Latest news with #ConstitutionalCourt
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Euronews
Fact check: Has Italy just passed an anti-LGBT surrogacy law?
Several social media posts shared over recent weeks — some racking up millions of views and thousands of likes and shares — allege that Italy has just introduced a law aimed at banning same-sex couples from having children via surrogacy. Many of the posts contain words such as "Breaking" and a siren emoji to suggest that the measure has just been introduced, while others invite social media users to share whether they support it, prompting a slew of anti-LGBT responses. The posts typically share generic, stock photos of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and some sort of LGBT rainbow flag with a red cross or "banned" sign. However, none of the posts provide any extra information or links to articles or government announcements, which is our first clue that all is not as it seems. Italy has effectively banned LGBT people from having children through surrogacy, but not so recently: back in October, the country criminalised citizens who go abroad to have children via surrogacy. Critics argued this was discriminatory to same-sex couples as it shut down one of the last viable paths for them to become parents. The measure extended a surrogacy ban that had already been in place in Italy since 2004. This prohibited the practice on Italian soil and introduced jail sentences of up to two years and fines of up to €1 million for any Italian seeking surrogacy in countries such as the United States or Canada, where it's legal. The ban and its extension apply equally to both heterosexual and same-sex couples, so it is incorrect to call it a ban on LGBT surrogacy specifically. However, critics argue it is discriminatory in practice as it disproportionately targets LGBT couples, who can't get married or adopt children either. Italy's adoption law typically only allows married couples to adopt, and as the country only allows same-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships, they are excluded by default. Nevertheless, Italy's Constitutional Court ruled in May that two women can register as parents on a child's birth certificate, affirming that parental rights can't be limited to the biological mother. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for city registrars to deprive children born to same-sex parents of recognition by both the biological mother and the woman who consented to the medically assisted pregnancy of her partner and assumed parental responsibilities. LGBT advocates celebrated the ruling as a step in the right direction. But ultimately, it didn't change the surrogacy laws, with strong restrictions still in place, and naturally, it does not cover male same-sex couples. Italy is one of the only European Union countries that bans surrogacy abroad, but many others ban the practice at home, including France, Germany and Spain. Conversely, there are provisions for it in the likes of Portugal, Greece and Belgium.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why has the Thailand PM been suspended?
The story so far: Thailand Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended by the country's Constitutional Court on July 1, following a leaked phone call with former Cambodian Premier Hun Sen. The case, brought about by 36 lawmakers, accused the Prime Minister of being pliant and deferential to the Cambodian leader by referring to him as 'uncle' while trying to resolve a border stand-off between the countries' troops. The incident led to the largest partner of Thailand's ruling coalition withdrawing its support and sparked protests calling for the Prime Minister's resignation. What was the call about? The conversation on June 15 was initiated by the Thai leader to contain the fallout from a Cambodian soldier's death in border clashes on May 28. During the 17-minute conversation, posted in its entirety by Hun Sen after a leaked version surfaced on the Internet, Ms. Paetongtarn referred to a Thai military general overseeing the border as 'opponent'. In a country with a history of border tussles, where the military enjoys considerable clout, and is prone to coups, the statement was perceived as disparaging the troops. How did Thai stakeholders react? Ms. Paetongtarn termed her actions as a negotiating tactic and said, 'My intention was to help stabilise the situation and I never expected the conversation to be leaked'. Furthermore, the 38-year-old leader vowed support for the Army and called for unity among citizens, as her administration summoned the Cambodian Ambassador to deliver a protest letter condemning the leak of the private conversation. Regardless of the clarifications, the Prime Minister's largest coalition partner, the Bhumjaithai Party quit, taking with it their 69 MPs and leaving her Pheu Thai Party with a narrow majority in the 495-strong House. The main opposition, the People's Party, an offshoot of the immensely popular Move Forward Party that the Constitutional Court banned despite securing maximum seats in 2023, sought fresh elections. As rumours of a coup began making the rounds, the Army sought to shake off memories of past instances and stated that it 'affirms commitment to democratic principles and national sovereignty protection'. In a similar tone, Ms. Paetongtarn also struck a reconciliatory note with the Army by visiting the general, whom she had derided in the call, at the border. Why did the Cambodian leader leak the conversation? Former Cambodian Prime Minister and current leader of the Cambodian Senate Hun Sen, in his defence, cited the source of the leak as one of the 80 people he had shared the conversation with. He had recorded the conversation 'to avoid any misunderstanding or misrepresentation in official matters.' However, the Cambodian leader, despite sharing close ties with the Shinawatra family, chose to further comment on the matter and called Ms. Paetongtarn's remarks against the military an insult to the monarchy. 'An insult to a regional commander is an insult to the Thai king because it is only the king who issued a royal decree to appoint him,' Hun Sen said. This statement gains relevance when one considers the fact that Ms. Paetongtarn's father and former Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, is going to stand trial for insulting the monarchy in an interview with a South Korean newspaper nine years ago (in Thailand, lèse-majesté or a crime of defaming or insulting the monarchy or monarch is a serious offence and punishable by law). Mr. Hun Sen further stated that the former Thai premier had faked illness to evade prosecution. Following a military coup in 2006 in which he was deposed, businessman-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra went into a 15-year-long self-imposed exile. He returned to Thailand only in August 2023 after the Pheu Thai had come to power. Originally sentenced to eight years in prison for conflict of interest and abuse of power, his sentence was subsequently commuted to one year by the King. What is the relationship between Cambodia and Thailand? Thailand and Cambodia share an 800 km-long border, with various contested locations sitting on this front. These hotspots serve as fodder for irredentist factions to stake a claim and stoke regionalist fervour. It is also not uncommon for governments of both countries to cite clashes in these areas to deflect attention from domestic issues and further their agenda. Experts believe that Hun Sen, who currently serves as head of the Cambodian Senate after ceding the Prime Ministership to his son Hun Manet following 33 years in office, has employed this technique. He is suspected of having made the statements against the Thai government to deflect global attention from the scam call centres his country is accused of hosting. The 72-year-old leader has also blamed Thailand as the origin of the call centres. For Ms. Paetongtarn, who is only 10 months into her term, the suspension from office could not have come at a worse time. She began her term on a shaky wicket after coming into power as a replacement for her predecessor Srettha Thavisin, who was suspended by the Constitutional Court. Burdened with a failing economy then, Ms. Paetongtarn must grapple with border tensions and domestic unrest now. Does the issue go beyond a 'leaked' audio clip? Preceding the leaked recording was a shooting incident and the death of the Cambodian soldier on May 28. It transpired in the province of Preah Vihear, which hosts the eponymous temple — a 12th-century monument claimed by both countries. While the temple and a 1 sq. km area around it were ruled in Cambodia's favour by the International Court of Justice, a 4.6 sq. km land near it is still contested territory. Such a verdict was borne out of a conflict between the two nations over the area in 2011 resulting in 28 casualties, including both military personnel and civilians. But Preah Vihear is only emblematic of the problem. The crisis dates back to the 12th century when Cambodia's Khmer empire, in its full glory, consisted of parts of present-day northeastern Thailand and southern Vietnam. Many prominent temples in the region were built during this time. As is the case with empires, they rise and fall. And wars fought among neighbours have seen the borders shift and temples change ownership. Much like border relations, diplomatic ties between the Southeast Asian neighbours, too, have been fraught with tension and periods of friendship. From being perceived as belonging to opposing camps during the Cold War, to lending support to dissidents from the neighbouring country, both Cambodia and Thailand's ruling classes have a chequered history. This is characteristic of the Hun Sen-Shinawatra relationship, too. It initially began with the Cambodian leader embracing the Thai entrepreneur's pro-business policy. The period from 2001 to 2006, when the two leaders were in power in their respective countries, saw tensions spike and subside. Since the start of Mr. Thaksin's exile (which was largely in Dubai), Hun Sen facilitated the use of his country as a political base for the Thai leader to host his allies. During this period, he would reportedly have business meetings with Hun Sen while overseeing his party's rule in Thailand. Hun Sen had even appointed Mr. Thaksin as a personal adviser and Economic Advisor to the Cambodian Government, infuriating the then-Thailand administration. If the Cambodian leader had then been trying to safeguard his interests by protecting Mr. Thaksin, with both benefiting from the weakening Thai regime, it could be said that Hun Sen, even today, is operating on the same principle by diverting attention to the neighbour and trying to weaken it from the outside.
Kuwait Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Kuwait Times
Thai ex-PM Thaksin appears on stand in defamation case
BANGKOK: Thailand's suspended PM and newly-sworn in Culture Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra (right) walks with her father Thailand's former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (center) at Queen Sirikit National Convention Centre in Bangkok.-- AFP BANGKOK: Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra testified in court on Wednesday, seeking to defend himself against royal defamation charges in a watershed case for his faltering political dynasty. Thaksin faces up to 15 years in prison if he is convicted in the closed-door trial in Bangkok, where he stands accused of breaching strict lese majeste laws that shield Thailand's royal family from abuse and criticism. For the past quarter-century, the 75-year-old telecoms magnate has been a defining figure of Thai politics, founding a political clan which has jousted with the traditional pro-royal, pro-military elite. But his prosecution — combined with the suspension of his daughter, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, this month — represents a dramatic waning of their family's political fortune, analysts say. The prosecutors' case revolves around remarks Thaksin made to South Korean media a decade ago. Thaksin's lawyer Winyat Chatmontri told AFP he gave testimony in the morning 'and will continue throughout the rest of the day'. The court has scheduled the verdict for August 22, he told reporters. Around 50 Thaksin supporters gathered at the courthouse wearing red shirts — the color of his political movement — emblazoned with his portrait. 'He is a very talented guy,' 79-year-old retired accountant Vaew Wilailak told AFP. 'But from past experience, bad people just want to get rid of him.' Thaksin returned to Thailand in August 2023 after 15 years in exile, following a military coup which ousted him from the premiership he was twice elected to. He returned the day his family's Pheu Thai party took office at the head of a coalition government backed by their conservative former enemies, fuelling suspicions a backroom deal had been struck. Thaksin was immediately sentenced to eight years in prison on graft and abuse of power charges — later reduced to one year by a pardon from King Maha Vajiralongkorn. But political analyst Yuttaporn Issarachai told AFP: 'There is always someone within the establishment who sees him as a threat to Thai society.' In recent interviews, Thaksin affirmed his loyalty to the monarchy and expressed gratitude for the king's pardon. Speaking to AFP outside the court on the trial's opening day on July 1, Thaksin's lawyer Winyat said his client appeared 'chill' despite the seriousness of the case. On the same day, Thaksin's daughter Paetongtarn was suspended by the Constitutional Court pending an ethics probe into her conduct during a leaked diplomatic phone call discussing a deadly border clash between Thailand and neighboring Cambodia. In the call, Paetongtarn addressed Cambodian ex-leader Hun Sen as 'uncle' and described a Thai military commander as an 'opponent'—sparking backlash for seeming to kowtow to a foreign statesman and undermine her own country's military. Pheu Thai's coalition has been abandoned by key conservative backers over the call, leaving it with a razor-thin parliamentary majority steered by a caretaker prime minister. – AFP
IOL News
a day ago
- Politics
- IOL News
'The judiciary must accept that its integrity is earned through fearless accountability'
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya speaking at the 30th anniversarycelebrations of the Constitutional Court. The judiciary in South Africa often conducts itself as though it exists outside the moral and political realities of the society it serves, projecting an image of unassailable integrity, as if immune to the corruption that permeates other sectors, says the writer. Image: Jairus Mmutle/GCIS Clyde N.S. Ramalaine In democratic theory, the judiciary is often revered as the last line of defence against tyranny, arbitrariness, and impunity. Yet in practice, no institution should be considered immune to the social and political decay it adjudicates. The recent response by the Office of Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, offers a revealing window into the judiciary's posture when confronted with internal accountability. Rather than welcoming scrutiny as a path to institutional purification, the OCJ's letter adopts a tone of cold proceduralism and veiled indignation, positioning itself as the aggrieved party in the face of whistleblowing. This reaction, cloaked in appeals to public confidence and formal reporting channels, exposes a deeper and more precarious trend: a judiciary increasingly allergic to critique, retreating into a defensive reflex that masquerades as integrity. In this regard, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya appears to continue the defensive trajectory set by her predecessor, former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, who became increasingly known for his political interventions, particularly in moments when critical public commentary about the judiciary was raised. Zondo notably demanded an apology from politician Lindiwe Sisulu after she exercised poetic licence in her critique of the judiciary, drawing on a provocative phrase borrowed from American racial discourse, 'house and field niggers', to characterise perceived divisions and loyalties within South Africa's judicial ranks. The response by the Office of Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to Lt. General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's allegations is revealing, less for what it explicitly states and more for the posture it adopts. At face value, the OCJ's demand for 'credible evidence' and its warning that 'unsubstantiated claims can severely erode public confidence' in democratic institutions appear procedurally sound and appropriately cautious. However, when situated within the broader political climate and the weight of the allegations, this letter reads more like a strategic act of institutional defensiveness than a sincere commitment to truth-seeking or democratic transparency. The judiciary, by asserting that such allegations 'erode public confidence,' effectively reverses the burden, indirectly attempting to discipline the whistleblower rather than reflect critically on the legitimacy of the concerns raised. This is problematic. Mkhwanazi did not offer vague or populist sentiment; he made direct claims about the dismantling of police investigative structures and the shielding of political interests, naming Minister Senzo Mchunu and implicating parts of the justice system. These are not casual assertions; they are whistleblowing interventions made by a senior law enforcement officer in a context of systemic rot. The OCJ office will forgive us for deducing from its letter that the judiciary's tone, however, appears less concerned with institutional accountability than with preserving its image. Moreover, the suggestion that Mkhwanazi must use "formal reporting mechanisms" reveals an ironic detachment from the very reality he is exposing. If the allegation is that formal structures themselves are compromised, what good is a reporting mechanism that routes evidence through those same channels? This response seems to ignore the foundational lesson from South Africa's recent history of state capture: whistleblowers often had to go public precisely because formal structures had become captured, bureaucratised, or unresponsive. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Additionally, the judiciary's statement fails to acknowledge its embeddedness within a broader political system. It repeats the often-invoked but increasingly hollow idea of judicial impartiality, positioning the courts as neutral custodians of justice while ignoring the growing public scepticism about the politicisation of judicial appointments, inconsistent prosecutorial outcomes, and institutional inertia in high-profile cases. If the judiciary wishes to preserve public trust, it must do more than demand silence in the absence of documentation; it must demonstrate that it takes all allegations seriously, not just those that are politically convenient. Finally, the tone of the letter, couched in institutional concern, belies a deeper anxiety. The judiciary, like all organs of state, is not beyond scrutiny. South Africa's democratic ethos does not grant sacred status to any sector. Rather than deflect, the judiciary should embrace the opportunity to investigate itself, to reaffirm its legitimacy through transparency, and to actively protect whistleblowers like Mkhwanazi, whose bravery may be unsettling but whose voice is necessary. To underscore the judiciary as the full expression of a South African society, we only have to remind ourselves of a recent interview conducted by the Judicial Services Commission. Judge President L.T. Tlaletsi, during his recent appearance before the Judicial Service Commission, initially downplayed the relevance of the judiciary's newly developed sexual harassment policy by suggesting that sexual harassment was not a significant issue within the judiciary. However, his stance was swiftly challenged by Commissioner Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, who pointed out the glaring dissonance in such a claim. Ngcukaitobi highlighted that everyone present at the proceedings was well aware of incidents of inappropriate and unacceptable conduct among members of the judiciary, even if such cases had not been formally reported. This exchange not only revealed a concerning gap between leadership perception and institutional reality but also underscored the culture of silence that often surrounds misconduct in judicial spaces. If sexual harassment, despite its denial, is indeed present, then it becomes even more untenable to suggest that the judiciary is immune to other forms of wrongdoing, such as corruption and criminal collusion. The moment served as a powerful reminder that institutional integrity cannot be preserved through denial or procedural formalism but through transparent acknowledgement, accountability, and reform. The judiciary in South Africa often conducts itself as though it exists outside the moral and political realities of the society it serves, projecting an image of unassailable integrity, as if immune to the corruption that permeates other sectors. This perception is not only misleading but fundamentally unsustainable. Judges are not chosen from a separate moral universe; they are products of the same society, appointed through political processes, often by ruling party leaders. Many have never built independent or successful legal practices, opting instead for judicial office as a stable career path offering pension security. Their elevation depends on interviews before the Judicial Service Commission, an inherently political body. In a country where corruption is endemic and where no institution is beyond scrutiny, the notion that the judiciary is somehow exempt from compromise defies logic and reality. When Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi bravely tells the nation that politicians, the police, and the judiciary form part of South Africa's crime problem, it goes without saying that, as an admitted attorney, he would not make such serious allegations recklessly or without a substantive basis. It is therefore untenable for the public to be duped into imagining the judiciary, a present and functioning sector of society, as somehow exempt from such implications. On the contrary, any such allegation, regardless of the target, warrants full and impartial investigation. To shield the judiciary from public accountability based on presumed moral superiority is to ignore its embeddedness in the very social fabric it is meant to adjudicate. If transformation and transparency are to be pursued meaningfully, the judiciary cannot be treated as sacrosanct. The critical question remains: Does the OCJ's response genuinely inspire confidence in whistleblowers like Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, or does it serve as a warning to future truth-tellers to remain silent? By focusing on the supposed dangers of "unsubstantiated allegations" rather than the urgent substance of Mkhwanazi's claims, the judiciary appears more concerned with reputational management than institutional accountability. This defensive posture not only undermines Mkhwanazi's credibility but also sends a discouraging signal to others within the state apparatus who may be privy to corruption or criminal collusion. If the judiciary cannot distinguish between malicious slander and principled whistleblowing, especially from a senior officer with legal training, then it risks reinforcing a culture of fear, deterring future disclosures, and eroding the very democratic values it claims to protect. I dare assert the statement issued by the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) does little to inspire confidence in Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, or in any future whistleblowers who may come forward with uncomfortable truths about systemic corruption. Rather than signalling a willingness to engage the substance of Mkhwanazi's claims with seriousness and impartiality, the OCJ adopts a defensive tone that shifts focus to the potential damage of "unsubstantiated allegations" on public trust. This framing subtly disciplines the whistleblower while evading institutional introspection. Instead of reinforcing a culture of accountability, the OCJ's response risks entrenching the very culture of silence and fear that has long discouraged insiders from exposing misconduct. If the judiciary responds to courageous disclosures with procedural gatekeeping and implied censure, it sends a chilling message to potential whistleblowers: speak out, and you will be met with institutional rebuke, not support. Such a stance is fundamentally at odds with the values of transparency, justice, and democratic renewal. South Africa does not need another mythologised sector draped in self-righteous untouchability. If the judiciary is to maintain public confidence, it must do so not through declarations of purity but through demonstrable transparency and an unwavering commitment to introspection. When Lt. General Mkhwanazi calls out institutional decay, including within the justice system, the appropriate institutional response is not deflection or bureaucratic indignation, but a willingness to interrogate uncomfortable truths. Just as the judiciary cannot claim to be free from the scourge of sexual harassment, as the recent exchange between Judge President Tlaletsi and Commissioner Ngcukaitobi made clear, so too can it not claim exemption from the possibilities of corruption, bias, or systemic failure. Public trust is not sustained by denial, but by the courage to confront complicity. To restore what remains of that trust, the judiciary must accept that its integrity is not innate; it must be earned, preserved, and proven through fearless accountability. * Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Eyewitness News
a day ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
MK Party: Ramaphosa made legal missteps when appointing interim police minister
CAPE TOWN - The official opposition claimed the president made several legal missteps when he placed Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appointed an interim minister from outside of the National Assembly to take his place. The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party also slammed President Cyril Ramaphosa's choice of Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga to lead a commission of inquiry into police corruption as premature and a conflict of interest. ALSO READ: - MK Party heading to ConCourt to challenge appointment of interim police minister - KZN MK Party threatens chaos should Mkhwanazi be persecuted - MK Party sends Ramaphosa ultimatum over decision to appoint interim police minister The party said there's enough evidence to fire Mchunu and a commission of inquiry to probe explosive allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi is unnecessary. As it prepares a legal challenge to be lodged in the Constitutional Court, the MK Party said Ramaphosa has put two arms of state on a collision course by choosing a serving Constitutional Court judge to lead the inquiry before he's officially retired. MK Party parliamentary leader John Hlophe explained: 'It's a judicial commission of inquiry, it's going to be headed by a judge, yet there are fundamental and serious allegations of corruption in the judiciary. In other words, the judiciary is called upon to investigate itself.' Hlophe said appointing Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as the interim police minister before his tenure as an academic officially ends is not only premature, but is another unconstitutional move because the country can't have two ministers serving in the same portfolio. The MK Party said the Constitution also does not allow one of the president's two outside appointments to be in a temporary capacity. Meanwhile, Parliament's police and justice committees will hold a joint meeting on Wednesday to chart a path for an inquiry into the police and the allegations involving Mchunu.
