This Muslim Country plans to kill 3000000 dogs due to...; not Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Turkey, it is..
Earlier, the Supreme Court on August 11 took a stern view of the stray dog menace and ordered the Delhi-NCR to start removing stray dogs from all localities within eight weeks and house them in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic authorities.
The discussion on stray dogs continues to spark debate in India. There have been different responses to this decision in public discourse, with some indicating that this is vital to create a hazardous situation for road safety. Meanwhile, others have indicated it is an infringement of animal rights. Meanwhile, reports suggest that another country is planning to slaughter almost 3 million stray dogs, drawing global outrage.
The FIFA World Cup 2030 is scheduled to take place in Morocco, Spain, and Portugal. According to the media reports, about preparations for the event have shaken the world. Morocco reportedly aims to kill approximately 3 million stray dogs to make its cities look clean and nice. Animal rights groups, animal lovers, and social workers across the globe have condemned this news.
When Morocco was chosen to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup, the government was serious about cleaning up its cities. As part of this plan, they intend to eliminate stray dogs.
Media reports indicate that the dogs are ostensibly killed via poisoning, shooting, or sounded to death by electric shocks. Often, they are physically trapped in painful ways, transferred to a strap shelter home, and then killed more inhumanely than simply putting them down. In some areas, they have even been drowned or burned. When this news spread, animal welfare groups and animal rights activists worldwide protested vehemently. Jane Goodall, a well-known wildlife and animal conservationist on a global scale, wrote a letter to FIFA Secretary General Mattias Grafström with respect to the matter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Names Of 65 lakh Voters Excluded In Bihar Draft Roll Posted On District Websites: Election Body
New Delhi: The list of names deleted from Bihar's draft electoral rolls following special intensive revision has been posted on the websites of district magistrates following the Supreme Court's orders, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said on Sunday. Hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, the Supreme Court had last week asked the Election Commission (EC) to publish details of 65 lakh deleted names from the voters list with reasons of non-inclusion to enhance transparency in the process. Addressing a press conference here, Kumar said that within 56 hours of the top court directive, the names of voters that were not included in the draft electoral roll have been posted on district websites. He also underlined that the election system for parliament and assembly elections in India is a multi-layered, decentralised construct as envisaged by law. Based on the guidelines issued by the Election Commission, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who are SDM-level officers, prepare and finalise the Electoral Rolls (ER) with the help of Booth Level Officers (BLOs). EROs and BLOs undertake the responsibility for the correctness of Electoral Rolls, it said. After the publication of the draft electoral rolls, their digital and physical copies are shared with all political parties and put on the EC website for anyone to see. Following the publication of the draft electoral rolls, a full one-month period is available with the electors and political parties for the filing of claims and objections before the final ER is published, he explained. The draft electoral roll was published on August 1 in Bihar and it will be available till September 1 for claims and objections under which parties and individuals can seek inclusion of eligible citizens or exclusion of those they believe are ineligible. The CEC defended the SIR at the press conference on Sunday and said it is a matter of grave concern that some parties were spreading "misinformation" on the exercise.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Election Commission releases list of 65 lakh voters deleted from Bihar draft rolls
The Election Commission has released the list of voters whose names were deleted from the SIR draft voter list. The list has been made available on the Commission's official website for public list was published by the Election Commission following an order by the Supreme Court on August 14. The list includes names of those voters whose names were deleted from the draft list published by the poll body following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar.A new link has also been activated on the EC Bihar website to help voters check their names top court directed the poll body to publish the district-wise list of all omitted voters and state the reasons for their deletion, whether due to death, migration, or double process will enable people to have manual access to the list and the reasons specified by the poll body for deleting names from the voter top court also directed the commission to display the booth-wise list of removed voters at the District Election Officer's office and said that the District Election Officers should share the list on their social media court also directed the commission to publicise the information through advertisements in every newspaper, on radio, TV, etc. The list of removed voters will also be displayed at every BLO (Booth Level Officer) office and Panchayat office as well. Meanwhile, on Sunday, Election Commission rebuked Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi over his 'vote chori' (vote theft) allegation and accused political parties of targeting voters while placing the blame on the Election Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar also asked Rahul Gandhi to submit an affidavit within seven days with proof or render a public apology for his allegations against the Election Commission.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
A case for judicial introspection
At least a few from the ruling dispensation have asked why the Opposition is not formally taking up the electoral roll issue before the Supreme Court. However, the reluctance shown by the major Opposition parties is quite reasonable and even justifiable. The Modi regime promulgated the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act in 2023 with a view to nullify the Constitution Bench judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). The Act excluded the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and included a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister in his place, as part of the Selection Committee for choosing the Election Commission of India (ECI). This statute was legally challenged in several writ petitions which are yet to be finally heard. Significantly, the petitioners also sought a stay of the enactment. A Bench, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna (as he then was), heard the application for a stay and rejected it on March 22, 2024, by a detailed order in Dr. Jaya Thakur and others v. Union of India (2024). Had the statute been stayed, the country could have had a different umpire for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the subsequent Assembly elections. In all probability, a more independent ECI could have had the potential to conduct the elections more fairly and impartially. That this did not happen shows the Supreme Court's failure to act at a time when it was supposed to. Also read: What are the challenges confronting the EC? | Explained The present type of ECI In Anoop Baranwal, the Constitution Bench analysed Article 324 of the Constitution dealing with the appointment of Election Commissioners. It spoke of the need to take the appointment 'out of the exclusive hands of the executive'. It said that 'a pliable ECI, an unfair and biased overseer of the foundational exercise of adult franchise, which lies at the heart of democracy, who obliges the powers that be, perhaps offers the surest gateway to acquisition and retention of power'. The Court was assertive when it said that 'the outpouring of demands for an impartial mode of appointment of the members require, at the least, the banishing of the impression that the ECI is appointed by less than fair means'. This shows the rationale behind prescribing the CJI as a member of the Selection Committee for the ECI. Yet, a few months later, the Centre ensured that only 'persons under the thumb of the executive', as feared by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, dominate the Selection Committee. When this was shown to the Supreme Court, it took a very conservative and dangerous stand, saying it won't interfere with a statute for it carries a 'presumption of validity'. This is how the present type of ECI was allowed to function. At a time when majoritarianism often rests on electoral frauds, courts across the world face newer challenges, both jurisprudential and political. In a paper titled 'Abusive Judicial Review: Courts Against Democracy' (2020), David Landau and Rosalind Dixon have conducted an extensive global survey on the topic. According to them, 'courts have upheld and thus legitimated regime actions that helped actors consolidate power, undermine the Opposition, and tilt the electoral playing field heavily in their favour'. They explain that sometimes '(the) clever authoritarians often do their manipulation well before elections have actually been held, by consolidating power, stacking key institutions such as courts and electoral commissions, and harassing Opposition parties and leaders'. The paper says courts in countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia aided and facilitated electoral frauds which ensured continuation of autocracies. On the other hand, there are few instances where the courts could prevent electoral manipulation and the consequent subversion of democracy. The judgment in Baranwal exemplifies such judicial vigilance. Fourth branch institutions Article 324 failed to prescribe a body free from the ruling executive for installing the ECI. Modern Constitutions have reorganised the need to evolve fourth Branch institutions (in addition to the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary) which are autonomous and independent of the ruling dispensation. The Constitution of South Africa envisages a cluster of state institutions for 'supporting constitutional democracy'. The Chapter Nine institutions, as they are called, include the Electoral Commission of South Africa. The silence of the Indian Constitution prompted the Court in Baranwal to prescribe a fairer body for choosing the ECI. It was an instance of imaginative interpretation of the relevant constitutional provision. However, Parliament failed the Court and the people when it enacted the 2023 Act. The Court's refusal to stay the enactment practically nullified its own hard labour and intelligence in redefining the ECI as an independent fourth branch establishment. In India, electoral manipulation, as alleged by the Opposition, would call for a deeper and comprehensive analysis by a fair agency. The Court, on its own, will not be able to carry out this exercise. The only way to rescue our democracy would be to restore the position laid down in the Baranwal verdict and to nullify the 2023 enactment. A Selection Committee with the CJI in it will have to induct another ECI by way of a fresh selection process. Such an ECI will have to act as a Truth Commission to investigate the alleged instances of electoral scam. The courtesy expected from the present dispensation would be to facilitate such a course by removing the present ECI.
