Outrage as town in Spain bans Muslim celebrations in public spaces
The town of Jumilla, a municipality in the Murcia region of south-eastern Spain, voted to prohibit the use of municipal buildings, such as sports centres and civic halls, for events marking Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, two of the most significant dates in the Islamic calendar.
The town's conservative People's Party (PP) introduced the bill, and it passed despite the abstentions of the far-right Vox party and the opposition of local leftwing parties.
The proposal states that 'municipal sports facilities cannot be used for religious, cultural or social activities alien to our identity unless organised by the local authority'.
It is the first such ban in Spain.
The local Vox party said on X, formerly Twitter: 'Thanks to Vox the first measure to ban Islamic festivals in Spain's public spaces has been passed. Spain is and will be forever the land of Christian people.'
Mounir Benjelloun Andaloussi Azhari, president of the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities (FEERI), condemned the decision as 'Islamophobic and discriminatory'. He told El País: 'They're not going after other religions, they're going after ours'.
'We're rather surprised by what's happening in Spain. For the first time in 30 years I feel afraid,' he added, referring to a recent rise in racist rhetoric and attacks on Muslims.
Jumilla has a population of around 27,000 people, with around 7.5 per cent originally from predominantly Muslim countries.
The decision could now face legal challenges for potentially breaching Article 16 of the Spanish constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and worship and prohibits restrictions on its expression except when required to maintain public order.
Francisco Lucas, leader of the Socialist Party (PSOE) in Murcia, criticised the decision, writing on X: 'The PP violates the constitution and puts social cohesion at risk simply in the pursuit of power.'
'What do they mean by identity?' Juana Guardiola, a former Socialist mayor of the town, said. 'And what about the centuries of Muslim legacy here?'
The move has also reignited debate over Jumilla's multicultural history.
The town, once part of the Roman Empire, remained largely Arab after the Muslim conquest in the eighth century.
It was known as Yumil-la until Christian troops led by Alfonso X of Castile took control in the 13th century, breaking a previous agreement to protect the rights of its Arab inhabitants.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why congressional stock-trade ban efforts are about to heat up
September is shaping up to be a big month for efforts to ban stock trading in Congress. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says she's going to try to force a vote via a discharge petition. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said he'd start pushing for a ban too. Get ready to hear a lot more about banning congressional stock trading. A top Trump administration official says he's going to start pushing for a ban. Two House Republicans are, in different ways, gearing up to force a vote on the issue. And all the while, lawmakers keep failing to report millions of dollars' worth of stock trades on time. "We've got to move," Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said on Fox Business earlier this month, saying that while he had given House GOP leadership "grace" as they worked to get the "Big Beautiful Bill" through Congress, that time is now over. "I'm going to demand that we vote on this, this fall." It all comes after an explosive Senate hearing on a stock trading bill last month, where Republicans went after one another over whether President Donald Trump himself should be banned from trading stocks. That led to Trump branding Sen. Josh Hawley as "second-tier," though the Missouri Republican later told BI that he was able to smooth things over with Trump later. "He told me he wants a stock trading ban," Hawley said in July. "He remains committed to getting a stock trading ban, so we'll work with him to do that." Potential House drama over a 'discharge petition' Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican known for challenging her own party's leadership, has said she'll start the process of forcing a vote on a stock trading ban when lawmakers return from the August recess. "I won't sit idly by while members of Congress trade stocks, especially those on committees with direct influence over relevant industries," Luna wrote on X last month. "That's corruption at its core, and it needs to stop." Luna has said she'll try to use what's known as a "discharge petition" to bring up a stock trading ban bill authored by Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee. Under that process, the bill would have to be brought to the House floor for a vote — with or without the support of House leaders — if Luna is able to collect signatures from 218 members, a majority of the 435 seats in the House. Not everyone who supports a stock trading ban is on board with Luna's approach. Roy, the co-sponsor of a different stock trading ban bill that has bipartisan support and has been around for years, told Fox Business that a discharge petition is "not the best way" to get it done. "I want the speaker, and Republicans, to control this," said Roy. "Republicans need to control the floor, do our job, bring this to a vote." Roy has been working with a bipartisan group that includes Democratic Reps. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to put forward a consensus stock trading ban bill. But after months of discussions, they have yet to release legislative text. That's led Luna to largely dismiss their effort. "Allegedly, there were 'talks' happening? With who?" Luna wrote on X on Thursday. "They were never going to bring a VOTE to the floor. I don't care if this upsets people." The Florida congresswoman's effort is worth taking seriously: she has used this legislative tool before to bring up a bill on proxy voting over the objections of Speaker Mike Johnson, bringing the House to a halt for a full week in April. Lawmakers keep reporting trades late Johnson has said he's supportive of a stock trading ban — though he has "sympathy" for arguments against it. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries began forcefully supporting it this year in the wake of well-timed tariff trades by some lawmakers. Even Trump has backed it, though some Republicans are wary of applying the bill's restrictions to him. This week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent got in on the action, saying he himself would begin pushing for a ban on lawmakers trading individual stocks. "I don't think we have the perfect bill yet," Bessent told Bloomberg this week. "But I am going to start pushing for a single-stock trading ban." Meanwhile, several lawmakers in have been found in violation of the STOCK Act in recent weeks, disclosing millions of dollars worth of trades long after the 30-45 day deadline for doing so. Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan, the fourth-highest ranking House Republican, was late to disclose over 500 trades made by her husband from March 2024 through June 2025, totalling at least $1.5 million. Republican Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania failed to disclose that his wife sold between $750,000 and $1.5 million in NVIDIA stock last year. And Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma was late in disclosing millions of dollars made by him and his wife since 2023. Lawmakers are only required to disclose asset ranges on their reports, so we don't know the exact value of the trades. Those lawmakers and their spokespeople blamed errors made by third-party financial managers and lack of awareness of the trades for the late disclosures. A spokesperson for McClain told BI that the congresswoman "promptly filed the necessary paperwork immediately after being made aware of the transactions made in managed accounts and remains committed to transparency and adherence to all House financial disclosure rules and regulations." "I take compliance with all House rules seriously and expect the same from those managing my accounts," Meuser told BI through a spokesperson. "This was a simple, automatic filing that should have occurred without error. The mistake was made solely by my brokerage and benefited me in no way." Mullin's office did not respond to BI's request for comment, but a spokesperson told NOTUS that the senator doesn't trade himself, but relies on a third-party broker. Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
There's just a month until TikTok could be banned – again. Here's where things stand.
President Donald Trump has one month to finalize the sale of TikTok or the short-form video platform risks going dark in the U.S. – again. For months, Trump has said negotiations for the sale of TikTok have been ongoing with China, as the platform is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance. Since the platform went dark for less than 24 hours in January, Trump has extended the deadline on a ban of TikTok in the U.S. three times. And he may just conduct a fourth. In late July, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a CNBC interview that if China did not approve a U.S.-drafted deal to sell the platform's American assets, the app would go dark again, once the next ban extension expires on Sept. 17. "If that deal gets approved by the Chinese, then that deal will happen. If they don't approve it, then TikTok is going to go dark," Lutnick previously said. "And those decisions are coming very soon, so let's see what the Chinese do. They've got to approve it. The deal is over to them right now." The White House did not immediately respond for comment when contacted by USA TODAY on Aug. 15. When could TikTok go dark (again) in the US? The next deadline for TikTok to be sold by ByteDance is Sept. 17. Why is TikTok at risk of getting banned? Some government officials are concerned that TikTok poses a national security threat, believing that ByteDance, which is based in Beijing, is sharing U.S. user data with China. TikTok has repeatedly denied these claims. In January, the platform went dark for less than 24 hours under federal legislation signed into law by former President Joe Biden in 2024. Trump has signed executive orders three times now that push back the deadline for when TikTok must be sold, promising that deals with China are on the horizon. The latest was in early July, when Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was hopeful Chinese President Xi would agree to a deal to see the platform to the U.S. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: One month until TikTok could be banned (again). What you need to know
Vox
a day ago
- Vox
Trump's immigration raids are now before the Supreme Court
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Last month, a federal judge in Los Angeles handed down a temporary order placing some restrictions on the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in that city. The Trump administration now wants the Supreme Court to lift those restrictions. The contested provisions of Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong's order are fairly narrow. They provide that federal law enforcement may not rely 'solely' on four factors when determining to stop or detain someone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. Under Frimpong's order, the government may not stop or detain someone solely because of 1) their 'apparent race or ethnicity,' 2) the fact that they either speak Spanish or speak English with an accent, 3) their presence at a location such as an agricultural workplace or day laborer pick-up site, or 4) the type of work that they do. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Frimpong's order prohibits the government from relying exclusively on any one of these factors or on any combination of them, so it could not detain someone solely because they speak Spanish and they are a day laborer, for example. The government may still rely on these four factors to determine whom to stop or detain, however, so long as it has other reasons for targeting a particular individual. Thus, for example, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could target someone because that person speaks Spanish, and they work as a day laborer, and they were witnessed getting into a truck owned by a company known for hiring undocumented immigrants, because one of the three factors that ICE considered in this hypothetical stop is not on Frimpong's list. That said, at least according to the Cato Institute's David Bier, Frimpong's order has drastically reduced the number of immigration arrests within Los Angeles. The central issue in this case, known as Noem v. Perdomo, is what courts are practically able to do in order to rein in overzealous tactics by law enforcement. Judge Frimpong's order is modest — again, it does not prevent the Trump administration from targeting anyone, just as long as part of the reason why a particular individual is targeted doesn't appear on Frimpong's list of four — but it is also unlikely to survive contact with a Republican Supreme Court that is extraordinarily solicitous toward Donald Trump. Indeed, the Court has long cautioned lower court judges against issuing broad orders imposing across-the-board restrictions on law enforcement. One of the seminal cases that the Trump administration relied upon in its Perdomo brief was handed down in 1983, well before the Court's recent partisan turn. The Republican justices, in other words, likely will not even need to stretch the law very far if they want to rule in Trump's favor in Perdomo. What is ICE up to in Los Angeles? The Perdomo case arises out of multiple immigration raids in Los Angeles, which have often taken place at job sites and other locations where the Trump administration believes that undocumented immigrants are often present. As Frimpong found, 'car wash workers, farm and agricultural workers, street vendors, recycling center workers, tow yard workers, and packing house workers were targeted.' One early operation 'detained multiple day laborers outside of the Westlake Home Depot.' At least some of these operations appear to violate the Constitution. In some instances, law enforcement appears to have targeted people because of their race. Frimpong, for example, pointed to an incident where 'agents approached and prevented a nonwhite individual from walking away but not those who appeared to be Caucasians.' A Latino car wash worker targeted by one of the raids testified that the federal agents who arrested him ignored two of his light-skinned coworkers, one of whom is Russian and another who is Persian. In other cases, federal agents appear to have targeted individuals despite having no reasonable grounds to believe they are undocumented. Plaintiff Jason Brian Gavidia, for example, is an American who was born in Los Angeles. According to an appeals court that upheld nearly all of Frimpong's order, agents 'forcefully pushed [Gavidia] up against the metal gated fence, put [his] hands behind [his] back, and twisted [his] arm' after he was unable to identify which hospital he was born in. The agents eventually released Gavidia after he produced a Real ID card, a document that is only issued to people who are legally present in the United States, but they took his ID. It is quite difficult to obtain a federal injunction against law enforcement officials It is likely, in other words, that at least some of the people targeted by these Los Angeles raids could individually challenge their arrests or detention in court. But the ability to bring such individual challenges often isn't worth very much. For starters, the Republican justices' decisions in Hernández v. Mesa (2020) and Egbert v. Boule (2022) likely make it impossible to collect money damages from an ICE agent who violates your constitutional rights. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), the Supreme Court held that federal law enforcement officers who violate someone's constitutional rights may be personally liable for that violation. But Hernández and Egbert read that decision so narrowly that such suits rarely, if ever, move forward. So, even if someone like Gavidia brings a successful lawsuit, he probably wouldn't win anything more than the right to get his ID back. Someone who is unlawfully detained could potentially obtain a court order demanding their release. But many people targeted by law enforcement lack access to legal counsel or cannot afford to hire a lawyer even if they can find one who will take their case. While indigent criminal defendants have a right to a government-paid lawyer, defendants in immigration proceedings typically do not. And even when immigration defendants do prevail, an occasional court decision declaring some long-past arrest illegal is unlikely to deter future illegal arrests. Yet, the Supreme Court has long discouraged federal judges from issuing injunctions that forbid law enforcement from acting illegally in the future. The key case is City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983), which held that Adolph Lyons, a man who was allegedly choked out by police officers without provocation, could not obtain a court order forbidding LA's police from using such chokeholds in the future. 'Past exposure to illegal conduct,' Justice Byron White wrote for the Court in Lyons, does not permit someone to seek an injunction. Rather, 'Lyons' standing to seek the injunction requested depended on whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers.' Indeed, White's decision placed nearly impossible barriers before most plaintiffs seeking court orders requiring police to modify their behavior. To obtain such an injunction, White wrote, Lyons 'would have had not only to allege that he would have another encounter with the police, but also to make the incredible assertion either (1) that all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation, or for questioning, or (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner.' At least some of the plaintiffs in Perdomo present an unusually strong case that they are likely to be caught up in an immigration raid again in the future. According to the appeals court which heard this case, 'at least one individual with lawful status was stopped twice by roving patrols in just 10 days.' So a court could quite reasonably conclude that this individual is 'likely to suffer' the 'future injury' that Lyons demands. But Lyons also places such a high bar in front of plaintiffs seeking an injunction against law enforcement that it would not be difficult for the Republican justices to write an opinion relying on Lyons to toss out Judge Frimpong's order, assuming that they even bother to explain their decision in the first place — something that the Court's Republican majority often refuses to do. In addition to arguing that Lyons requires the Supreme Court to block Frimpong's decision, Trump's lawyers also point to the Court's recent decision in Trump v. CASA (2025), which held that federal courts typically should not issue injunctions that extend beyond the individual parties to a lawsuit. So, even if the one plaintiff who was stopped twice may obtain an injunction, that court order might have to be so narrow that it protects him and him alone against future illegal stops. Trump's CASA argument is hardly airtight. Though CASA did hold that broad injunctions are generally discouraged, it did permit them when necessary to give a victorious plaintiff 'complete relief.' Frimpong argued that a broad injunction is warranted in Perdomo, because law enforcement officers cannot reasonably be expected to know which suspects are protected by a court order. 'It would be a fantasy to expect that law enforcement could and would inquire whether a given individual was among the [plaintiffs] before proceeding with a seizure,' she wrote. The only way to stop ICE from targeting the Perdomo plaintiffs is to issue a court order that protects everyone in Los Angeles. Will that argument persuade a majority of the justices? The honest answer is, 'Who knows?' CASA is a brand new decision, handed down less than two months ago, and the Court has yet to apply its new rule to the facts of any specific case — including the CASA case itself. And the fact remains that it is exceedingly difficult to obtain any injunction against law enforcement, much less the broadly applicable one handed down by Judge Frimpong. The Supreme Court has generally preferred for judges to adjudicate alleged legal violations by law enforcement one at a time, rather than issuing wholesale injunctions halting an illegal practice — even though individual decisions often do little to stop these practices. At least some parts of Frimpong's order are probably overly broad In fairness, there are some good reasons to prefer individual lawsuits over wholesale court orders. Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases typically turn on the very specific facts of a particular case. Police might reasonably suspect, for example, that a person spotted with a large wad of cash in a neighborhood where illegal drugs are often sold is engaged in illegal activity. By contrast, police may not have reasonable grounds to suspect a similar person spotted walking near a business where people often make down payments on their new homes. As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment permits police to briefly stop and search someone if they reasonably suspect that person is engaged in illegal activity — or, in an immigration case, of being illegally present in the United States. To be sure, there are some things that law enforcement may almost never consider when determining whether to stop a particular individual. In Kansas v. Glover (2020), for example, the Court said that police may not target someone based on 'nothing more than a demographic profile' or stop and question someone about their immigration status because of their 'Mexican ancestry.' Frimpong's conclusion that ICE may not target someone solely because of their 'apparent race or ethnicity' is consistent with Glover. But Frimpong's conclusion that law enforcement may never reasonably suspect someone of being undocumented solely based on their presence in a particular location is probably a bit of a stretch. As a federal appeals court explained in a 2014 case, day laborer jobs are 'one of the limited options for workers without documents.' These jobs are often grueling, unreliable, and underpaid. They are unattractive to virtually anyone who is authorized to work in the United States and, thus, have less-demanding and better-paying job options available to them. There are at least some cases, in other words, where a law enforcement officer could reasonably suspect someone of being undocumented if they are consistently seen at a location where undocumented workers seek jobs as day laborers — what Frimpong described as a 'day laborer pick up site.' It is difficult to come up with categorical rules governing which factors law enforcement may consider when deciding whom to stop. Even race may be an acceptable factor in very limited circumstances; if multiple witnesses to a robbery tell police that they saw an East Asian man commit the crime, for example, then police could reasonably limit their search to people who appear to be East Asian. This is one reason why cases like Lyons exist: to prevent judges from handing down categorical rules that prevent police from conducting lawful investigations.
