Latest news with #Tablet
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment
Political activists occasionally propose a new constitutional convention, which would gather delegates from the states to craft amendments to the nation's founding document. It's a long and convoluted process, but the Constitution itself provides the blueprint. Article V allows such a confab if two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures call for one. These days, conservatives are the driving force for the idea, as they see it as a means to put further limits on the federal government. Sometimes, progressives propose such a thing. Their goals are to enshrine various social programs and social-justice concepts. Yet anyone who has watched the moronic sausage-making in Congress and state legislatures should be wary of opening Pandora's Box. I'd be happy enough if both political tribes tried to uphold the Constitution as it is currently drafted. It's a brilliant document that limits the power of the government to infringe on our rights. Without the first 10—the Bill of Rights—this would be a markedly different nation. For a sense of where we might be without it, I'd recommend looking at Great Britain and its approach to the speech concepts detailed on our First Amendment. Our nation was spawned from the British, so we share a culture and history. Yet, without a specific constitutional dictate, that nation has taken a disturbing approach that rightly offends American sensibilities. As Tablet magazine reported, "74-year-old Scottish grandmother Rose Docherty was arrested on video by four police officers for silently holding a sign in proximity to a Glasgow abortion clinic reading 'Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.'" Thousands of Brits are detained, questioned, and prosecuted, it notes, for online posts of the type that wouldn't raise an eyebrow here. The chilling effect is profound. This isn't as awful as what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia, where the government's critics have a habit of accidentally falling out of windows. But that's thin gruel. Britain and the European Union are supposed to be free countries. Their speech codes are intended to battle disinformation/misinformation, but empowering the government to be the arbiter of such vague concepts only destroys everyone's freedoms. In 1998, Great Britain approved Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It protects a citizen's "right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference." But it comes with limits and conditions. The authorities may quash such speech to "protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety," or "prevent disorder or crime," or "protect health or morals," or "maintain the authority and impartiality of judges." One may not express "views that encourage racial or religious hatred." Those are open-ended terms, which has led to bizarre prosecutions. Our First Amendment includes these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." A constitutional amendment stating "no law" is more protective than a statute with asterisks and exceptions. With the political Left devoted to limiting speech based on its fixations on race and gender and the political Right's willingness to, say, deport students who take verboten positions on the war in Gaza and malign reporters as enemies of the people, I'd hate to see how speech protections would fare in a refashioned constitution. Traditionally, the Left has taken a "living and breathing" approach, insisting its plain words and founders' intent are up for reinterpretation. Sadly, modern conservatives, who previously defended originalism, seem ready to ditch the Constitution when it hinders their policy aims. Just read their dissing of due process—as stated in the 5th and 14th amendments, when it comes to immigration policy. When asked about habeas corpus during a Senate hearing, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said it's "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country." It's the opposite, as habeas corpus requires the government to explain why it's detaining people—and forbids it from holding them indefinitely. MAGA apparently believes the words of the Constitution mean the opposite of what they say. Frankly, I wouldn't want either side to be near a constitutional convention that's empowered to rewrite a document penned by men more brilliant and civic-minded than our current lot. "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards," wrote Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1927 free-speech case, Whitney v. California. "They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. … If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." We don't need to revisit the Constitution, but to uphold the protections already within it. This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment appeared first on
The Guardian
22-04-2025
- General
- The Guardian
How Pope Francis changed the Catholic church, and what happens next
Pope Francis was working until the end. On Easter Sunday, the 88-year-old head of the Catholic church offered an Easter greeting to the crowds in St Peter's Square who had gathered for mass. By the next morning, after months battling pneumonia and bronchitis, he had passed away. From the beginning, the first Latin American pope wanted his papacy to be different. Catherine Pepinster, the former editor of the Tablet, says one of his first notable actions was to go to a prison, rather than a church, to wash people's feet in the traditional Maundy Thursday rite. It was typical of a pontiff who refused many of the luxuries of his predecessors – from giving up an apartment in the papal palace to only wearing simple leather shoes. Michael Safi hears how Pope Francis tried to take a different approach to some of the Catholic church's controversies – especially the treatment of LGBTQ+ Catholics. 'Francis spoke about love frequently,' says Pepinster. Yet on this and other issues, from female priests to abuse scandals, many people thought he did not go far enough. Now the church is preparing to choose his successor, with all the ceremony and tradition that entails. But, says Pepinster, it is clear Pope Francis has changed the institution in the eyes of many of the church's followers. 'A lot of Catholics feel that the church is, in many ways, a more compassionate place.'
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal jury convicts 2 of Iran-backed murder-for-hire plot to kill U.S. journalist
A federal jury convicted two European men in a plot to assassinate an Iranian-American journalist in exchange for $500,000 from the Iranian government, the Justice Department announced. Rafat Amirov of Iran and Polad Omarov of Georgia were found guilty in connection with the 2022 murder-for-hire scheme, the Justice Department said in a Friday press release. The plot targeted Masih Alinejad, who is a staunch critic of the Iranian government. 'The Iranian regime's brazen plot to silence and murder Americans will not be tolerated,' Sue J. Bai, head of the DOJ's National Security Division, said in the release. According to Alinejad's nonprofit on compulsory hijab in Iran, she worked as a journalist covering the nation's parliament for several years before leaving in 2009. In the U.S., she hosted Voice of America's satirical news show "Tablet" and freelanced for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the Independent. Alinejad posted on X Thursday about the verdict. She shared relief about the jury's decision but said "the real masterminds" are in power in Iran and she's "waiting for the day when Ali Khamenei and his terrorist Revolutionary Guards face justice." "For the first time, the regime of the Islamic Republic is being held accountable for bringing its campaign of terror to U.S. soil," she wrote. "This is just the beginning of exposing and dismantling its network of violence." Omarov's lawyer Elena Fast said she respected the jury's verdict but would appeal. Amirov's lawyer didn't immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment. According to court papers, Amirov and Omarov were high-ranking members of the Bazghandi Network, an Eastern European crime organization. Ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps told the two to kill Alinejad, court papers said. The IRGC is a branch of the Iranian armed forces and is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S., according to the National Counter Terrorism Center. The Bazghandi Network is named after Ruhollah Bazghandi, a brigadier general of the IRGC who previously served as chief of the corps' counterintelligence department, the Justice Department said in October. Alinejad has been a target of the IRGC as recently as 2020 because she criticized Iran and publicized the nation's human rights abuses across the globe, prosecutors said Friday. "After these brazen efforts to kidnap Alinejad from the U.S. failed, the IRGC turned to Amirov and Omarov to locate, surveil, and murder her," the department said in the release. "Beginning in approximately July 2022, Amirov sent targeting information - which he had received directly from IRGC officials in Iran - about Alinejad to Omarov." Omarov shared that information with Khalid Mehdiyev, a member of the Bazghandi Network, so Mehdiyev could monitor Alinejad, according to court papers. Mehdiyev sent reports and information about the journalist's whereabouts to Omarov and others in exchange for money. He used the funds to buy an AK-47-style rifle, two magazines and at least 66 rounds of ammunition. More: Iranian military official, 3 others charged in plot to assassinate journalist in New York "On July 27, 2022, Omarov told Amirov that Mehdiyev was ready to kill Alinejad, writing 'this matter will be over today. I told them to make a birthday present for me. I pressured them, they will sleep there this night,'" according to the DOJ release. Police stopped Mehdiyev for a traffic violation the next day and found the AK-47-style rifle, ammunition, a black ski mask and about $1,100 in cash during a vehicle search. Mehdiyev testified at the trial that he was at Alinejad's to "try to kill the journalist." Alinejad also testified, saying she saw a large man standing among flowers in her front yard in the summer of 2022, the same time Mehdiyev said he watched her home. "The guy was a little bit suspicious so I got panicked," Alinejad testified. "He was in the sunflowers, like, staring into my eyes." U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon will sentence Omarov and Amirov on Sept. 17. They could face up to life in prison for the possession and use of a gun in connection with the attempted murder charge. Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Matthew Podolsky said Friday that Iran has tried for years to "silence an outspoken Iranian journalist, author, activist and critic of their regime through any means necessary." He later added the verdict "should send a clear message around the world: if you target U.S. citizens, we will find you, no matter where you are, and bring you to justice." Others arrested in the plot are: Zialat Mamedov of Georgia; Ruhollah Bazghandi of Iran; Fnu Lnu, also known as Haj Taher, of Iran; Hossein Sedighi of Iran; and Seyed Mohammad Forouzan of Iran. Prosecutors said after the DOJ exposed the murder plot, those in the Bazghandi Network monitored other members' court cases and targeted Alinejad. President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum in February, restoring his "maximum pressure" campaign on Iran that he used in his first term as president. According to the memo, Trump ordered the Department of the Treasury secretary to impose "maximum economic pressure" on the country using sanctions and other measures. Nearly a month later, Trump sent a letter to Iran's Western Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in March seeking to negotiate a nuclear deal with the Middle Eastern nation. He told Fox Business Network that "there are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal." Khamenei said days later that the country won't be bullied into negotiations and won't accept the U.S.'s expectations, Iranian state media reported. Speaking to Trump in the post, Alinejad said the murder plot was bigger than her and a matter of national security. "The Iranian regime doesn't just hate me; they hate the very principles that define America, freedom, democracy, and free speech. If they can send assassins to kill a journalist on American soil, they can threaten anyone. Will you take action before it's too late?" Contributing: Thao Nguyen, USA TODAY; Reuters. Contact reporter Krystal Nurse at knurse@ Follow her on X @KrystalRNurse, and on BlueSky @ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Jury convicts 2 men in Iran-backed murder plot of U.S. journalist
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Hamas brutally killed child hostages. How can anyone defend that?
To live as a Jew, you 'must be sensitive to the tremors that warn of impending earthquakes that could make our current homes dangerous,' Alana Newhouse wrote. She wrote that in November 2022, less than a year before the next earthquake. 'At different points in our history, that (home) was Spain, England, France, Turkey, Cairo, Baghdad, Beirut, Safed, Vilna, Warsaw, Prague, Vienna, Berlin, Paris, and too many others to count,' wrote Newhouse, editor-in-chief of Tablet, a Jewish magazine of news and culture. 'In all of those places, things got bad at some point; in some of them, so bad that they became irrevocably broken to us.' On Tuesday, the entire world must have seemed 'irrevocably broken' to every Jewish man and woman. At least, for any who had watched a particular video, and that probably accounts for just about all. Because any who had seen those boys, those precious boys with ginger hair and searching eyes, with only a blanket and their mother's arms to shield them from the circling wolves, had to feel their hopes, their hearts, collapse on Tuesday. So many had awaited the fate of those children and their mother, Shiri Bibas, who was last seen holding her boys in her arms on Oct. 7, 2023. In the now famous video, Shiri's eyes are different than her two sons'. They bespeak pure terror, the knowledge that the Arabic speaking men kicking down doors and firing guns in her neighborhood would now decide the fate of her children, Ariel, 4; and 9-month-old Kfir. This week that fate became more apparent. The wolves who carry AK-47s and hide their faces with black hoods and shield themselves with the women and children of Gaza informed Israel that they would be returning the remains of Shiri and her two boys. For Jews, the dots are connecting again, from the pogroms of Odessa to the ovens of Auschwitz to, now, the massacres of kibbutzim Israel. The worst, the most vicious creatures on earth, are once again preying on the Jews. Not just mutilating and murdering them, but killing their children, their infants and toddlers, babies who in happier moments are seen in photographs with delicate fingers and smiles — posing no threat or insult to any decent human being. If you are Jewish, your mind must be whirring today, wondering how it is that evil so frequently finds your people — making them, as Alana Newhouse describes, a kind of seismograph for the collapse of civilized society. And knowing that when it happens, the monsters will find sympathetic allies across the Christian and Muslim worlds. They will not blame the killers in balaclavas who don't have the guts to show their faces while they exult in bloody deeds. Instead, they'll blame the victims, the babies and their mothers and their grandparents, who in the case of Ariel and Kfir, were murdered by Hamas. The historic persecution of the Jews haunts anyone who cares about humanity because it is incomprehensible. The same murder of innocents has played out so many times over history that it isn't possible to comprehend so much pain and anguish — there are too many Jewish mothers whose worst fears were realized. So, the Jews despair in watching the Bibas children, giggling at the camera in earlier family videos and photos, prancing around in costume, knowing those children are headed for the clutches of Hamas. Much of the western world today blames Israel for the carnage of the Israel-Hamas war. They refuse to acknowledge that Israel had no choice but to attack a terrorist army that killed some 1,200 of their people. Opinion: Arizona Dems make absurd call for ceasefire in Israel Israel either fights back, or more babies, more mothers, more grandparents become the targets of the next attack, the one Hamas promises is coming. Western leaders and activists accuse the Israelis of committing genocide in the siege of Gaza, when it is obvious that Hamas turned their own Palestinian women and children and Israeli hostages into human shields — a depraved act by almost any standard. These are not difficult moral questions to sort through. The logic is simple to deduce. Hamas killed Israeli children with guns and knives. They killed Palestinian children with cold indifference. They wanted the Israelis to retaliate and shoot Palestinian civilians so they could feed the bodies to their propagandists and perpetuate the lie that Israel is a cruel and illegitimate state. To ignore those facts, to ignore the simple logic and to lift your banner in support of Hamas — the real killers of innocent men, women and children on both sides of this conflict — is not just a continuum in the long history of Jewish persecution. It is its own crime against humanity. Phil Boas is an editorial columnist with The Arizona Republic. Email him at This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Bibas family is dead, and Jews are rightly in anguish | Opinion
