Latest news with #lawreform
Free Malaysia Today
28-05-2025
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
Govt shouldn't be allowed to sue for defamation, says ex-senior judge
Former Federal Court judge Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal said political parties and corporations should also not be allowed to sue for defamation. (Facebook pic) KUALA LUMPUR : Only individuals should be allowed to file defamation suits, said former Federal Court judge Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal. Speaking at the 'Defamation Law Reform: Revisiting the Defamation Act 1957' forum here today, Harmindar said it did not make sense for the government to sue its citizens for defamation. 'The government shouldn't be allowed to sue for defamation. 'I cannot fathom how a government can have a governing reputation and yet use the taxpayers' money to sue its own citizens to stifle their criticism. 'It just doesn't make sense to me,' he said at the forum held at the Malaysian Bar's office. Harmindar, who retired last month, cited an 'unusual case' where the Sarawak government was allowed to sue an individual. He was referring to the apex court's landmark ruling on Sept 26, 2018, that the federal and state governments could sue individuals for defamation. The ruling was made in the case involving Bandar Kuching MP Chong Chieng Jen's appeal against the Sarawak government. Similarly, Harmindar said, several other entities, particularly corporations, should be barred from filing defamation suits. 'I might be controversial here but I said in some of my judgments that defamation suits should be restricted to individuals and not corporations, simply because of the inequality of power between corporations against the individual. 'Political parties, organisations, governments, and corporations should not be allowed to sue for defamation,' he said. Apologies useless Harmindar also said orders for apologies in defamation cases served no real purpose. 'An apology is useless if it does not come from the heart, so why put it in the legislation? It's easier if you order corrections. An apology doesn't mean anything,' he said. The former judge also disagreed with awarding exorbitant amounts in damages in defamation suits. He said that under defamation laws, a claimant's primary concern was vindication, not an excessive amount of money in damages. 'The common law has always been occupied with money as compensation, but defamation law is quite different because what the person seeks is vindication. 'When you win a case, you are vindicated but some courts award millions (in damages); all that is rubbish,' he said.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Minnesota Senate passes stricter DWI rules for repeat offenders
The Brief The Minnesota Senate passed a bill reforming DWI laws after a fatal crash at Park Tavern in St. Louis Park involving a repeat offender. The legislation extends the DWI "lookback" period from 10 to 20 years, eases ignition interlock program entry, and increases license revocation times for serious DWI offenses. The bill now awaits Governor Walz's approval. ST. PAUL, Minn. (FOX 9) - Minnesota is set to put in place tougher laws targeting repeat DWI offenders following the deadly crash at the Park Tavern in St. Louis Park last year. What we know On Saturday, the Minnesota Senate approved a conference committee report to reform the state's DWI policies. The legislation, authored by Senator Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park), aims to prevent repeat offenders from driving under the influence. This legislation comes in response to a tragic crash at Park Tavern in St. Louis Park last September. The backstory Earlier this month, Steven Bailey pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree murder in the Park Tavern crash. Authorities said Bailey tested more than four times over the limit, with a blood-alcohol level of .325, after he crashed into the tavern's patio space in September 2024. Video showed Bailey driving his vehicle, attempting to back into a parking spot, but hitting another car. Then, as he pulled out of the spot, police say the vehicle accelerated into the patio area, where a group of Methodist Hospital workers had gathered for the night. The crash left two people dead and a dozen others hurt. Dig deeper The new bill changes the following: It extends the "lookback" period for prior offenses from ten to 20 years. The legislation modifies requirements for participation in the ignition interlock program, aiming to make it easier for individuals to enroll. It also lengthens the license revocation period for individuals who commit criminal vehicular homicide or criminal vehicular operation, particularly when the person has a prior DWI-related incident. What's next The bill now heads to Gov. Walz's desk for approval.
Fox News
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Alice Marie Johnson takes on 'corrupt system' as Trump's new pardon czar
Alice Marie Johnson has gone from prison to the White House, where she's leading the charge as President Donald Trump's pardon czar, and she can hardly believe the transformation. The former Trump pardonee now works with the president's administration to bring hope to those still trapped in a broken system. Speaking to "My View" host Lara Trump, she laid out her vision for the role — finding non-violent offenders who deserve a second chance, who have paid their dues to society and who have been victims of lawfare. "There are laws that have to be changed because, even in my position, I'm not going to be able to find everyone," she said. "I am going to find as many as I possibly can find, but I'm also going to be advocating [for change] and looking at the things that are out there, on the books, that need to be changed, but to also do what the president has entrusted me to do, and let's find those individuals who need their second chance, those individuals who had lost hope in a system that was totally corrupt." "We now know it's not about how much money you have. If you have a corrupt system in place, there is no one safe," she added. A series of unfortunate events, including her son's death, financial troubles and a divorce, led to Johnson's involvement with cocaine dealers in the 1990s in Memphis, Tennessee. While she claims she never "touched, saw or sold a single drug," she admitted to assisting in communications. Johnson was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, a sentence she was "absolutely not" prepared for, nor did she think it was "warranted," but she's thankful her situation caught President Trump's attention. Trump commuted her life sentence in 2018 after she served 21 years in an Alabama prison but eventually gave her a full pardon in 2020. The president appointed her to the pardon czar position earlier this year, tasking her with identifying the best pardon candidates and assessing their readiness to reintegrate into their communities. "It's just incredible to me that my life would take a full-circle journey. Seven years ago, I was sitting in a prison cell…" she said. "…It's really easy for me because I've lived it, so the president has entrusted me with this mission."
Telegraph
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
We need a Royal Commission on assisted dying
Reasonable people may disagree on the principle of assisted dying. Strong moral arguments have been made for and against, weighing individual sovereignty against the dignity of human life. What is not in dispute is that the process through which Kim Leadbeater MP and her allies have sought to change the law has been utterly shambolic. The Bill presented to Parliament is not fit for purpose, and the debate around it has been unnecessarily rushed, attempting to ram through a highly controversial change without adequate scrutiny. The result is that the Bill that was presented at the Second Reading is quite distinct from that which has emerged from the Committee stage. MPs were promised that a High Court judge would oversee each application. When this proved impractical, their role was removed, with a replacement panel of social workers, psychiatrists and legal figures suggested. Ms Leadbeater has attempted to sell this as making her law 'even more robust'. Many will disagree. Moreover, both the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians have publicly stated that the Bill is unfit for purpose, raising questions over its practical implementation. The row over Dame Esther Rantzen's suggestion that opposition among MPs is driven by ' undeclared personal religious beliefs ' is merely one last indignity in a process filled with them. It would be better at this point to abandon this undercooked effort at reform, and to establish a Royal Commission to examine the matter properly.
The Guardian
16-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
MPs opposed to assisted dying criticise ‘distasteful' Esther Rantzen claims
MPs opposed to assisted dying have criticised 'distasteful' claims from the prominent campaigner Esther Rantzen, who argued many are fighting against the changes to the law because of secret religious views. Rantzen made the remarks in a letter urging MPs to back the 'strong, safe, carefully considered bill' to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. A string of MPs opposed to assisted dying strongly objected to Rantzen's claims that they had 'undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy them'. During a five-hour debate on Friday, MPs voted to change the bill to provide an opt-out for healthcare workers from being involved in assisted dying – extending the exemption from just doctors. Its sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, also agreed in principle to an amendment to stop those who are voluntarily refusing food and drink being eligible for assisted dying in a move to protect those suffering eating disorders. A vote in November saw a majority of 55 MPs support the bill, and since then, the issue has divided MPs who are thought to be narrowly in favour, with strong feelings on both sides. Jess Asato, a Labour MP, was one of those who took issue with Rantzen's claims, calling on the bill's sponsor to condemn the remark for being 'distasteful and disrespectful'. Florence Eshalomi, another Labour MP, also raised the issue, saying it was 'frankly insulting to disabled people, hardworking professionals up and down the country who have raised many valid concerns about this bill, to have it dismissed as religious beliefs'. They were backed by Kieran Mullan, the shadow justice minister, who said: 'Some high-profile campaigners have made unhelpful remarks. Although I am not religious, I was concerned to see the clumsy criticism of those whose objections to the bill are thought to be centred in their religious beliefs.' Rantzen, a longtime supporter of assisted dying, was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer in 2023. She was thought to have just weeks to live, but last year started using a 'wonder drug' that helped her survive against the odds. Her daughter revealed in March that the former Childline founder's drugs were no longer working. It meant she was no longer well enough to travel to Dignitas. Leadbeater, the Labour MP proposing the legislation, said she had not seen Rantzen's recent remarks, and argued the changes would make the bill more workable and strengthen its protections. She said assisted dying must be legalised to avoid terminally ill people acting out of desperation or making 'traumatic' trips to Switzerland. Its supporters say the bill has returned with strengthened safeguards after being amended in committee earlier this year. But opponents have complained the bill does not have enough protections and has been rushed through, with the criticism coming days after two royal medical colleges voiced their doubts on the legislation in its current form. Some MPs are also unhappy about what they see as the chaotic way the legislation has been debated. Many MPs who tabled amendments did not get the chance to speak, and in the end only two amendments were put to the vote. The first amendment exempting healthcare workers passed, and a second amendment put forward by the Tory MP Rebecca Paul was rejected. This would have prevented employees from providing assisted dying while working for an employer which has chosen not to take part in the process. The eating disorder amendment was not chosen for a vote, but Leadbeater said she accepted it in principle and it would be supported at a later stage. Naz Shah, a Labour MP and opponent of the bill, had proposed the amendment, and was unhappy at the process, saying: 'Unbelievably I wasn't told by the sponsor that my amendment would be accepted until we were sitting in parliament. There was ample opportunity for me to be told and I had no knowledge of any proposed changes in advance. This bill is profoundly important and this chaos does a disservice to parliament and to our constituents. We shouldn't be playing games with people's lives like this.' Another MP said the votes on Friday were 'just skirmishes' and the showdown that makes clear whether any support has ebbed away from the bill is still weeks away. But they said many MPs were exasperated at the process that meant they felt issues were not getting sufficient time for debate. Mike Reader, a Labour MP, said: No matter your views on the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, also known as assisted suicide or assisted dying, people must agree that the time that's been allocated to debate the proposed amendments to the bill is not adequate. I'm disappointed that there appears to be a campaign to rush this through, backed by some significant and well-funded lobby groups.' The debate was marked by protests on both sides, with more than 100 people gathered outside parliament with placards. Addressing a group in parliament, including Dame Esther's daughter Rebecca Wilcox, Leadbeater became emotional, saying she gets upset 'when we get obsessed with parliamentary procedure, when this is actually about human beings, and that's what I find upsetting, because I think it's not about a green book, or it's not about a piece of paper'.
