NewsBreakingOnline | Archive | Politics

Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1230)

Gaddafi son death sparks Nato doubt

May 1, 2011 No Comment

Regime claims attack that killed son and three grandchildren was aimed at Libya’s leader, as allies accused of overstepping UN security council resolution Nato is facing urgent questions about the legality of its air strike on a Gaddafi family compound at the weekend, which the Libyan government said had killed the leader’s second youngest son, 29-year old Saif al-Arab, and three grandchildren under 12. The grandchildren were not named. The Libyan government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said Muammar Gaddafi and his wife, Safiya, had been in the building at the time, but had escaped injury. He said the aim of the attack was clear: to assassinate the Libyan leader. Nato swiftly scrambled to deny that it was targeting any individuals, insisting that it was only interested in attacking the military command structure. The prime minister, David Cameron, told the BBC that UN resolutions permitted attacks against the regime’s “command and control” sites because their aim was to prevent “a loss of civilian life by targeting Gaddafi’s war-making machine”. But the deaths of Gaddafi’s three grandchildren, if confirmed, will reinforce the doubts of alliance members uncomfortable with Nato’s six-week bombing campaign and generate criticism from countries such as Russia that Nato is pushing beyond its UN security council mandate. “Statements by participants in the coalition that the strikes on Libya are not aimed at the physical destruction of … Gaddafi and members of his family raise serious doubts,” the Russian foreign ministry said. “The disproportionate use of force … is leading to detrimental consequences and the death of innocent civilians.” The ministry called for “an immediate ceasefire and the beginning of a political settlement process without preconditions.” The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, said in Caracas: “There is no doubt the order was given to kill Gaddafi. It doesn’t matter who else is killed … this is a murder.” The attack, which one diplomatic source said had been carried out by Danish airmen possibly in an F16 bomber, ripped through the Gaddafi residence at around 8pm on Saturday night. It was the second time in recent days that an airstrike has come close to the Libyan leader, and Ibrahim indicated that someone within the leader’s circle may have leaked intelligence on his whereabouts. But in Washington, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser in the Bush administration, warned that the assassination of Gaddafi by Nato aircraft could prove counterproductive. “The narrative we want to come out of this is that the Libyan people overthrew a dictator – not that we came in and toppled a despot,” he told CNN. “What we really want him to do is to leave or to die at a Libyan hand, not an American hand.” But senior Republicans expressed little concern over the prospect of Gaddafi becoming a casualty. Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News: “Wherever Gaddafi goes, he is a legitimate military target. He’s the command and control source. He’s not the legitimate leader of Libya and the way to get this to end is to go after the people around him and his support system.” Reminded that assassinating foreign leaders is illegal, Graham said: “In my view, he’s not a foreign leader, he’s a murderer.” John McCain, another Republican senator who specialises in foreign affairs, told CBS: “We should be taking out his command and control. If he is killed or injured because of that, that’s fine.” Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination who was also on the Sunday talk shows, said it was foolish of Barack Obama to have become involved in Libya. She told Fox: “When President Obama went in, his doctrine was to enter Libya for humanitarian purposes. The point of what I am saying is that we are seeing many, many lives lost, including innocent civilians’ lives. “What will be the ultimate objective and gain? I don’t see it. I think it was a foolish decision to have gotten involved.” In spite of criticism by Russia that Nato is trying to assassinate Gaddafi, Moscow has stopped short of raising the attacks at the UN security council. The Libyan government has been pressing Russia and China to challenge the legality of the Nato action. Both have expressed sympathy with the argument that Nato strikes against compounds where Gaddafi and his family live go beyond the UN mandate to protect civilians in rebel-held areas. A UN security council official said on Sunday that there was no sign of Moscow seeking to bring the issue up at the security council. The official said China was taking its cue from Russia. Both abstained in the vote on the resolution sanctioning action against Libya in March. According to British diplomats, the Gaddafi regime retaliated against the airstrike by dispatching a mob to attack western embassy buildings, which have been abandoned in recent weeks as the hostilities have gathered pace. A spokeswoman said a building housing the ambassador’s residence had been set on fire, and according to initial reports had been burned down. Sky News journalist Mark Stone, who visited the embassy, reported on Twitter: “Totally burnt out. WW2 memorial smashed on the ground. Burnt out cars. Looted.” A British official, speaking on condition of anonymity said there was no doubt in London that the mob attacks had been officially sanctioned. “There are no demos allowed to move anywhere in Tripoli unless they are 100% orchestrated by the regime.” William Hague said: “I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries. The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed.” Omar Jelban, the Libyan ambassador, who has worked as a diplomat in London since 2001, was given 24 hours to leave. Britain expelled five Libyan diplomats in March, on the grounds that they were a threat to national security. The Libyan embassy in London continues to function without about a dozen remaining staff, according to British officials. Britain retains a minimal diplomatic presence in Tripoli within the Turkish embassy. Libya Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Nato United Nations United States Europe Julian Borger Ian Traynor Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk

Sir Henry Cooper has died aged 76

May 1, 2011 No Comment

• British heavyweight boxer dies at his son’s home in Surrey • ‘A true warrior and great human being,’ says David Haye Sir Henry Cooper, who will always be remembered for flooring Muhammad Ali, has died aged 76. Cooper, who was knighted in 2000, is best remembered for two famous clashes with Ali in the 1960s. He floored Ali in the fourth round with “Enry’s Ammer” – his trademark left hook – but Ali eventually won the 1963 non-title fight at Wembley. Ali triumphed again when they boxed three years later but Cooper remained a favourite with the British public. Alongside Frank Bruno, Tommy Farr and Lennox Lewis, he is regarded as one of the best all-time British heavyweights. The former British, Commonwealth and European heavyweight champion fought 55 times but never won a world title and retired in 1971 after losing to Joe Bugner. Tributes began to pour in on Sunday night for the London-born Cooper, who died at his son’s house at Oxted, Surrey, two days before his 77th birthday. David Haye, the British WBA world heavyweight champion, tweeted: “One of Britain’s greatest sports man Sir Henry Cooper passed away today. A true warrior and great human being. Rest in Peace.” Robert Smith, the general secretary of the British Boxing Board of Control, described Cooper as “one of the sporting icons, not just for the boxing public but sport in general”. Speaking to Sky Sports News, Smith said: “He fought Muhammad Ali twice, once when he was Cassius Clay and once when he was Muhammad Ali, and he put up wonderful performances. “Ali is possibly the greatest athlete there’s ever been and Henry put up a great performance and just wasn’t quite good enough on both occasions – but he’s not the only one who wasn’t good enough to beat Ali. “Ali was one of the first ‘big’ heavyweights and Henry lost to Joe Bugner, who was 15-odd stone and Henry was 14 – just bigger men. For such a small man, he put up some great performances in a world-class context.” On the affection in which Cooper was held he said: “It’s not just the boxing and your ability, it’s the personality as well. He won the BBC Sports Personality of the Year on two occasions, which is a tremendous feat for a boxer. Everyone called him ‘Our Enry’ and he was much loved, he served boxing wonderfully.” Johnny Nelson, the former WBO cruiserweight world champion, told Sky Sports News: “Henry was a total champion. He was always a gentleman, always straight down the line. He told it how it was. “Ali always showed that bit of respect for Henry Cooper. He was a no-nonsense fighter, the man that almost dethroned one of the greatest fighters in the world, Muhammad Ali. There’s nobody that came across Sir

Sir Henry Cooper has died aged 76

May 1, 2011 No Comment

Centrica threatens to shut gas field

May 1, 2011 No Comment

Row over windfall tax on offshore drilling provokes possible closure of field that produces 6% of nation’s gas The dispute between energy firms and the government over the level of tax paid by firms operating in the North Sea dramatically escalated on Sunday with British Gas threatening to shut down an important gas field on the Irish Sea. Centrica, which owns British Gas, closed the Morecambe Bay field for routine maintenance and warned it may not reopen it because of the 12% tax rise on North Sea profits announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, in the budget in March. The move provoked an immediate response from the Treasury, which said the rise was necessary and that the company would continue to make substantial profits on its operation. Morecambe Bay produces 6% of the UK’s gas, but Centrica said it may now be cheaper to buy supplies on the open market, shipping them in from abroad, rather than bear the expense of operating Morecambe where gas is subject to an “onerous” tax regime. Centrica said that UK oil and gas fields are now subject to the highest levels of tax in the world. A spokesman said: “At these higher tax rates, Morecambe’s profitability can be marginal. Accordingly, we may choose to buy gas for our customers in the wholesale markets in preference to restarting the field after planned maintenance [due to last four weeks].” The company added that following the increase in supplementary corporation tax, North Morecambe will be subject to a 62% tax rate and South Morecambe 81%. “This impacts the trigger levels at which point we shut in production and purchase gas from other sources such as LNG [liquefied natural gas].” A Treasury spokesman said the tax rise was essential to help motorists cope with the soaring cost of petrol: “The decision to increase the charge on oil and gas companies … has allowed the government to lower fuel duty, helping hard-pressed motorists at a difficult time. Even with this change, average post-tax oil profits per barrel are forecast to be higher in the next five years than the last five, meaning that profits are expected to stay high.” In February, Centrica reported record profits of £742m at British Gas – a 24% leap on a year earlier – provoking criticism from consumer groups. Centrica had pushed through a 7% increase in energy bills just two months earlier. Centrica argues that its gas production goes into power stations, not to fuel cars, and that it should not have to pay a tax being levied to help motorists. The row between business and government is potentially embarrassing for Centrica as its chief executive, Sam Laidlaw, has recently been appointed a non-executive director at the Department for Transport as part of the drive to import private-sector efficiency to Whitehall. The chancellor sparked uproar in the energy industry when he imposed the £2bn windfall tax on North Sea firms. The industry was furious that the levy was introduced without consultation and warned it could jeopardise investment, damage investor confidence and hit jobs. Last week, Shell and BP both reported big increases in profits but said the tax increases could cost them as much as $1bn (£600m) each. Some companies have threatened an investment boycott in response to the new tax, which follows increases introduced a few years ago when Gordon Brown was chancellor. Executives argue they need “fiscal certainty” if they are to continue to invest in the North Sea, where production is in decline but thousands of British workers are still employed. They have been lobbying hard to change the chancellor’s mind, but so far he has refused to reconsider. Critics have complained that the energy industry is trying to dodge its responsibilities and avoid paying a fair share of higher taxes at a time of national economic hardship. Unions and consumer groups point out that oil prices have been soaring, thanks to the boom in commodity prices generated by bigger demand from India and China. Last week, the AA said it planned to ask the European competition commission to investigate whether oil and petrol markets are being manipulated after Shell reported first-quarter profits up 40%, which means the company is making £2m an hour. In the past, Treasury ministers have dismissed fears that the hike in North Sea taxes would lead to a decline in production. But oil executives have threatened to bring forward the retirement of many big fields, shutting down infrastructure that could affect smaller developers struggling to bring new oil fields into production. Thousands of jobs in Scotland have been put at risk after Norway’s Statoil said it would “pause and reflect” before starting on a £3bn project near the Shetlands. Oil companies have complained that Osborne’s decision would scupper plans to explore the remaining North Sea fields, a move which was expected to create 15,000 jobs. Centrica Budget 2011 Budget Gas Commodities Energy industry Energy Gas Richard Wachman guardian.co.uk

David Cameron using AV to trash us, say Lib Dems

May 1, 2011 No Comment

Prime minister accused of using referendum to ruin Nick Clegg’s leadership as new polls shows No lead cut to 10 points The deepening loss of personal trust at the top of the coalition government engendered by the bitter AV referendum campaign was exposed when David Cameron was accused of a systematic and shortsighted attempt to trash Nick Clegg’s leadership. The attack by the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, in the final week of the campaign further exposes the deep anger among Liberal Democrats that Cameron is using the referendum to shore up his position within the Conservative party at Clegg’s expense. Huhne expressed anger over widely circulated no campaign leaflets that focus on Clegg’s alleged broken pledges. He told the Guardian: “David Cameron has had the power to stop these no campaign leaflets saying Nick Clegg has broken promises and told lies. He has done nothing about it. “To attack your political colleagues in a coalition and Nick Clegg in particular for accepting the compromises necessary to allow the Conservatives to implement some of its policies is absurdly short-sighted and outrageous. “Our two parties came together in the national interest in order to deal with our country’s economic problems. The Conservative party is now completely trashing us and Nick Clegg’s leadership for doing something they asked us to do in the national interest.” Huhne’s remarks constitute the most personal attack on Cameron mounted by a Lib Dem during the referendum campaign. Huhne, who has taken more risks than any other Lib Dem cabinet member to take the fight to the Conservatives during the campaign, said the no camp was run and wholly funded by the Conservative party, and if Cameron wanted to stop the leaflets he could have done so. Cameron insisted he was only responsible for the Conservative no campaign, and not the wider all-party campaign. The latest row follows a Sunday Times/YouGov poll that showed some tightening in the race, with the no lead narrowing from 18 points to a still emphatic 10. There is some sign that Labour voters now believe it is in their better long-term interest to damage Cameron by voting yes than it is to vote no and punish Clegg. But the yes campaign is still only leading in Scotland, suggesting that despite the fluctuating polls it may have an insurmountable job to turn a tentative shift into a decisive victory by Thursday. Both Clegg and Cameron said the coalition would survive Thursday’s results, which could also see the loss of 600 Conservative councillors and as many as 400 Liberal Democrats. Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Cameron said he would not be giving his coalition partners any consolation prizes if they were defeated in the referendum. “I don’t believe that a successful coalition is based around trying to endlessly sort of trade off each other’s policies.” But he signalled he wanted to revise his plans to introduce GP-led commissioning in the NHS so that the reform did not exclude hospital doctors. Meanwhile, Clegg accused the no campaign of trying to sow confusion over AV. But he acknowledged that “at a time of some anxiety … it’s sometimes quite a challenge to persuade people that we need to change things, move with the times”. He said the campaign had shown “this coalition government is composed of different parties with different values and different identities; maybe in the long run that’s not a bad thing”. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, also waded into the dispute yesterday, saying: “I have always thought that this is likely to be a five-year government. I think it is less likely after the rows of the last month.” Alternative vote AV referendum Electoral reform David Cameron Nick Clegg Chris Huhne Conservatives Liberal Democrats Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk

Marco Rubio not only refuses to support Ryan’s plan on MTP, but fibs about the numbers to David Gregory

May 1, 2011 No Comment

Tea Partiers and Conservatives live in their own reality, especially when it comes to numbers. They find an easily digestible sound-byte line and they repeat it into the ground. Florida’s Marco Rubio, or Mr. Tea Party, refused to back Paul Ryan’s budget mess when asked if he supported it on MTP and then made up his own numbers pertaining to Medicare and what the Ryan budget actually does. David Gregory asked Rubio questions and instead of answering him outright, he deflected the question and said he’s for anything that will fix the budget. Oh, where’s the love? Here’s the CBO on RyanCare: Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system . For a typical 65-year-old with average health spending enrolled in a plan with benefits similar to those currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the beneficiary’s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of a benchmark: what total health care spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By 2030, the beneficiary’s spending would be 68 percent of that benchmark under the proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario, and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario. … CBO estimates that average spending in traditional Medicare will be 89 percent of (that is, 11 percent less than) the spending that would occur if that same package of benefits was purchased from a private insurer. Rubio makes up magical numbers to defend cuts to Medicare and said that Ryan’s budget actually increased funding to Medicare while sticking to the previously debunked notion that HCR will cut 500 billion out of Medicare. Rubio: The Ryan plan doesn’t cut Medicare, it actually increases funding in it and the only people in this town that have voted to cut medicare that are the people who supported Obamacare, that cut half a trillion dollars for the next ten years from medicare. Political Correction has all the details of that lie : FactCheck.org: Cost Saving Provisions “Not A Slashing Of The Current Medicare Budget Or Benefits.” According to FactCheck.org: “Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the ‘doughnut hole,’ a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.” [FactCheck.org, 3/19/10 ] Screaming that Medicare is going broke must be Frank Luntz’ instructions to Conservative since that’s all Rubio kept coming back to. But that ignores the second half of the sentence: “…under current revenue structures.” How does privatizing this system (which then builds in corporate profits rather than the pay for service system now) make things better? What happens to seniors who can’t afford the additional costs imposed upon them by the Ryan plan? Proposing ludicrous ideas are not brave. Jonathan Chait debunks Paul Ryan in an interview he conducted with the Wisconsin Congressman in a post called: Debunking Paul Ryan’s Latest Spin John Cohn takes apart the idea that Ryan’s plan would even decrease the federal deficit one iota. “Only” is a slightly misleading term here, since $4.5 trillion dollars would still represent a large spending cut. But wait! The House Republican budget also calls for tax cuts—$4.2 trillion of them. In other words, the tax cuts in the House Republican budget would very nearly offset the spending cuts, leaving just $380 billion in additional savings over ten years. It would be nice if our beltway media would arm themselves with enough facts about this entire debate so that when Conservatives lie about the numbers they could actually correct them on the spot and not at a later date or if ever. I know it’s a bit complicated, but letting lies go unchallenged is not an option either.

Amanpour Accuses Paul Ryan of ‘Reverse Robin Hoodism,’ Freeland Urges ‘Courage’ to Raise Taxes

May 1, 2011 No Comment

“This week — budget blowback,” Christiane Amanpour trumpeted in framing her Sunday look, at reaction to Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s proposed budget plan, through those hostile to it, asserting: “As town halls across America erupt in anger over a plan to slash spending, Republicans find themselves under fire.” Amanpour maintained: “Congressman Ryan is at the center of the storm. It's his plan, of course, that has sparked the outcry. Across the country, the anger is palpable.” Instead of adding some light, however, Amanpour fueled the fire by legitimizing left-wing talking points, confronting Ryan: “People who have been studying your numbers very carefully have been saying that the numbers don't add up,” since: It also says two-thirds of the savings that you want to make in spending cuts come at the expense of programs designed for the poor, for the disadvantaged. And this is reverse Robin Hoodism, if you like – take from the poor, give back to the rich again. With “Ryan’s Plan Under Fire” as her on screen heading during most of the segment, Amanpour showed scenes from a day she spent with Ryan at town meeting in his Wisconsin district, illustrated mostly by liberal complaints to him with a few bits of praise mixed in. In the subsequent roundtable, Chrystia Freeland, global editor-at-large for Thomson-Reuters, made a plea to increase taxes, fretting: What I think is really missing – in both the Republican and the Democratic approach right now and is really an example of political cowardess – is taxes. We heard in your interview, Christiane, Ryan saying, “well, you know, this is about cutting spending.” It's partly going to be about cutting spending, but it is also going to be about raising taxes. And that's the thing that I think no one has the courage to talk about. It's partly going to be, I think there should be more taxes on the very rich. They’re doing incredibly well in this economy, but it is going to be about more taxes on the middle class, including consumption taxes. From the Sunday, May 1 This Week with Christiane Amanpour , her segment with Ryan joined in progress: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: At the end of the day, Congressman Ryan and I sit down to talk about the bottom line. AMANPOUR TO RYAN: People who have been studying your numbers very carefully have been saying that the numbers don't add up. CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN: Well the Congressional Budget Office say they do. AMANPOUR: It also says two-thirds of the savings that you want to make in spending cuts come at the expense of programs designed for the poor, for the disadvantaged. And this is reverse Robin Hoodism, if you like – take from the poor, give back to the rich again. RYAN: I would disagree with that. First of all, spending increases in this budget, spending on the safety net increases but it increases at a more sustainable rate. Here's the problem, Christiane, the safety net we have right now is going bankrupt. It's tearing apart at the seams. AMANPOUR: What you're proposing, seems like it's going to put a lot of the burden on the seniors. They’re worried they’re not going to be able to afford the cost of health insurance. RYAN: So, we’re saying give them more money to cover their expenses, don't give wealthy people as much to cover their expenses because they're wealthy and can afford more. But we're also saying, you have to get at the root of the cause of inflation. Even President Obama is saying slow the growth rate of Medicare.

Kurdish activist faces execution

May 1, 2011 No Comment

Death sentence on activist accused of being a member of a separatist group could be implemented at any time, says lawyer Fears are growing for the fate of a political activist in Iran who is facing imminent execution after being convicted of acting against national security. Sherko Moarefi, a 31-year-old ethnic Kurd from Baneh in north-west Iran, was arrested in October 2008 on suspicion of being a member of a Kurdish opposition political party, Komala. The leftwing separatist group has been branded a terrorist organisation by Iran. Moarefi was sentenced to death after being convicted of “acting against the national security” and moharebeh (waging war against God) – vague charges that Iran has used against many political activists in recent years. According to Khalil Bahramian, one of his lawyers in Iran, Moarefi’s conviction has been upheld by the supreme court and he was scheduled to be hanged on Sunday morning but his execution was delayed for a possible judicial review. “I have genuine fear that he might be executed at any time. This delay does not mean that his sentence has been halted,” Bahramian told the Guardian in a phone interview from Iran. “Sherko is innocent. Enmity with God is a charge for those who have taken up arms against the regime but Moarefi has been a peaceful activist,” he added. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have called on Iran to change Moarefi’s death sentence. Both human rights organisations have expressed alarm over the increase in capital punishment in Iran, which last year executed more people than any other country, apart from China. Since the beginning of this year, Iran has executed at least 135 people, according to official sources, although Amnesty says dozens more unacknowledged executions have taken place. Activists see it as a tactic to intimidate people at a time when pro-democracy movements are sweeping across the Middle East. Thirteen men have been hanged in public this year. Speaking to the Guardian, Kaveh Ghasemi-Kermanshahi, a Kurdish Iranian activist who recently fled to Iraq after being sentenced to four years in jail, said: “This coming week is the death anniversary of five Kurdish prisoners, including Farzad Kamangar, a teacher, who were executed in May last year … even a year later Iran refuses to hand over their dead bodies to their families.” Iran has launched a campaign against its Kurdish minority’s political activists. At least 15 other imprisoned Kurdish activists are on death row. In Tehran, Siamak Pourzand, an 80-year-old journalist who spent much of the past 10 years in jail, has killed himself. Pourzand was barred from leaving the country and was separated from other members of his family, who were forced to live outside Iran. His daughter, Leili, told the BBC Persian network that “separation from his family” led to his suicide. Iran is the leading jailer of journalists, along with China, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. At least 34 journalists are in prison in Iran. Iran Kurds Capital punishment Middle East Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk

Gay asylum claims not being counted

May 1, 2011 No Comment

Lack of data means Home Office unclear whether applicants are still being deported to countries where they risk persecution Ministers have admitted they are failing to collect data on the number of people who claim or are refused asylum on the basis of their sexuality, despite a government promise not to deport lesbians and gay men at risk of persecution. The lack of statistics means the government does not know whether gay and lesbian asylum seekers are still being deported to countries where they may face imprisonment, torture or execution. It is also unable to say whether new rules, brought in after a supreme court ruling that marked an end to Britain refusing asylum to gay men and lesbians on the grounds they could hide their sexuality by living discreetly, are being breached. In that July ruling, welcomed by Theresa May, the home secretary, one judge described how homophobia had “dramatically worsened” in countries such as Uganda, Malawi and Iran, making it necessary to allow those at risk protection in Britain. The UK Border Agency was told by the Home Office last year that the new rules should be applied “with immediate effect” and that relevant cases should be “flagged and recorded”. But more than six months on, the government still does not know how many cases they are dealing with, let alone whether the ruling is being followed. Last week, the US secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, launched her department’s 35th Human Rights report, which cited a Stonewall report drawing attention to “significant disadvantages” experienced by lesbian and gay asylum seekers in Britain. The UK chapter in the US state department report said: “Stonewall claimed that, by ‘fast tracking’ these more complex cases and denying them quickly, UKBA staff did not give applicants time to talk openly about their sexual orientation.” The campaign group found that, in the period between 2005-2009 almost all gay and lesbian asylum seeker claims were initially refused, compared with a 76% refusal rate among all asylum seekers, and were more likely to be fast tracked, which meant applicants and their lawyers had much less time to prepare an appeal. Following accusations of “institutional homophobia”, the UKBA has taken steps to address criticisms, including training case workers in dealing with such claims. Lesbian and gay asylum support groups said that the lack of centrally held official figures means they are unable to track whether any progress is being made. Erin Power of the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group said: “This makes it impossible to say anything at all about LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] claims because we don’t know whether they are granting asylum. An awful lot of work and money has gone into improving the approach to LGBT claims. “What worries us is people who were refused prior to the supreme court decision. In these cases, we know the countries they are being sent back to are dangerous. If they are picked up as failed asylum seekers, no one is checking whether they were told to be discreet. We’ve no idea how many people there are.” In what she described as a “worrying” development, following the ruling, it is becoming more difficult for asylum seekers to “prove” to the authorities that they are homosexual. “It has always been difficult to prove but more frequently now, people are not being believed.” Steve Symonds, the legal officer of Immigration Law Practitioners Association, said: “We are aware of cases where the Home Office and the courts have refused people asylum on the basis which we know now to be wrong. “The sensible thing to do would be to review cases of removal. When you get to a point where you have to put someone on a plane for removal, you should get their file out and make sure there’s nothing of concern. They should check they have not claimed on the grounds of being gay, because they know that there was an important decision in the court which may be relevant.” In at least one immigration case, last month, involving a woman they believed was a lesbian from Uganda, Home Office lawyers argued that there was no persecution of lesbians in there and that she could be safely returned if she lived discreetly. But a judge ruled that living openly as a lesbian would expose her to persecution and granted her leave to remain. In response to a parliamentary question asking how many lesbian and gay asylum seekers had been granted or refused asylum since July, Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: “The information requested in the questions is not recorded centrally by the UK Border Agency and can only be obtained through examination of individual case records at a disproportionate cost.” A UKBA spokesperson said: “The UK Border Agency does not currently record separate statistics on the grounds on which individuals claim asylum. “We are, however, reviewing how data on sexual orientation cases can be recorded more effectively and whether any resulting data can be published.” Immigration and asylum Gay rights Liberal-Conservative coalition Hillary Clinton Damian Green Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk

Romney At Koch-Sponsored Forum: We Need To Hang Obama…Metaphorically Speaking

May 1, 2011 No Comment

He just can’t help himself : Is this an appropriate phrasing considering the attacks from Fox News, Andrew Breitbart and other Republican candidates this week? Does Romney actually want to try to “hang” Obama with what he’s acknowledged is a deep recession that was started under George W. Bush? Mitt Romney in a forum sponsored by oil companies( AFP is funded by big oil companies including Koch Industries) tonight declares that he wants to “hang” Obama on the high oil prices from which the AFP’s sponsors are raking in record profits. I realize that Mitt Romney is not good at picking his words, but let’s agree that hanging metaphors aren’t responsible, especially at the end of this week. Update: The Boston Globe notes that Romney tread on dangerous ground before he corrected himself. Honestly, I don’t want to make that big a deal of the use of the phrase “hang that (misery) around his neck” because I think it’s less a lynching reference than an albatross , which has had a long and colorful literary life. However, Romney proves by his backtracking that he knows that “hanging” has a loaded meaning for most African Americans and he is clearly not ready for prime time. But I am continually reminded and dismayed by the complete double standard we have in this country in how we refer to the President of the United States. When Bush was POTUS, half the country lost their nut over the Dixie Chicks simply pointing out that they didn’t like being from the same state , prompting CD bonfires, crushings , and death threats (and frankly, a really fantastic follow up album ). But Obama can endure overt and veiled racism, questions about his parentage, his education, his qualifications, his alleged socialism/Marxism/communism/fascism, his honesty (and in the middle of his State of the Union address no less) and this is perfectly healthy debate and dissent. Because, you know, IOKIYAR.

Page 1230 of 2125« First ‹ Previous 1228 122912301231 1232 Next ›Last »