the data they obtained with governments, which, in turn, make a use of it in its mass surveillance programs, Snowden warned.

“We see that governments increasingly care less and less about compliance, and care more and more about power,” he said, adding that the governmental security structures, which were supposedly created to protect the people against the threat of terrorism, are in fact used against pretty much anyone from critically-minded journalists and dissidents to immigrants and minorities.

The corporations, which now virtually control the most part of internet communications, have been long abusing their position of power, forcing people into relations one would never “meaningfully consent to” while staying largely unaccountable.

The law simply has not caught up to the fact that a technological corporation now can indenture entire populations into servitude to the corporate good, rather than to individual or public good.

His warnings came soon after Facebook agreed to give French authorities data on hate speech suspects. Earlier, the tech giant’s lawyer openly stated that the social network’s users do not actually have any privacy at all when it comes to their personal data.

Yet, the whistleblower added a portion of optimism to his otherwise grim speech by saying that the people are waking up to this situation and “that things are going to get better” because of the efforts of people who are not indifferent to this issue.

Snowden has been living in a self-imposed exile in Russia ever since he exposed the NSA’s vast surveillance network back in 2013, bringing to light information about the US security agency’s mass surveillance activities targeting millions of Americans as well as foreign leaders. He has been charged with espionage by Washington and faces arrest if he were to return home.

America's Slow March to Gun Control

This article comes from CBC, a mainstream media (MSM) organization, which means it leans heavily to the left. Consequently, the views tend to be for gun control. Whether you are for it or against it, this report gives an informative update on the 'progress' of most American States either toward or away from gun control.

People attend a candlelight vigil the day after last February's deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Progress on gun control has been fitful. (Jonathan Drake/Reuters)

Jonathon Gatehouse, CBC

It's been almost a year since 17 staff and students were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in what ranks as America's ninth deadliest mass shooting.

The survivor-driven (many would question that) movement that followed drew hundreds of thousands to the streets to protest for tougher firearms laws, and helped elect a new generation of pro-gun-control legislators to state and federal office in last November's midterm elections.

But it's proving difficult to make a dent in U.S. gun culture.

In 2018, 27 states passed a total of 67 new gun control measures.

Yet only two states — California and New Jersey — received an"A" grade in the annual gun control report card issued today by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Five others -- Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii, New York and Massachusetts -- received "A-" grades, while Washington and Illinois got a "B+" ranking. Florida earned a "C+", passing for the first time due to some post-Parkland restrictions.

In comparison, 22 states received failing grades of "D" or "F", with Mississippi ranking 50th for gun control and fifth for firearms deaths.

A new Ipsos/Reuters poll, released this morning, confirms that a solid majority of 69 per cent of Americans — including 57 per cent of Republicans — want stronger gun measures. Although only 14 per cent of gun control supporters say they are "very confident" that their elected representatives understand their views, and just eight per cent trust politicians to actually take action.

The survey of 6,800 voters found wide agreement on the need to expand background checks, stop people with mental health issues from purchasing firearms, and ban internet ammunition sales. It also found support for Donald Trump's approach to stopping school shootings, with 61 per cent of parents of school-age children saying they favour publicly funded firearms training for teachers.

This year will be a crucial test for American gun control advocates. At least 50 major pieces of firearms restriction legislation have already been introduced in State houses.

Democratic governors in California, New York and Illinois are moving to strengthen their already tough measures. And there is bipartisan support in almost two dozen states for bills that will stop convicted domestic abusers from buying guns, or so-called "red flag" laws to allow police to temporarily seize weapons from people who might pose a danger to themselves or others.

On the other hand, at least 26 states are poised to expand gun access — particularly when it comes to concealed carry provisions—  in 2019.

In Washington, D.C., the new class of House Democrats flexed their muscles this week with a rare congressional hearing on gun violence, paving the way for the introduction of legislation to expand background checks to internet and gun show sales.

Aalayah Eastmond, a Parkland senior who survived last year's massacre by hiding underneath the body of a slain classmate, testified in favour of stricter measures, receiving a standing ovation.

Republicans countered with Savannah Lindquist, a sexual assault survivor and gun rights backer. 

The eventual house bill is likely to suffer the same fate as the last major federal gun control efforts in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying it is "highly unlikely" to pass in the upper chamber.  

And there is apprehension about what the new conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court might do to existing gun control legislation, as it prepares to weigh in on a challenge to a New York City regulation that limits how and where firearm owners can transport their weapons.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been busy making it easier for U.S. arms makers to export their semi-automatic assault weapons, flamethrowers and grenades to overseas customers, doing away with the need for State Department licences.

And while the gun debate rages, the violence continues.

There have been 41 mass shootings in the United States over the first 39 days of 2019, which have resulted in 62 deaths and 128 wounded. 

‘Historic Step’: Greece Curbs Powers of Islamic Sharia Courts

Islamization in Reverse

Women of Muslim community wait for the arrival of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, near a mosque in the city of Komotini, Greece © Alexandros Avramidis / Reuters

The Greek parliament has overwhelmingly voted to limit the power of Sharia courts among the Muslim minority, seeking greater equality for all citizens. They were introduced a century ago in an agreement with Turkey after WWI.

On Tuesday, Greek MPs passed a new law under which the Muslim minority would no longer be bound by Sharia law. Under the old system, family disputes over inheritance, divorce and child custody would be settled by muftis and Islamic law scholars. But this parallel legal system has been accused of sexism and discrimination against women.

“The government today is taking an historic step by bringing to Parliament the bill on Sharia which widens and deepens legal and civil equality enjoyed by all Greek men and women without exception,” Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said in a written statement.

“Respecting in every way the unique characteristics of the Muslim minority in Thrace, the government, with the bill, rectifies past injustices against its members.”

The bill gives priority to Greek courts, and was supported by all major parties except the far-right Golden Dawn, which said it wasn’t clear what powers the Islamic courts would still maintain.

The revision of the law comes after a legal case brought by one Hatijah Molla Salli, a widow from the city of Komotini in Thrace, eastern Greece. Salli was fighting an inheritance dispute with her late husband’s sisters and won the initial case, but in 2013 the Greek Supreme Court ruled that the century-old agreement with Turkey takes precedent. Salli then filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which is expected to weigh in on the topic later this year.

After the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Greek and Turkish governments carried out a population exchange in 1923 in which millions of Muslim and Orthodox Christian people were moved between the two countries. Under the deal, the remaining Muslims in Greece would be placed under Islamic customs and law.

Today there are more than 110,000 Greek Muslims, according to various estimates, mostly concentrated in the eastern region of Thrace near the Turkish border. The situation of Greek Muslims is closely watched by the Turkish government, which considers them Turks, although the community also includes Roma and the Bulgarian-speaking Pomaks. During his visit to Athens in December, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Greece of not respecting its Muslim citizens.

Greece is one of the few European countries which recognize some aspects of Islamic law alongside its own secular legal system. In the UK, a number of Sharia tribunals operate under the Arbitration Act which allows them to resolve legal disputes as long as this doesn’t conflict with British law.

And, for sure, no-one in the UK is looking too closely at Sharia tribunals for fear of finding conflicts with British law.

Flurry of Gun Control Bills Pass Across US as Everytown Delights in ‘Winning’ Against Gun Lobby

Guns - third leading cause of death among USA children - 1300 per year

© Rick Wilking / Reuters

Gun control advocates are celebrating a slew of legislation passed across the country. Domestic abusers are targeted in new bills passed by five states, while other states have enhanced their background checks for purchasing firearms.

Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah all passed new restrictions on firearms for domestic abusers, according to Everytown for Gun Safety group, which is funded by billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Overall, 23 states have enhanced the laws around domestic abusers since 2013, says the gun control advocacy group.

"When you look at what's happening in statehouses across the country, the gun safety movement is winning in state after state — even in this challenging political environment — because volunteers and gun violence survivors have become the counterweight to the gun lobby," said Shannon Watts, who founded Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a part of Everytown.

Hawaii, Tennessee and Washington state passed new laws requiring that police be notified when anyone who fails to pass a background check tries to buy a gun.

Many of these measures were passed with the support of Republican lawmakers and governors, even though the party itself has promised to roll back restrictions on guns and not to allow new ones, points out Everytown.

Gun regulation advocates claimed victory and a loss for the gun lobby, noting that attempts to repeal background checks in Iowa and Nebraska failed, while 17 of 18 states rejected bills to allow guns in schools and 14 of 16 states rejected bills to allow guns on college campuses.

Additionally, 20 of 22 states didn’t pass bills that would have eliminated requirements for permits to carry guns, a top priority for the National Rifle Association, Everytown wrote in its new “report card.”

The new gun regulations could be challenged in front of the Supreme Court, but in the past nine years, SCOTUS has avoided most Second Amendment cases, including those challenging state and local restrictions.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Meanwhile, statistics of gun violence in the country are grim.

Last month, a study found that shootings in the US kill nearly 1,300 children every year, making it the third leading cause of mortality among children after accidents and congenital disease, the study said.

Belgian Catholic Nursing Home has No Right to Refuse Euthanasia

Slippery slope for Christians when it comes to euthanasia

Conscientious objection gives way to godless ideology

Andy Walton CHRISTIAN TODAY CONTRIBUTING WRITER        


Reuters

A Catholic nursing home in Belgium is reported to have fallen foul of the country's courts after refusing to permit a resident to access euthanasia.

The incident happened in 2011 when Huize Sint-Augustinus home in Diest refused to allow an elderly woman's doctor access to see her – when it was thought she was about to be given a lethal injection.

The home has been ordered to pay €6,000 (approx $6,600 or £5,000) in damaged to the family of the woman.

The civil court in Louvain ruled that "the nursing home did not have the right to refuse euthanasia on the grounds of conscientious objection."

In this case, the 74-year-old who had terminal cancer received the injection in her own house, rather than in the nursing home.

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002 and the country is said to have the most liberal assisted suicide laws anywhere in the world. Belgium is held up as an example by campaigners on both sides of the debate over assisted suicide in the UK, US and elsewhere.

Local Archbishop Jozef De Kesel, of the diocese of Mechelen-Brussels, had previously said Catholic institutions have a right to refuse abortion and euthanasia.

UNICEF Lobbies Canadian Parliament to Allow Euthanasia for Children

Astonishing!

 

OTTAWA — UNICEF Canada is pushing for assisted suicide and euthanasia for children — or “mature minors” — arguing that this conforms with the Charter, Canadian legal precedent and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

That would include euthanasia or assisted suicide for mature minors who suffer from a non-terminal illness or disability, according to UNICEF Canada’s policy director Marvin Bernstein.

UNICEF, or United Nations Children’s Fund (originally, Emergency Fund) is a UN organization that is, according to its website, “on a mission to reach every child and ensure their well-being, no matter where they are in this world.”

“There’s no limit to the lengths UNICEF will go, the risks we’ll take or the depth of our commitment to save children’s lives,” it reads. “We are committed to take action, save, rehabilitate and watch over children, with a special attention to the most vulnerable and excluded groups.”

OK, and where in there is a mandate to lobby for child euthanasia? Or do the terms 'well-being' and 'save children's lives', mean something completely different in the UN?

Bernstein reiterated UNICEF Canada’s pro-euthanasia position during the Senate legal committee’s hearings into the Liberal government’s controversial euthanasia law, Bill C-14.

The legislation amends the Criminal Code in light of the Supreme Court’s February 2015 Carter ruling, which ruled the current ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia violates the Charter, and comes into effect June 6.

Carter ruled “competent adults” had a Charter right to seek assisted suicide or euthanasia, and Bill C-14 limited eligibility to be killed in this way to persons aged 18 and over.

The bill’s eligibility criteria also include that the individual have a grievous and irremediable disease or disability that causes unendurable suffering, is in an advanced state of irreversible decline, and his or her natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

“UNICEF believes that this right should be extended to mature minors who are competent to make end-of-life decisions for themselves,” Bernstein told the committee May 12, “but with additional potential safeguards as a measure of last resort.”

The Supreme Court had given “competent, mature minors” “the rights to make health and survival-related decisions” in its 2009 AC v Manitoba  ruling, which found that it was “arbitrary” to assume anyone under age 16 was not competent to make medical decisions, he said.

UNICEF also supported the recommendation by the joint parliamentary committee that mature minors be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia in the second of a two-stage legislative roll-out, “which would come into force no later than three years after the first stage is enforced,” noted Bernstein.

“In fact, this is very close to the recommendation advanced to that committee by UNICEF Canada,” he told the Senate committee.

The three-year period “would allow sufficient time for informed research and broad-based consultation to occur and the appropriate safeguards and due care considerations to be identified.”

But UNICEF Canada further proposed that in the three-year interim, children be allowed to petition a Superior Court to be allowed assistance to kill themselves, or to killed by lethal injection.

That recommendation was “so we don't have an unfair prejudicial situation continuing for three years with no remedy that can be accessed by mature minors,” Bernstein said.

United Nations General Assembly mandated UNICEF “to advocate for the protection of children's rights, to help them meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential,” Conservative Manitoba Senator Don Plett told Bernstein.

“Do you not see a major problem with the consideration of allowing vulnerable children to request assisted death?” Plett asked.  “Have these children, in your opinion, reached their full potential?”

There “may be children who are experiencing irremediable conditions, intolerable and enduring suffering,” replied Bernstein, “and they should have the right when they reach a point of sufficient maturity to make some determinations for themselves.”

If “a competent adult has the right to access medical assistance in dying, based upon a certain set of circumstances and conditions, that should not be denied, not to all children, but to mature minors,” he added.

UNICEF Canada supports euthanasia and assisted suicide in cases where the children are not suffering from terminal illness, Bernstein told the committee, adding: “I think it should be the same criteria…applied to adults and children.”

As for assisted suicide or euthanasia for children who suffer from mental illness, not permitted under Bill C-14 in its current form, “UNICEF is not suggesting psychological suffering, in and by itself, be the litmus test in terms of terminating life and making those decisions for young people,” he said.

Extending euthanasia and assisted suicide for mature minors was among three contentious recommendations in the joint parliamentary committee’s February 2016 report.

It also recommended the use of advance directives for people diagnosed with degenerative diseases such as dementia, and euthanasia or assisted suicide solely for mental illness.

Bill C-14 rejected all three, but Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould promised that the Liberals would study the issues before the bill’s mandated five-year review.

That wasn’t soon enough for the Liberal-dominated House of Commons justice committee, which added clause 9.1, requiring Parliament start independent reviews of the three issues no later than six months after the bill passes.

MPs are expected to vote on C-14 on May 31, after which it goes to the Senate, which has signalled it will overhaul the bill.

The Senate is dominated by Conservatives. They may not be able to kill the bill, but can certainly alter it significantly.

The Senate committee’s pre-study report of May 17 endorsed the use advance directives, but recommended dropping further consideration of euthanasia solely for mental illness, and for mature minors.

Trudeau Votes Against Conscience Rights as He Pushes Euthanasia Bill

OTTAWA, (LifeSiteNews) – The Liberals and New Democrats combined to defeat a Conservative-supported motion protecting the conscience rights of doctors and other health professionals who refuse to participate in euthanasia and assisted suicide. Hope now centres on the Senate for amendments to the government’s proposed law for protection for medical professions and patients.

On Tuesday the House of Commons divided almost entirely on party lines to defeat a motion from Tory MP Arnold Viersen defending conscience rights by a 214 to 96 vote margin. Every Conservative who voted supported the motion and every Bloc Quebecois and Liberal MP who voted, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, opposed it. Five NDP members supported it as did Green MP and leader Elizabeth May.

The motion was a way to put the government on the record either supporting or opposing conscience rights for doctors and nurses who refuse to perform or abet patients who want to die. The government had avoided the issue with its proposed assisted dying bill, C-14, which said nothing about conscience rights on the grounds that the regulation of health professionals is a provincial matter.

Without calling for any amendment to Bill C-14, Viersen’s motion declared that “It is in the public interest to protect the freedom of conscience of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or any other health care professional who objects to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.”

MP Viersen explained, “The Liberals continue to emphasize that nothing in Bill C-14 can compel a healthcare provider to provide medical assistance in dying, but any province or employer could still compel healthcare professionals against their conscience rights.”

Bill C-14 is an amendment to the Criminal Code, setting out the conditions that must be met by health professionals putting patients to death or assisting them to commit suicide, without committing a crime. It was necessitated by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Carter case throwing out the blanket Criminal Code provision against either forms of homicide, with enforcement of the decision delayed first till February and now till June.

While C-14 was initially silent on conscience rights, in committee an amendment was added declaring that nothing in the bill could be used to compel health professionals to act against their consciences. The House has yet to vote on this and other amendments.

Larry Worthen, head of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, told LifeSiteNews that the amendment “was a move in the right direction,” but not nearly enough to protect doctors and other health professionals from discrimination or discipline.

“We really are hoping that what we want will be added in the Senate,” said Worthen. The Senate’s Justice Committee has just issued its report on the issue and on Bill C-14 indicating it wants stronger protections not only for doctors, but for patients. But the bill must first pass in the Commons before going to the Senate.

The Senate report calls for amendment declaring that “No medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other healthcare institution care provider, or any such institution, shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada.”

While it recommended making it easier for a person to request assisted dying in advance of an anticipated cognitively disabling condition, it also called for greater safeguards against minors or the mentally ill getting such aid, and measures to prevent those who might benefit financially having a hand in requesting the assistance.

Worthen was joined by Dr. Catherine Ferrier, of Quebec’s Living with Dignity group, in warning that provincial governments, institutions and professional regulators such as colleges of physicians and surgeons could all violate health workers’ freedom of conscience by requiring them to help patients die or refer patients to other doctors who would help them.

“A palliative care centre could make it a condition of employment,” said Worthen. “The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons made it a requirement last year that doctors must provide ‘effective referrals.’”

Ferrier said the Quebec government already requires doctors to pass on requests for assisted suicide to a committee that will find them a doctor. “The way it worked in the past,” she told LifeSiteNews, “was that a patient who just discovers he has terminal cancer might say, ‘I want to die now.’ And we would respond, ‘It’s against the law for us to do that. Let’s talk about what else we can do to help you.’ Then the palliative care providers deal with the patient’s pain, he talks with his family, he starts dealing with all the important issues of his life, and he realizes he is glad he is still alive.”

But now in Quebec, said Dr. Ferrier, “When we say, ‘We can help you with the pain,’ the patient says, ‘I don’t want any help. I just want to die right now.’” Dr. Ferrier said she knew of several doctors considering leaving Canada or retiring rather than participate in the death of their patients.

CMDSC’s Worthen called on all those supporting conscience rights to use the organization’s website, www.canadiansforconscience.ca, to register their views with members of the Senate. 

Northern Irish Assembly Rejects Abortion Law Change

Betrayal of women or faithful to sanctity of life?

© Regis Duvignau / Reuters

My subtitle above is a most unfortunate reality - we should never have come to a place where we have to choose a child's right to live over its mother's right to not be pregnant. It's an absurd argument since women have any number of ways to not get pregnant and that's really it, isn't it? If you don't want to have a baby, don't get pregnant! I know there are many situations where that is not a choice for a girl, but most abortions are not performed on women who had no choice in whether or not they get pregnant. That is a disgrace and is morally repugnant at best.

Members of the Northern Irish Assembly have voted against proposals to relax strict abortion laws. Human rights groups said the decision has “betrayed women and girls.”

The Stormont assembly voted 59 to 40 against the legislation, which proposed to allow abortions in the case of fatal fetal abnormality and sexual crime. 

Not sure I agree with preventing abortions of fatally abnormal fetuses, however, I suspect that could be misused. I don't know if that was their reasoning for rejecting it or not.

Amnesty International said the decision will allow Northern Ireland to maintain its “Victorian” and “restrictive” laws, and called on the devolved authority to bring its legislation in line with the rest of the UK.

Despite a debate which lasted until nearly midnight, the outcome of the vote was predictable, after the Democratic Unionists and the SDLP announced they would not support amendments to the law.

Abortion is permitted in the rest of the UK under the 1967 Abortion Act, but in Northern Ireland terminations are only allowed if the mental health or life of the mother is in danger.

The rejection of abortions for reason of sexual crimes, ie rape, is not a real issue since that can be covered under the 'mental health' exception. If a girl is able to carry the child while receiving counselling for the rape, she should do that. She can then give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want to keep it. 

She should also have the option of keeping the child and continuing counselling for a period afterward.

The change to legislation was proposed by Alliance Party members Trevor Lunn and Stewart Dickson. Lunn told the assembly his decision was sparked by the “painful” decision to access an abortion many years ago due to a fatal fetal condition.

In December last year, Belfast’s High Court ruled that abortion law in Northern Ireland breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty International’s Northern Ireland program director, said the laws are draconian and in need of urgent change.

“Northern Ireland’s abortion law dates from Victorian times, is among the most restrictive in the world and is in urgent need of reform. A vote to stymie change today is a further betrayal of women and girls who will continue to be forced to travel outside Northern Ireland to seek the healthcare they are denied at home.”

He said between 1,000 and 2,000 women are forced to travel abroad each year to find abortions, and “are made to feel like criminals for having done so.”

They would have felt that way even if they received their abortions in Belfast. Guilt is inevitable when you take the life of a child that God has blessed you with, as it should be.

“An extensive consultation on this issue was already conducted by the Department of Justice in 2014/2015 – it recommended a change to the law with regard to access to abortion on fatal fetal abnormality. The DUP and other Executive Ministers have had eight months to get behind the proposal from the Justice Minister and have failed to do so. More talk will tell us nothing we do not already know – that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland is unfit for purpose.”

'Severe' Terrorism Threat Alert Doesn't Impress Some Brits

Britain is facing an "unprecedented" threat from hundreds of battle-hardened jihadists who have been trained in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, according to MI5, the domestic counter-intelligence and security agency. It warns that are now more Britons trained in terrorism than at any point in recent memory.

Nasser Muthana (center) is one of over 700 British Muslims who have travelled
to Syria and Iraq to wage jihad. He is pictured speaking in an
English-language ISIS recruitment video.

More than 700 Britons are believed to have travelled to Syria and Iraq, according to British authorities. Over half of these Britons are thought to have since returned home, where they pose a significant threat to national security.

Britain's terrorism threat alert is at the second-highest level of "severe," meaning an attack is "highly likely."

MI5's warnings are included in a major new report on the regulation of surveillance powers. Also known as the Anderson Report, the 380-page document was written by the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC. The report states:

"MI5 has pointed out some of the recent factors which reinforce their concerns about the terrorist threat. Terrorist related arrests are up 35% compared to 2010. The number who have travelled to Syria and undertaken terrorist training since 2012 is already higher than has been seen in other 21st century theatres, such as Pakistan/Afghanistan, East Africa and Yemen.

"The threat posed on their return comprises not just attack planning but radicalization of associates, facilitation and fundraising, all of which further exacerbate the threat. The number of UK-linked individuals who are involved in or been exposed to terrorist training and fighting is higher than it has been at any point since the 9/11 attacks in 2001. MI5 regard this aspect of the threat as unprecedented. Some travelers were previously unknown to MI5.

"The volume and accessibility of extremist propaganda has increased. UK-based extremists are able to talk directly to ISIL fighters and their wives in web forums and on social media. The key risk is that this propaganda is able to inspire individuals to undertake attacks without ever traveling to Syria or Iraq. Through these media outputs, ISIL have driven the increase in unsophisticated attack methodology seen in recent months in Australia, France and Canada.

The report reveals that MI5 has successfully disrupted two attack plots by lone wolves in the past nine months, both in the late stages of preparation. According to MI5, "identifying such individuals is increasingly challenging, exacerbated by the current limitations in their technical capabilities."

Separately, the UK's lead police officer on counter-terrorism, Mark Rowley, announced the latest arrest figures — nearly one every day — which underline the scale of the challenge British police are facing to tackle the jihadist threat.

According to Rowley, there were a record 338 arrests for terrorism-related offenses in the last financial year (April 2014 to March 2015), a 33% increase on the 254 arrests in the previous year. He said that 157 (46%) of the arrests were linked to Syria, and 56 were under 20 years of age, an "emerging trend."

Rowley said that 79% of those arrested were British nationals and 11% were female. He added that 50% of the arrests were made in London and that roughly 50% of those arrested were later charged (up from around 40% in previous years). The arrests ranged from fundraising for jihadist groups to facilitation, preparation and execution of terrorist attack plans.

Rowley also said that each week the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU), which assesses terrorist and violent extremist material on the Internet, removes on average over 1,000 pieces of content that breaches the Terrorism Act 2006. Approximately 800 of these items are related to the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and are posted on multiple platforms. According to Rowley:

"ISIL and other terrorist groups are trying to direct attacks in the UK; encouraging British citizens to travel to Syria to fight and train; and are seeking, through propaganda, to provoke individuals in the UK to carry out violent attacks here."

"There is no doubt of the horrific nature of the offenses being committed overseas. The influence of those who wish to bring similar violence to the streets of the UK has been an increasing threat here. The rise in level of activity is matched by increased action by police and security services, who are currently working on hundreds of active investigations. We cannot be complacent."

Meanwhile, Britain's most senior Muslim police officer, Scotland Yard commander Mak Chishty, has warned that Islamist propaganda is so potent that it is influencing children as young as five, and that many more British Muslims are likely to end up being lured into becoming jihadists either at home or abroad.

In an interview with the Guardian newspaper, Chishty said there was an urgent need to "move into the private space" of Muslims to prevent youth from becoming radicalized. He called on friends and family to intervene much earlier, and to watch for subtle changes in behavior, including expressions of anti-Western sentiment. He said:

"We need to now be less precious about the private space. This is not about us invading private thoughts, but acknowledging that it is in these private spaces where this [extremism] first germinates. The purpose of private-space intervention is to engage, explore, explain, educate or eradicate. Hate and extremism is not acceptable in our society, and if people cannot be educated, then hate and harmful extremism must be eradicated through all lawful means."

Chishty defined "private space" as "anything from walking down the road, looking at a mobile, to someone in a bedroom surfing the net, to someone in a shisha cafe talking about things."

Chishty said that jihadist propaganda is so powerful that he fears his own children might be vulnerable. He said his message to fellow Muslim parents was: "I am not immunized. If I feel the need to be extra vigilant, then I think you need to feel the need to be extra vigilant."

Referring to three teenage girls from a school in Bethnal Green, east London, who slipped away from their families in February to join the Islamic State in Syria, he said he found it impossible to believe the claims by their families that there had been no clues that the girls were becoming radicalized. "My view as a parent is there must have been signs," he said.

According to Chishty, current counter-radicalization strategies are not working. "We are in unchartered water.... We are facing a risk, a threat which is global, which is powerfully driven by social media, reaching you on your own through your mobile phone."

Some of Chishty's ideas highlight the challenge of finding a balance between confronting jihadist propaganda and criminalizing free speech.

A new Counter-Extremism Bill — which the government says is needed to combat groups and individuals who "undermine British values" — is facing mounting criticism that it is too draconian.

The new legislation would introduce so-called Banning Orders for extremist groups that seek to "undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places." It would also give the government new powers to restrict individuals who seek to radicalize youth, and powers to close premises where extremists seek to influence others.

The bill would strengthen the powers of the Charity Commission to root out charities that misappropriate funds towards extremism and terrorism. It would also place immigration restrictions on extremists, and strengthen the ability of Ofcom, the communications regulator, to take action against channels that broadcast extremist content.

Anjem Choudary

The legislation is partly aimed at providing the government with the tools needed to silence Islamic extremists such as Anjem Choudary, who has long called for the implementation of Islamic Sharia law in Britain. Although Choudary is believed to have inspired dozens of young British Muslims to carry out violence in the name of Islam, his training as a lawyer has helped him to stay one step ahead of the law and out of prison.

But the new bill is facing stiff opposition from a variety of individuals who fear the bill will give too much power to the state.

In an interview with the Telegraph, Haras Rafiq, the director of the Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremism think tank, said the new bill would "do the very things the extremists want us to. With these Orwellian, totalitarian powers, we are playing into their hands." He added:

"It is very noticeable that the main Islamist groups are not really up in arms about this. They want it, because it will feed the narrative of grievance and victimhood they love. They will be able to use it to say, look, we told you so."

Rafiq described the proposed powers as "ridiculous" and "unworkable" and said that even if they survived the passage through Parliament, they would be struck down by the courts. "That will be embarrassing and a victory for the extremists," he said.

The Telegraph also reported that senior government advisors are opposed to the bill. A counter-extremism specialist at the Home Office's de-radicalization program, Rashad Ali, said:

"You can't protect democracy by undermining democracy. The Government is obsessed with legislation but this is not something you can defeat by legislation. It is a battle of ideas and we have to defeat these ideas by argument, not by banning even having the debate. What we need, far more than any new law, is a counter-argument and a policy which can inspire [Muslim] society to defeat extremist ideas."

The former foreign office minister and shadow home secretary David Davis said that "restricting free speech, and forcing those who hold views inimical to our own into the shadows, is an authoritarian act that will only serve to further alienate those susceptible to extremist views."

The government's new Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, in a leaked letter to Home Secretary Theresa May, warned that the law would turn Ofcom into a state "censor."

Alan Craig, the leader of a campaign against the proposed "London Olympic mega-mosque" at West Ham, is also opposed to the new bill. He said:

"David Cameron seems to think that banning orders, extremist disruption orders and draconian laws are the way to tackle Choudary's ideological venom. But such legislation simply endangers the UK's democratic liberties and freedom of speech. It is far better openly to expose — and mock — the fictitious fabricated roots of Choudary's fundamentalist ideology. It is this way that Choudary will slowly but surely lose his malign influence over so many impressionable young minds."

British Prime Minister David Cameron has defended the bill. "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone," he said. "It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance." He added:

"This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation, and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values... And it means confronting head-on the poisonous Islamist extremist ideology. Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed."

The bill's passage is not a foregone conclusion. Cameron's new government has a majority of just 10 MPs in the House of Commons, and holds 228 of the 787 seats in the House of Lords. MPs are likely to propose and debate amendments to the government's proposals.

Russia to Tighten Rules for Foreign-Funded Religious Groups

RT: April 14, 2015 13:30 

Servants of the Last Testament Church hold a procession to the Abode of Dawn
near Petropavlovka village, Krasnoyarsk Territory. (Reuters/Grigoriy Sisoev)

A Russian government commission has recommended to pass the bill that would oblige all religious groups that receive sponsorship from abroad to provide the authorities with detailed information about their work and their leaders.

The Justice Ministry that has drafted the bill, noted in an explanations that its main objective was to timely uncover the religious groups’ involvement in terrorist and extremist activities as well as other facts of violation of the Russian law.

The draft orders that religious organizations that get money or other property from foreign and international groups, foreign citizens and persons without citizenship, should file in detailed reports about their activities and personal information about their leaders. Regional branches of the Justice ministry are charged with the task to oversee the process.

The bill will be considered at one of the nearest government sessions and then submitted to the parliament.

MPs suggest restricting activities of 'undesirable foreign groups' in Russia

In late 2012 Russia introduced the so called “Foreign Agents Law” that ordered all NGOs that receive funding from abroad, and that are even partially engaged in political activities, to register as foreign agents or risk substantial fines. Activists and human rights officials criticized the act for allegedly labeling the groups and warned of a possible sharp cut in foreign funding.

Russian officials, including President Putin, replied that the law contained no sanctions against foreign-funded organizations and only sought to inform the Russian public better, and especially voters, of the possible motives of various participants in the political process.

And if you believe that, I still have that tropical island off the coast of Labrador for sale. There is always a hidden agenda in anything President Putin does.

In late 2014 the State Duma passed a bill that makes it illegal for Russian political parties to receive sponsorship, or enter any business deals with NGOs with “foreign agent” status.

France May Ban Super-Skinny Models

The link between high fashion, body image and eating disorders on French catwalks may lead to a ban on super-skinny models.

France's government is likely to back a bill being discussed in Paris banning excessively thin fashion models as well as potentially fining the modelling agency or fashion house that hires them and sending their agents to jail, Health Minister Marisol Touraine said on Monday.

Rosa Cha runway fashion model
looks like she just escaped
from the Holocaust

Style-conscious France, with its fashion and luxury industries worth tens of billions of dollars, would join Italy, Spain and Israel, which all adopted laws against too-thin models on catwalks or in advertising campaigns in early 2013.​

The union representing fashion agencies opposes the ban, arguing that regulating a model's waist line will take a toll on the agencies' bottom line. 

So, obviously the union cares much more about the bottom line than the bottoms.

Under the proposed legislation, any model who wants to work has to have a body mass index (a type of height to weight ratio) of at least 18 and would be subject to regular weight checks. Health Minister Marisol Touraine says the ban would protect young women who see models as the ideal female form. Plus, many models in France are still in their teens.

So, a woman who is 5-foot-7 would have to weigh at least 121 pounds. The normal weight BMI range is around 18.5 to 25.


Fines, jail time

The law would enforce fines of up to $79,000 US for any breaches, with up to six months in jail for any staff involved, French Socialist Party legislator Olivier Veran, who wrote the amendments, told newspaper Le Parisien.

The bill’s amendments also propose penalties for anything made public that could be seen as encouraging extreme thinness, notably pro-anorexia websites that glorify unhealthy lifestyles and forums that encourage eating disorders.

In 2007, Isabelle Caro, an anorexic 28-year-old former French fashion model, died after posing for a photographic campaign to raise awareness about the illness.

Some 30,000-40,000 people in France suffer from anorexia, most of them teenagers, said Veran, who is a doctor.

In 2013, designer Hedi Slimane was chastised for casting shockingly thin male models at an Yves Saint Laurent show in Paris. It was not immediately clear whether France's proposed legislation would apply to male models as well.

Cudos for France if they get on-board with this legislation. Cudos especially to Italy, Spain and Israel for having done it two years ago. US - what about you?

Argentina: President Cristina Fernandez Case Dismissed

President Fernandez's second term in office ends in December

A federal judge in Argentina has dismissed a controversial case against President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and her foreign minister.

They had been accused of covering up alleged Iranian involvement in a bomb attack against a Jewish centre in 1994.

Judge Daniel Rafecas has concluded that there was not enough evidence to pursue the charges.

The accusation came from special prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who was found dead last month in his flat.

Judge Rafecas said he was throwing out the case after carefully examining Mr Nisman's 350-page report.

There was no proof that an agreement signed by the Argentine government with Iran in January 2013 was an attempt to shield the involvement of senior Iranian officials in the attack, the judge said.

'No legal basis'
The agreement was rejected by the Iranian government two months later and was never approved by Iran's parliament.

Defence Minister Agustin Rossi welcomed Judge Rafecas' ruling saying: "We have always said that Nisman's claims had no legal basis."

Mr Nisman was found dead just hours
before he was due to give evidence
to a congressional committee

The case against Ms Fernandez and foreign minister Hector Timerman is now closed.

But the BBC's Wyre Davies says the judicial system in Argentina is highly politicised and the decision to cease investigations will further polarise a dangerously divided nation.

'Rogue agent'
Mr Nisman was due to testify in Congress against Ms Fernandez and Mr Timerman the day after his body was found.

The circumstances of his death have not been clarified.

President Fernandez said Mr Nisman been fed misleading information by a rogue intelligence agent. The government has rejected any role in his death.

Thousands of people marched through the streets of Buenos Aires
last week to demand justice for Mr Nisman

The lower house of the Argentine Congress has meanwhile approved a bill scrapping the country's secret agency, the Intelligence Secretariat.

The proposal was first announced days after Ms Nisman's death, on 18 January.

A new federal investigative agency, which will be accountable to Congress, will replace it.

Ms Fernandez said the change was overdue because the agency had remained largely untouched since the end of military rule in 1983.

The opposition called the proposal a smokescreen for its involvement in the scandal.

Argentina Congress Votes to Dissolve Intelligence Agency

Argentina's Congress has approved a bill to scrap the country's intelligence agency

The lower house of Argentina's Congress passed the bill
with 131 votes in favour, 71 against

The Intelligence Secretariat will be replaced with a new federal agency that will be accountable to Congress.

The proposal was drafted last month by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, following the death of special prosecutor Alberto Nisman.

She accused a rogue agent of feeding misleading information to Mr Nisman, who was investigating the government.

The lower house of Congress voted 131 to 71 in favour of the bill. It had already been passed by the Senate.

Marathon session
During a six-hour debate, opposition lawmakers repeatedly expressed their discontent with the fact that, under the new law, oversight of all wiretaps will be moved from the intelligence services to the general attorney's office.

They said they felt uneasy about the close ties between the government and the current general attorney.

They also said they were worried about the role army chief Cesar Milani would play in intelligence gathering under the new law.

The new agency is expected to be set up within 90 days of the bill being signed into law by Ms Fernandez.

Argentina's Intelligence Secretariat (SI, also known by its previous name Side)

Founded in 1946 by General Juan Peron as a civilian intelligence agency
Mission was to provide both internal and foreign intelligence
Evolved into a secret police force during Argentina's Dirty War (1974-1983)
Used by military junta to track down opponents and spy on "subversives", including trade union and other left-wing activists
Survived the transition to democracy in 1983
Critics allege SI has since been used to monitor the activities of critical journalists, politicians, judges and prosecutors
No official staffing figures available - but analysts believe it has grown in influence and size in the past decade
Led since December 2014 by Oscar Parrilli following the resignation of Hector Icazuriaga after 11 years

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
speaking during a national simultaneous broadcast
The Argentine president said Mr Nisman's death was part of a plot to discredit her

Ms Fernandez had argued a reform of Argentina's intelligence services was overdue.

She said that the agency had kept much of the same structure it had during the military government, which ended in 1983, and needed to become more accountable.

"We need to make the intelligence services more transparent because they have not served the interests of the country," the president said in a televised speech in January.

Kicking off the debate in the lower chamber on Wednesday evening, governing party lawmaker Diana Conti described the vote as "a fight for the democratisation of the country's intelligence services".

She said it was time to put an end "to the perverse links between the intelligence services, the judiciary and some political sectors".

One of the main criticisms of the SI had been a lack of control of its funding.

The new law creates "control mechanisms" to oversee the new agency's finances, although critics said details of how these mechanisms would work were lacking.

Opposition congressman Manuel Garrido also warned that there were no safeguards to prevent the new agency from committing serious irregularities.

"What worries us is that there has not been, nor will there be proper control," he told Reuters news agency.

Mr Garrido also said the law was a smokescreen to divert attention from the death under mysterious circumstances of federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman.

Mr Nisman was found dead just hours before he was due to give evidence
to a congressional committee

Mr Nisman, who was 51, was found dead in his flat on 18 January with a gunshot wound to his head hours before he was due to testify to a congressional committee.

He had been investigating the bombing of the Amia Jewish centre in the capital, Buenos Aires, in 1994 which left 85 people dead.

Mr Nisman had accused President Fernandez and Foreign Minister Hector Timerman of involvement in a plot to cover up Iran's alleged role in the bombing.

Ms Fernandez rejected the allegations and said a former secret agent had misled the prosecutor in order to discredit her government.

Who knows whether Cristina's accusations are true or not? Her drastic action to shut down the secret service seems to lend credibility to her. But if her accusations are an attempt at smoke and mirrors, it seems to be working quite well, so far.

Austria Passes Controversial Reforms to 1912 Islam Law

The Austrian parliament has passed controversial reforms to the country's century-old law on Islam

Protesters held a demonstration against the new law outside
the parliament building in Vienna on Tuesday

The bill, which is partly aimed at tackling Islamist radicalism, gives Muslims more legal security but bans foreign funding for mosques and imams.

Austria's Integration Minister, Sebastian Kurz, defended the reforms but Muslim leaders say they fail to treat them equally.

The 1912 law made Islam an official religion in Austria.

It has been widely held up as a model for Europe in dealing with Islam.

The new measures, first proposed three years ago, include the protection of religious holidays and training for imams.

But Muslim groups say the ban on foreign funding is unfair as international support is still permitted for the Christian and Jewish faiths.

They say the legalisation reflects a widespread mistrust of Muslims and some are planning to contest it in the constitutional court. Oh no! Not that! A mistrust of Muslims - how could that possibly be?

Mr Kurz told the BBC the reforms were a "milestone" for Austria and aimed to stop certain Muslim countries using financial means to exert "political influence".

"What we want is to reduce the political influence and control from abroad and we want to give Islam the chance to develop freely within our society and in line with our common European values," he said.

A mosque is pictured against mountains in the Tyrolean village of Telfs
in western Austria

Mr Kurz also stressed the bill was not a reaction to recent attacks by Islamic extremists in France and Denmark.

Meanwhile the legislation has drawn wide reaction from Muslims across the world, with Turkey's head of religious affairs, Mehmet Gormez, adding his condemnation on Tuesday.

"Austria will go back 100 years in freedom with its Islam bill," Mr Gormez said, according to Turkey's state-funded Anadolu news agency. Islam goes back a thousand years with Sharia - is that better?

Roughly half a million Muslims live in Austria today, around 6% of the population. Many of them have Turkish or Bosnian roots.

The Islam law was introduced by Habsburg Emperor Franz Joseph (pictured left) in 1912.

Franz Joseph was uncle to Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne, who's assassination triggered World War I.

The parliamentary vote in Austria came as the French government announced plans to improve dialogue with France's Muslim community.

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said the government would increase consultations with Muslim leaders.

It would also double the number of university courses for imams - making them obligatory for Islamic chaplains in prisons and the armed forces - to ensure they are "faithful to the values of the Republic", he said. That should be interesting!

Russia's Swearing Ban Blanks Out Vulgarity in Hit Film Leviathan

Leviathan shows harsh realities in a far-flung northern community

The Oscar-nominated Russian film Leviathan is going on general release in Russian cinemas, but with silence blanking out the many swear words.

It is a highly controversial film in Russia, portraying a corrupt mayor in the bleak far north bullying a man trying to keep his property.

The distributor, A-Company Russia, says the film has not been cut, but Russian cinema-goers will not hear swear words.

Russian law bans swearing in films, TV broadcasts, theatres and the media. (see below).

Much of the dialogue in Leviathan contains swearing, some of it very strong language. A spokesman for the distributor said Russian viewers "will find it easy to lip-read the swear words".

Leviathan is already on show in London and it received a best screenplay award at the Cannes Film Festival last May.

It also won a Golden Globe for best foreign film and in Russia it got a Golden Eagle award.

Yelena Liadova plays a long-suffering wife in Leviathan

Demand for Leviathan among Russian cinemas has outstripped predictions, Russia's RIA Novosti news agency reports.

It will be shown in 650 cinemas - more than double the number that had been anticipated.

Director Andrey Zvyagintsev takes aim at bureaucratic power in Russia

The film's producer, Alexander Rodnyansky, said interest had surged since a pirated copy appeared on the internet a month ago and the film had become a hot topic of debate.

Director Andrey Zvyagintsev said he was pleased that the film had sharply divided opinion in Russia.

"The film is necessary, the audience confirms that," he was quoted as saying on the Newsru.com website (in Russian).

"Society and the country are divided. The polarised viewpoints indicate that we hit the target," he said.

Some have seen the film as a condemnation of President Vladimir Putin's Russia. A big photo of Mr Putin hangs above the corrupt mayor's desk.

However, Mr Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he was pleased that Leviathan had triggered such sharp reactions in society.

Russian law bans swearing in arts and media

Moscow cinema entrance It is not yet clear how Russian censors
will deal with swearing in imported films

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law banning all swearing in films, television broadcasts, theatres and the media.

Offenders will face fines - as much as 50,000 roubles (£829; $1,400) for organisations, or up to 2,500 roubles (£41; $70) for individuals.

The fines don't appear to be excessive for big productions or individuals. Smaller productions will be hit hardest.

Is it fair? Is it a reasonable law? Is it a step in returning to Communist order? I don't know, but personally, I like it. I despise the vulgar language that is so popular these days. So, while I somewhat admire Putin's desire to clean up Russia, I wish he would start with the oligarchy, but, alas, they are too close to him.

Where disputes arise a panel of experts will decide exactly what counts as a swear word.

Books containing swear words will have to carry warnings on the cover.

Russia's Vesti news website says that, according to sociologists' research, swearing is common in two-thirds of Russian companies.

The law will take effect from 1 July and will not apply to cases of swearing at performances before that date.

A leading pro-Putin film director and now MP, Stanislav Govorukhin, was one of the new law's architects.

The law harks back to the conservatism of the Soviet period, when the Communist Party required artists and writers to avoid "decadent" Western fashions and to stick to traditional values.

Traders who fail to give consumers warnings about swearing in videos or other audiovisual products will risk having their licences withdrawn.

It is not clear whether the ban on swearing in the media will also extend to Russian users of international social media such as Twitter and Facebook.