Latest news with #humanRights
Bloomberg
22 minutes ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Hong Kong Court Orders Nulling Laws on Sex-Segregated Toilets
A Hong Kong court has ordered the striking down of regulations banning individuals from using public toilets designated for the opposite sex, in a ruling expected to improve treatment of transgender people. The regulations violate Hong Kong's constitution-like Basic Law and its Bill of Rights by creating a disproportionate and unnecessary intrusion into the privacy and rights of transgender people, the ruling said. It highlighted the distress and practical challenges that transgender people experience when using facilities designated for a gender that did not align with their own identity. The court will suspend the judgment for a year to allow the government time to address the issue.
Irish Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
Omagh bombing survivor wants High Court to compel State to hold public inquiry into atrocity
Two people directly affected by the Omagh bombing want the High Court to compel the Irish government to establish a public inquiry into the atrocity. Emmet Tunney, who survived the 1998 dissident republican bombing, says the Government is obliged to establish a public inquiry in circumstances where state authorities allegedly held 'actionable intelligence' relating to the attack. Mr Tunney's case states that a public inquiry is required to ensure an effective investigation of the atrocity. He alleges the State's failure to hold such an inquiry is a breach of his rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to Mr Tunney's court documents, article two of the ECHR requires an 'effective, independent, prompt, and public' investigation in circumstances where state agents knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. READ MORE Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution require effective investigations of deaths involving potential state failures, his papers say. Shawneen Conway, whose 18-year-old brother Gareth was killed in the bombing, is seeking to bring an action similar to Mr Tunney's, the High Court heard on Tuesday. A total of 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins, died and hundreds were injured when a car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998. An independent inquiry into the bombing established by the UK government opened in Omagh in January and is continuing. That inquiry is examining whether the atrocity could have been prevented by UK authorities. In the High Court on Tuesday, Ruaidhrí Giblin, for Mr Tunney, sought an early date for his application seeking the court's permission to bring the case. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said she would hear Mr Tunney's and Ms Conway's applications for court permission next week. Mr Tunney, from Omagh, Co Tyrone, is seeking an order compelling the Government to establish a public inquiry into the bombing and he wants a court declaration that the Government's failure to establish such an inquiry to date is in breach of his rights. He wants to bring his case against the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. His case claims some of the perpetrators of the bombing are believed to have operated within the Republic of Ireland. He alleges there were failures in intelligence sharing and co-operation between Irish and UK authorities before the bombing. Authorities in the Republic may have had prior knowledge of the Real IRA's planning, his documents claim. Mr Tunney also argues an Irish government inquiry is required in circumstances where there are limitations on the jurisdiction of the UK government's inquiry. For example, he says, the UK government cannot make findings as to whether Irish authorities are culpable for a failure to supply information relating to the bombing. In the UK Omagh bombing inquiry, its chairman, Lord Turnbull, heard arguments over the last two days regarding applications from some survivor and family groups seeking to be represented by special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings and they raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they were not. However, a lawyer for the UK government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act and she cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'important and interesting'. He will provide a written decision 'in due course'. – Additional reporting PA
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Ex-MPs Who Alleged Russian Meddling Lose Case at European Court of Human Rights
The UK government didn't breach voters' rights by failing to investigate alleged Russian interference in elections, Europe's top human rights court ruled, rejecting a legal challenge brought by three former lawmakers. Although there were 'undoubtedly shortcomings' in the UK's initial response to reports of Russian meddling, the government had since carried out two thorough and independent investigations and adopted measures to counter disinformation and safeguard the electoral process, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday.
France 24
15-07-2025
- Politics
- France 24
German court rejects Yemenis' claim over US strikes
Plaintiffs Ahmed and Khalid bin Ali Jaber first brought their case to court in 2014 after losing members of their family in the strike on the village of Khashamir. The case has since been through several German courts. But the Constitutional Court on Tuesday ultimately ruled that Berlin is not required to take action against such attacks, which were not judged to be in breach of international law. Washington has for years launched drone strikes targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen, an impoverished country that has been torn by fierce fighting between its beleaguered Saudi-backed government and Iran-backed rebels. The two Yemeni men, supported by the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), had argued that Germany was partly responsible for the attack because the strike was aided by signals relayed via the Ramstein base in western Germany. "Without the data that flows through Ramstein, the US cannot fly its combat drones in Yemen," the group said. The ECCHR's Andreas Schueller argued that "the German government must put an end to the use of this base -- otherwise the government is making itself complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians". 'Complaint unfounded' The court found that Germany "does have a general duty to protect fundamental human rights and the core norms of international humanitarian law, even in cases involving foreign countries". However, in order for this duty to be binding, there must be "a serious risk of systematic violation of applicable international law". "Measured against these standards, the constitutional complaint is unfounded," the court said. The ECCHR said the ruling had "failed to send a strong signal" and meant that "instead, individual legal protection remains a theoretical possibility without practical consequences". However, Schueller said the verdict "leaves the door open for future cases". "Violations of international law can be subject to judicial review, even if the court imposes high hurdles. This is an important statement by the Constitutional Court in these times," he said. 'Margin of discretion' According to the ECCHR, the two Yemeni men were having dinner ahead of the wedding of a male family member in 2012 when they heard the buzz of a drone and then the boom of missile attacks that claimed multiple lives. Their case against Germany was initially thrown out, before the higher administrative court in Muenster ruled in their favour in 2019. However, the government appealed and a higher court overturned the decision in 2020, arguing that German diplomatic efforts were enough to ensure Washington was adhering to international law. In a statement shared by the ECCHR, the two men called the ruling "dangerous and disturbing". "(It) suggests countries that provide assistance to the US assassination programme bear no responsibility when civilians are killed. Our hearts are broken, and our faith in international law is shaken," they said. The German government welcomed the ruling, which it said showed that Berlin had "a wide margin of discretion in assessing whether the actions of third states comply with international law". "According to the ruling, the government has no fundamental duty to protect foreigners abroad who are affected by military action by third states if, in the government's assessment, these attacks are within the bounds of what is permissible under international law," the defence and foreign ministries said in a statement.
Telegraph
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Bake sales for Gaza could stoke Jew hatred, EU warns
The EU's anti-Semitism tsar warned European ambassadors that holding bake sales for Gaza in Brussels could stoke Jew hatred. Katharina von Schnurbein made the claim while the EU mulled possible trade sanctions against Israel for human rights abuses during the war. According to a leaked diplomatic cable, she told gathered EU envoys in Tel Aviv there were new forms of anti-Semitism, 'which she described as ambient anti-Semitism'. This was 'creating an atmosphere in which Jews feel uncomfortable, even in [the] European institutions', the German baroness said. The 52-year-old bureaucrat noted 'for instance the 'bake sales for Gaza'', held in May in Brussels by European Commission staff, which raised money for the Red Cross Crescent in Gaza. Ms von Schnurbein, who has been the European Commission's co-ordinator to combat anti-Semitism since 2015, argued against imposing sanctions on Israel after the EU undertook a review of its association agreement with the country. She 'warned against the risk that [the] review of the [EU-Israel] association agreement is based on 'rumours about Jews', as opposed to facts'. 'Conspiracy theories' Ms von Schnurbein claimed that the United Nations and the media were ignoring news about Israel providing food in Gaza. She went on to mention 'conspiracy theories' spread on social media, the cable, dated June 6. The theories described 'how Jews or the Mossad succeeded' in putting Yuval Raphael, the Israeli contestant for this year's Eurovision Song Contest, in second place when she won the public vote. Austria won because of its success in the jury vote, where Israel came 14th. Broadcasters in Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Iceland and Finland raised concerns about the phone and online voting system after the contest. The cable was sent from the EU embassy in Israel to Brussels and was first obtained by the EU Observer. The website went on to report that Ms von Schnurbein had angered some ambassadors. One diplomat told her that Israel 'dismisses every accusation on attacks on hospitals as 'blood libels' ... [but] these are facts and to bring them up is not anti-Semitic'. Amos Goldberg, a history professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told the website: 'She's hostile to any sign of solidarity with the Palestinians, calling it 'ambient anti-Semitism' – a clearly totalitarian term.'
