Tag: Decided

  • Same-sex marriage: Rijiju says to be decided by people, court no place to settle such matters

    Same-sex marriage: Rijiju says to be decided by people, court no place to settle such matters

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: As the Supreme Court hears pleas seeking legal sanction for same sex marriages, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday said an important matter like the institution of marriage has to be decided by people of the country and that courts are not the forum to settle such issues.

    He, however, clarified that he does not want to make the matter a “government versus judiciary” issue. “It is not. Absolutely not,” the minister asserted.

    Responding to a question at Republic TV conclave, he said, “It is a matter which concerns every citizen of India. It is the question of people’s will. The will of the people is reflected in Parliament or in the legislature or assemblies…”

    MS Education Academy

    Apparently referring to the Constitution bench of the top court hearing the matter, Rijiju said, “If five wise men decide something which is correct according to them — I cannot make any kind of adverse comments against them — But if people do not want it, you cannot impose things on the people…,”.

    Same-sex partners from around the country have approached the Supreme Court with a plea stating that same sex marriages should be legalised under the Special Marriage Act.

    The law minister further said that sensitive and important matters like institution of marriage have to be decided by the people of the country.

    The Supreme Court has the power to issue certain directions. Under Article 142, it can also make laws. If it feels some vacuum has to be filled, it can do so with certain provisions, he pointed out.

    “But when it comes to a matter which effects every citizen of the country, SC is not the forum to decide on behalf of the people of the country,” Rijiju added.

    The Centre on Wednesday requested the apex court to consider leaving questions raised in the pleas seeking legal sanction for same sex marriages to Parliament.

    Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud that the court is dealing with a “very complex subject”, which has a “profound social impact”.

    [ad_2]
    #Samesex #marriage #Rijiju #decided #people #court #place #settle #matters

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • ‘Not decided yet’: Ex-Karnataka CM Jagadish Shettar on joining Congress

    ‘Not decided yet’: Ex-Karnataka CM Jagadish Shettar on joining Congress

    [ad_1]

    Bengaluru: Former Karnataka Chief Minister Jagadish Shettar, who resigned as Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA on Sunday, said he was yet to decide whether he would join the Congress.

    Shettar tendered his resignation as an MLA to Karnataka Assembly Speaker, Vishweshwar Hegde Kageri, at Sirsi on Sunday.

    On being asked whether he will be joining Congress, the former Karnataka chief minister said, “I have not decided yet.”

    MS Education Academy

    Earlier, on Sunday, Shettar said some Karnataka BJP leaders were mishandling the party in the State.

    “I am going to tender my resignation as an MLA and will also resign from the primary membership of the party. Later, I will decide my next course of action, whether I have to fight independently or with a party. The ill-treatment and humiliation by the senior leaders of the party have hurt me a lot. My decision (to resign from BJP) is final. Some state leaders are mishandling the BJP system in Karnataka,” Shettar told ANI.

    Shettar, a six-time MLA from the constituency, was reportedly advised by the party to stand down and not seek a fresh term as MLA from the Hubli-Dharwad Central segment, following which his followers expressed their anguish against the party’s high command.

    On Saturday after announcing his resignation Jagadish Shettar also mentioned that there is a conspiracy against him, which is why he was denied a ticket.

    “There is a conspiracy against me, will tell everything after resigning,” Shettar told ANI.

    After being left out from the BJP’s candidate lists, Shettar had issued an ultimatum to the party, saying he will consider his future political course if denied a ticket from his preferred segment.

    Reacting to former Jagadish Shettar’s resignation as an MLA, Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on Sunday said that the resignation of Shettar is unfortunate.

    “It is unfortunate that he (Jagadish Shettar) is going to resign today. He was a senior leader, former CM, speaker, party president and minister also. However, when a party has decided that some seniors have to give some way to the younger generation,” CM Bommai said.

    There will be a small impact on the party and BJP is capable of overcoming it, he added.

    Meanwhile, former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Sunday said if Shettar comes back to BJP, the party would welcome him.

    Yediyurappa said, “We made him (Jagadish Shettar) the chief minister of Karnataka and the BJP state president. The statements given by him have made us unhappy. People knew about Jagadish Shettar only because of BJP. I want to ask Jagadish Shettar why is he joining Congress. If he comes back to BJP, we will welcome him.”

    He said People from Karnataka will not forgive Shettar.

    “Dharmendra Pradhan had offered Jagadish Shatter, a ministerial position in the cabinet. We had offered a ticket to Jagadish Shatter’s family. But he did not respond,” he said.

    The 224-seat Karnataka Assembly will go to polls on May 10, and the votes will be counted on May 13.

    [ad_2]
    #decided #ExKarnataka #Jagadish #Shettar #joining #Congress

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • HS Environment |  Susia disappears without a trace, and they are hardly talked about – Risto Kiiskinen decided to find out

    HS Environment | Susia disappears without a trace, and they are hardly talked about – Risto Kiiskinen decided to find out

    [ad_1]

    Risto Kiiskinen from Lieksa is a former top skier and border guard. He defends wolves in a region where wolf hatred runs deep.

    Flame

    Lieksalainen Risto Kiiskinen, 66, wondered for years why others see wolves regularly, but he never does. However, Kiiskinen knows the forests of the border region. He has traveled the terrain of North Karelia all his life, both as a top skier and as a border guard.

    The real wake-up call was the announcement by the Nurmeksi game management association about the number of wolves in the area in 2006. According to it, there was a wild number of wolves, about 350, in Nurmeksi alone, the neighboring municipality of Lieksa.

    The number is greater than the Finnish Natural Resources Agency’s (Luke) estimate of all wolves in Finland.

    “It was a wake-up call and a matter of wonder for me. The game administration at the time distorted the number of wolves, and it was not willing to correct the presented number,” says Kiiskinen.

    Wonder has also been aroused by where even the wolves whose existence has been confirmed disappear.

    “When Luke’s annual population assessment comes out in June, it shows the unnatural loss of wolf pairs and packs. Why does the loss not lead to any action through the game administration”, Kiiskinen ponders.

    Kiiskinen began to make systematic observations about the wolves of Pielinen Karelia, to look for tracks and wolf territories.

    He has still only seen one wolf in the wild. Or actually two: he shot the other one at the request of the police after catching an injured animal.

    Since then, he has experienced that it is not easy to protect nature and be on the wolf’s side in a region where wolf hatred runs deep – and where the side matters.

    Lonely a skier with a backpack is a familiar sight in the forests of Lieksa and the coastal landscapes of Pielinen.

    This winter, Kiiskinen has already skied more than 400 kilometers on his nearly 280-centimeter hunting skis. There have been thirty wolf observation trips, 4–6 hours at a time.

    “I know very well how many wolves move around here. My observations are pretty much in line with Luke’s assessment,” says Kiiskinen.

    According to the official estimate, there is only one wolf pack in Lieksa, and that is shared with Nurmense. Kiiskinen has been following this pack of Höljäkä lately.

    “There are probably five wolves in the pack,” he says.

    Now the trip takes you to the eastern part of Lieksa. Wolf tracks have been seen in the direction of Kontiovaara, near Patvinsuo National Park.

    Kiiskinen quickly finds the tracks while observing from the car window. A lone wolf has walked through a beautiful landscape in the middle of a snowy ridge road.

    A lone wolf has passed along the ridge road.

    During the trip, we talk about nature, skiing, wolves, wolf hatred. . .

    “I have done my whole life’s work here in nature; at the border and skiing”, says Kiiskinen.

    “This is where I went to chase the wolf I had to shoot”, he points towards the forest.

    “I caught the wolf on skis and shot. And I didn’t feel any heroism.”

    Kiiskinen tells stories in his calm style and keeps an eye out for traces visible on the side of the road: a moose has crossed the road, an otter has gone down a hill, someone has had a campfire on the ice of the lake.

    Kiiskinen wakes up at Little Ritojärvi, and it’s only a moment when the car is parked on the side of the road and a man is running on skis in the middle of the lake.

    This time, the tracks on the ice belong to a fox. The wolf has strayed into the forest on the other side of the road.

    Kiiskinen is excited. He goes to follow the tracks into the open forest. There, the wolf has passed his time and continued along the path trodden by the wolverine.

    “Lone wolf”, Kiiskinen interprets.

    The blindfold does not hold back the wanderer when Risto Kiiskinen follows the wolf’s tracks.

    The wolf’s route runs through the forest.

    Risto Kiiskinen is a former competitive skier and border guard. He wonders why others regularly see wolves, but he has only seen two wolves in the wild.

    Despite the moderate speed, the man’s skiing is slow, even though the person behind is already panting with a red face.

    Kiiskinen has always enjoyed being in nature and on skis. As a child, skiing was a natural way to get around in North Karelia, and gradually competition came along.

    The skiing went so well that in 1976 he won the Finnish championship and by 15 kilometers left e.g. Juha Miedon. Kiiskinen became Finland’s youngest ever Olympic skier when he participated in the Winter Olympics in Innsbruck at the age of 19 that same year.

    However, the racing career ended at a young age, and a profession was found alongside skiing. Kiiskis became a border guard, but skiing remained alive:

    “I went to the border when there was really nothing else to do and I still wanted to ski.”

    Nowadays, Kiiskinen mainly skis to locate the movements of wolves. He has marked dimensions on his forest skis to measure the size of the wolf’s track and paw.

    Wolf Kiiskinen started following already when he was a border guard, and his attitudes towards wolves became clear. Being on the side of the wolves in North Karelia is windy from time to time.

    “I started to wonder how much my colleagues also hated wolves,” says Kiiskinen.

    Kiiskinen has noticed that he is the underdog both in the game management association and in its territory group, when he has presented figures based on his observations about the number of wolves.

    He is considered offside from the collection group of the game management association. The task of the group is to collect wolf excrement for researchers for dna collection and wolf identification and to share collection information with other members of the group.

    Read more: HS on the hunt for feces: the samples reveal that Western Finland needs new wolf blood

    “The DNA collection has been a lottery win for us who rely on knowledge and science in this matter. I thought that when this collection comes, we won’t have to argue about the number of wolves anymore, but it turned out differently,” says Kiiskinen.

    “Everyday’s leftovers” come across from time to time. Nuohoja stopped going to Kiiskinen’s, and at the car repair shop, the first question might be whether he is the protector of wolves.

    “Stance wolves are very hostile in all of Pielinen Karjala. The region’s MPs have contributed to this by spreading incorrect information about the number of wolves,” says Kiiskinen.

    Susia also disappears without a trace, and there is no talk of them. Poaching is still widely an activity that is tacitly accepted by the local community.

    “However, the entire herd does not lose its territory anywhere if it is not disturbed,” Kiiskinen states.

    A few years ago, he met a poacher in the act:

    “Hunters had gone to follow fresh wolf tracks. Two large calves had been placed on the wolves’ path as bait next to the barn, and a hundred meters away was a stall. The hunters fled the scene when they noticed me and the police were there. The preliminary investigation did not find out who had taken the illegal waste to the place.”

    Cases have progressed all the way to court. More than a year ago, a man from Lieks was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence for the crime of hunting. According to the verdict, he had taken poison bait intended for wolves into the countryside.

    In mid-February, seven men were charged with a serious hunting crime in the district court of North Karelia. The charges are related to a wolf killed in Ilomantsi in 2020.

    Read more: The men secretly killed the wolf – Then the blackmail began

    Read more: A man from Lieksa mixed cyanide and strychnine with minced meat and hid poison baits for wolves in the countryside – received a suspended sentence

    “Attitudes run deep. The work of generations is needed before they change”, Kiiskinen reflects.

    Generations on the other hand, the cultural landscape stretches across. It is close to Kiiskinen’s heart, and his love for the landscape contributed to his desire to defend wolves.

    In Vaaraniemi, called Poor Koli, Kiiskinen is downright sensitized. This is an important place for him, the landscape of his childhood and his current home region.

    In Vaaraniemi, Kiiskinen already skied as a little boy: “There was a three-kilometer track here. A light shone through the window above the danger. It was like a little twinkle, but it lit up.”

    Nowadays, Kiiskinen lives 15 kilometers away in Viensuu. There, at the beginning of the millennium, he had a traditional landscape project where he restored the area with the help of borrowed sheep. The work brought an award for active work to promote the care of traditional landscapes, but then the city of Lieksa sold part of the area.

    “The project was left unfinished, and dreams of shepherding sheep changed to watching wolves,” says Kiiskinen.

    The view over Pielinen is amazing. On the opposite bank lies Koli, the highest danger in North Karelia. The landscape is open. That’s what Kiiskinen defends, because in a changing world something permanent is needed.

    “A few wolves could fit in here,” says Kiiskinen.

    Pielinen’s national landscape is close to Risto Kiiskinen’s heart.

    • Born in Lieksa in 1956.

    • Former border guard and top skier. The Finnish champion of cross-country skiing participated in the Innsbruck Winter Olympics in 1976.

    • Forest and nature service entrepreneur. In addition, monitoring related to nature, such as measurements of snow depth and water flows for the authorities.

    • Married. The family includes a wife and two adult children and three grandchildren.

    The view from Vaaraniemi in Lieksa stretches across Pielinen to Koli.

    [ad_2]
    #Environment #Susia #disappears #trace #talked #Risto #Kiiskinen #decided #find
    ( With inputs from : pledgetimes.com )

  • ‘The Americans Got Together and Decided to Drown You in the River’

    ‘The Americans Got Together and Decided to Drown You in the River’

    [ad_1]

    Robinson’s Soviet co-workers in the factory, as well as supporters across the Soviet Union, called for justice. “The Negro worker is our brother like the white American worker,” read a statement released to the public. “American technique: yes!” went one rallying cry, “American prejudice: no!”

    The outrage led to the formation of a prosecution panel made up of nine elected workers of different backgrounds, two of whom were women. The result was a trial conducted not by the government but rather by representatives of the factory acting as a quasi-judiciary — a procedure made possible by the Soviet emphasis on the power of workers. Whether driven by values or propaganda, the trial was not really about Robinson, nor even about Lewis and Brown. It became about the USSR versus America: communism versus capitalism. The panel’s duty was to conclusively prove the attack on Robinson was racially motivated, which in turn would be an indictment of American culture and a distraction from the faults of the USSR, including the tragic consequences of Stalin’s rapid collectivization of agriculture — widespread famine and increasingly brutal repression as the new dictator consolidated power.

    On August 22, 1930, the makeshift courtroom in the Tractor Works Club buzzed with excitement with more than a thousand people in attendance. They were all there to see Robinson, who sat amid supporters, uncomfortable with his overnight celebrity. In the streets, passersby praised Robinson for his heroism and apologized for what happened to him. A teacher approached him before the trial on his walk to the front of the courtroom and pleaded with him to come speak to her 7-year-old students. Robinson was stunned, but he walked over to the children and shook their hands. Rallies in support of Robinson were held in public spaces, decrying the evils of American racism. In the factory, Robinson was greeted with nods and words of approval by his Russian cohorts.

    Back in the States, there were powerful people who had reason to try to turn the tide against justice. The acting chief of Eastern European Affairs for the State Department sent information to the Bureau of Investigations (the forerunner of the FBI), led by a 35-year-old J. Edgar Hoover. If Soviet officials saw a chance to elevate Robinson, Americans saw an opportunity to tear him down. An assortment of surviving documents and correspondence held in the National Archives reveals a plot to intervene by the diplomats, who sought evidence that could depict Robinson as an anti-American subversive.

    The clock was ticking. If Hoover’s agents could find or manufacture dirt on Robinson, they could leak information to try to sway the public, both Soviet and American. Congress was gearing up for hearings about the dangers of communism, which included discussion of Robinson’s case. The U.S. government had not yet opened an embassy in Moscow, but declassified State Department documents reveal that American diplomats in Latvia, who handled diplomatic matters with the Soviet government, insisted that the trial for “beating an American Negro” was engineered “for communist and revolutionary propaganda purposes” rather than genuine justice, implicitly mocking the “determination of Soviets to have no race prejudices.” One of the envoys dismissed as a “comic interlude” a statement by a man sympathetic to the attackers that all Blacks “should be lynched.”

    Meanwhile, Soviet newspapers continued to frame the attack on Robinson as an attack on the Soviet way of life, and in turn, a capitalist attack on the working man. But the Party carefully shielded the fact that had Robinson fought back against his attackers, casting him as a pure victim.

    Meanwhile, Lewis and Brown’s defense, provided by the Soviets, framed them as brainwashed by American capitalist racism, which resonated with the Soviet public. Lewis was urged to write an apology to the Soviet proletariat for failing to understand the consequences of national and racial dissension. But this fell flat, since it was discovered that his response was crafted by others, and prior to that, that a line had been scratched out. When later questioned by a journalist as to why, Lewis’ explanation for the change was that the omitted phrase had been a “direct apology to the ni—-.”

    “I did not think I would be brought to trial,” Lewis reportedly commented. “In America, incidents with negroes — this is simply considered a street fight.”

    “In America,” Brown said, “this would be treated as a joke.”

    Brown and Lewis were outgunned from the outset, though, with witnesses across various spectrums coming to Robinson’s defense. Lewis in particular became the focal point of the factory court’s ire. Brown pointed the finger at him, trying to distance himself. Lewis was described by witnesses as a “drunken rowdy” and a fascist.

    When it was his turn on the stand, Robinson had to be exceedingly careful. He did not want to vocalize politics he did not believe in, even though he knew that Blacks who failed to support the party could face consequences. The Communist Party power structure that protected them could be turned against them. Singer Paul Robeson ultimately would be exiled and blacklisted in the USSR after questioning domestic policy on Jews. No matter how he handled himself at trial, Robinson could expect aftershocks from either American or Russian operatives. He defended his actions but managed to avoid articulating a political framing of his situation.

    After six days of speeches and witness testimonies, the verdict was handed down: Lewis and Brown were sentenced to two years of imprisonment. One of the nine members of the prosecution panel summarized their position: The perpetrators of the attack “contaminated” their community. However, their sentences were commuted to 10 years of exile from the Soviet Union, because they had been “inoculated with racial enmity by the capitalistic system.” In the eyes of the Russian public, there was no harsher penalty than banishment.

    An American living in the Soviet Union who observed the trial recalled that “the Russian workers were so indignant at white men treating a fellow worker in that fashion simply because of his race that they demanded their immediate expulsion from the Soviet Union.” America was rattled by the Great Depression, and to Soviet citizens, a forced return there amounted to being abandoned in a wasteland of unemployment and sparse food.

    American press coverage in the wake of the verdict fractured. Several mainstream outlets exhibited less interest in the outcome than they had in the trial itself, while multiple Black newspapers commended the stand against racism.

    Robinson was offered a position elsewhere but decided to stay at the Stalingrad Tractor Factory. His growing fame from the trial may have been undesired, but it also empowered him. The public focus on Robinson seemed to stall further attempts at sabotage by American intelligence operatives, who would not want attention on their tactics.

    [ad_2]
    #Americans #Decided #Drown #River
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )