UK king criticized for staying silent

UK king criticized for staying silent
Short Url
Updated 09 August 2024

UK king criticized for staying silent

UK king criticized for staying silent
  • “I am surprised that the king as head of state hasn’t come out more forcefully, given that it’s a perilous moment for the United Kingdom,” said historian and royal commentator Ed Owens
  • According to constitutional law expert Craig Prescott “the monarchy does not comment on current political events“

LONDON: Britain’s King Charles III has faced criticism for remaining silent on the near-daily riots seen since early last week following a deadly knife attack that killed three children.
While the monarch and his wife Camilla conveyed their condolences to the families of the three girls killed in the mass stabbing on July 29, Buckingham Palace has not commented on the riots which ensued.
“I am surprised that the king as head of state hasn’t come out more forcefully, given that it’s a perilous moment for the United Kingdom,” said historian and royal commentator Ed Owens.
However, according to constitutional law expert Craig Prescott “the monarchy does not comment on current political events.”
“Once the riots have subsided, you might expect members of the royal family to visit places affected and perhaps to see them more in multicultural settings,” Prescott said in a post on X.
“If the king speaks out about this, then what about the next big issue, and the one after that.”
Charles’s silence is in keeping with his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II, who remained similarly quiet during the last wave of riots which shook England in 2011.
It is typically explained by the expectation that British monarchs avoid commenting on anything deemed political.
Owens argued Charles, who has gradually resumed public duties after a cancer diagnosis earlier this year, may not have publicly reacted due to two main reasons.
On the one hand, he may have been “advised by his government that it would be unwise at this stage of intervene directly.”
On the other, the monarch might himself have deemed the issue too “combustible.”
“To court controversy can lead to the alienation of certain sections of the British public,” Owens told AFP.
Officials have blamed the riots, which have seen mosques and immigration-linked sites targeted, on far-right elements and “thugs.”
They are accused of trying to use the stabbing tragedy and growing mainstream right-wing concern over immigration levels to further their extreme cause.
Owens noted the monarch has previously celebrated the benefits of legal migration as well as multiculturalism.
But his current silence is also “characteristic of a deeper silence on this very specific topic of illegal migration,” which remains politically divisive, he added.
Another complicating factor is that many involved in the riots are “people that pretend that they wrap themselves in the (British) flags and call themselves patriots,” Owens said.
“Some of these individuals would be the natural supporters of the (royal) institution.”
However, that could merit the monarch “taking a stand and saying, ‘not in our name, this isn’t the kind of behavior we expect of anybody in this country,’” Owens argued.
Part of the surprise in some quarters at Charles’s silence could stem from the sovereign having been vocal on social issues and topics like climate change over the years.
Since becoming king he is seen as having presented himself as more accessible than his predecessors, including by opening up about his health.
As heir, he visited areas affected by riots in north London in 2011.
Meanwhile, Charles reportedly expressed private concerns in June 2022 over the then-government’s plan to send failed asylum seekers to Rwanda, calling the proposals “appalling.”
But for Graham Smith, head of Republic, a pressure group which campaigns for an elected UK head of state to replace the monarch, the lack of a response to the riots “goes further than Charles.”
“It is about the institution being a failure because it provides for someone who isn’t able to speak really,” he told AFP.
Charles, who is currently on the monarch’s annual summer holiday in Scotland, has like his mother in 2011 requested daily updates about the situation, according to royal sources reported by British media.
“The fact that that has been made public is important, because what the monarchy is trying to show is that he’s not an uninterested party, that he is taking an active interest in this,” Owens said.
However, Smith is unimpressed by that argument.
“We’re told that the monarchy unites the country, and I don’t think that’s the case. They can’t even speak up when the country is facing far-right riots,” he said.
“There’s no value in a billionaire sitting in his holiday home being updated about what’s happening. I mean, it’s easy to be updated — switch the TV on.”

Britain’s King Charles III has faced criticism for remaining silent on the near-daily riots seen since early last week following a deadly knife attack that killed three children. (Reuters/File)


Zelensky names new ambassadors during Ukraine political shakeup

Yulia Anatoliivna Svyrydenko. (Photo/Wikipedia)
Yulia Anatoliivna Svyrydenko. (Photo/Wikipedia)
Updated 9 sec ago

Zelensky names new ambassadors during Ukraine political shakeup

Yulia Anatoliivna Svyrydenko. (Photo/Wikipedia)
  • Zelensky launched a major government reshuffle last week, promoting Yulia Svyrydenko, 39, who had served as economy minister and is well known in Washington, to head the cabinet as prime minister

MOSCOW: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed over a dozen new ambassadors on Monday, during a big shakeup that has seen him replace top cabinet officials and envoys to shore up relations with Washington and isolate Russia internationally.
The new envoys named on Monday include ambassadors to NATO members Belgium, Canada, Estonia and Spain, as well as major donor Japan and regional heavyweights South Africa and the United Arab Emirates.
Zelensky launched a major government reshuffle last week, promoting Yulia Svyrydenko, 39, who had served as economy minister and is well known in Washington, to head the cabinet as prime minister.
Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna is set to become Ukraine’s new envoy to the United States, as Ukraine seeks to mend ties with the Trump administration.
In remarks to the diplomatic corps released by his office, Zelensky said envoys needed to support “everything that causes Russia pain for its war.”
“While the content of our relationship with America has transformed following the change in administration, the goal remains unchanged: Ukraine must withstand Russia’s strikes,” Zelensky said. 

 

 


A recap of the trial over the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protesters

A recap of the trial over the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protesters
Updated 14 min 25 sec ago

A recap of the trial over the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protesters

A recap of the trial over the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protesters
  • US lawyer William Kanellis said that out of about 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters investigated by the federal government, only 18 were arrested

BOSTON: The Trump administration’s campaign of arresting and deporting college faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations violates their First Amendment rights, lawyers for an association representing university professors argued in federal court.
The lawsuit, filed by several university associations, is one of the first against President Donald Trump and members of his administration to go to trial. US District Judge William Young heard closing arguments Monday in Boston.
He did not say or indicate when or how he would rule. But he had some sharp words when talking about Trump.
“The president is a master of speech and he certainly brilliantly uses his right to free speech,” Young told federal lawyers. But whether Trump “recognizes whether other people have any right to free speech is questionable,” he added.
Plaintiffs are asking Young to rule that the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
No ideological deportation policy
Over the course of the trial, plaintiffs argued that the crackdown has silenced scholars and targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters.
“The goal is to chill speech. The goal is to silence students and scholars who wish to express pro-Palestinian views,” said Alexandra Conlan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
She went on to say that this chilling effect caused by “intimidating and scaring students and scholars” is “exactly what the First Amendment was meant to prevent.”
But federal lawyers and a top State Department official testifying for the government insisted there was no ideological deportation policy as the plaintiffs contend.
John Armstrong, the senior bureau official in Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that visa revocations were based on longstanding immigration law. Armstrong acknowledged he played a role in the visa revocation of several high-profile activists, including Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil, and was shown memos endorsing their removal.
Armstrong also insisted that visa revocations were not based on protected speech and rejected accusations that there was a policy of targeting someone for their ideology.
“It’s silly to suggest there is a policy,” he said.
Were student protesters targeted?
US lawyer William Kanellis said that out of about 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters investigated by the federal government, only 18 were arrested. He said not only is targeting such protesters not a policy of the US government, he said, it’s “not even a statistical anomaly.”
Out of the 5,000 names reviewed, investigators wrote reports on about 200 who had potentially violated US law, Peter Hatch of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations Unit testified. Until this year, Hatch said, he could not recall a student protester being referred for a visa revocation.
Among the report subjects was Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Khalil, who was released last month after 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump’s clampdown on the protests.
Another was the Tufts University student Ozturk, who was released in May from six weeks in detention after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year criticizing her school’s response to the war in Gaza.
Hatch said most leads were dropped when investigators could not find ties to protests and the investigations were not inspired by a new policy but rather by existing procedures in place at least since he took the job in 2019.
Patrick Cunningham, an assistant special Agent in charge with Homeland Security investigations in Boston and who was involved in Ozturk’s arrest, said he was only told the Tuft University student was being arrested because her visa was revoked.
But he also acknowledged being provided a memo from the State Department about Ozturk as well as a copy of an op-ed she co-wrote last year criticizing her university’s response to Israel and the war in Gaza. He also admitted that he has focused more on immigration cases since Trump’s inauguration, compared to the drugs smuggling and money laundering cases he handled in the past.
Professors spoke of scaling back activism
During the trial, several green card-holding professors described scaling back activism, public criticism and international travel following Khalil’s and Ozturk’s arrests.
Nadje Al-Ali, a green card holder from Germany and professor at Brown University, said she canceled a planned research trip and a fellowship to Iraq and Lebanon, fearing that “stamps from those two countries would raise red flags” upon her return. She also declined to participate in anti-Trump protests and abandoned plans to write an article that was to be a feminist critique of Hamas.
“I felt it was too risky,” Al-Ali said.

Kanellis, a US government attorney, said “feelings” and “anxiety” about possible deportation do not equate to imminent harm from a legal standpoint, which he argued plaintiffs failed to establish in their arguments.

 


US withdrawing 700 Marines from Los Angeles: Pentagon

US withdrawing 700 Marines from Los Angeles: Pentagon
Updated 29 min 46 sec ago

US withdrawing 700 Marines from Los Angeles: Pentagon

US withdrawing 700 Marines from Los Angeles: Pentagon

WASHINGTON: The 700 US Marines in Los Angeles are being withdrawn, ending a contentious deployment of the troops in the city, the Pentagon announced on Monday.
President Donald Trump ordered thousands of National Guard and hundreds of Marines into Los Angeles last month in response to protests over federal immigration sweeps — a move opposed by city leaders and California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has directed the redeployment of the 700 Marines whose presence sent a clear message: lawlessness will not be tolerated,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement.
“Their rapid response, unwavering discipline, and unmistakable presence were instrumental in restoring order and upholding the rule of law,” he added.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also announced the withdrawal of the Marines in a post on X, saying it was “another win” for the city and that the presence of the troops was “an unnecessary deployment.”
The removal of the Marines comes after the Pentagon said last week that Hegseth had ordered the withdrawal of 2,000 National Guard personnel from Los Angeles, roughly halving the deployment of those troops in the city.
As a so-called “sanctuary city” with hundreds of thousands of undocumented people, Los Angeles has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration since the Republican returned to office in January.
After immigration enforcement raids spurred unrest and protests last month, Trump — who has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of the unrest — dispatched the National Guard and Marines to quell the disruption.
It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard against the wishes of a state governor.


Judge who drew calls for impeachment over DOGE ruling assigned to Maxwell transcript case

Judge who drew calls for impeachment over DOGE ruling assigned to Maxwell transcript case
Updated 38 min 23 sec ago

Judge who drew calls for impeachment over DOGE ruling assigned to Maxwell transcript case

Judge who drew calls for impeachment over DOGE ruling assigned to Maxwell transcript case
  • New York judge was seen as impediment to Musk’s DOGE
  • Florida judge handled Trump lawsuit against Michael Cohen

NEW YORK A federal judge who faced Republican demands for impeachment after blocking Elon Musk’s government review team from accessing sensitive Treasury Department records will consider whether to release grand jury testimony from the criminal case of Jeffrey Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
US District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan was assigned to the case on Monday. Maxwell’s trial judge, Alison Nathan, is now a federal appellate judge.
The assignment came three days after the US government sought to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender who died by suicide in 2019 in jail after being charged with sex trafficking.
In a Friday court filing, the Department of Justice said the criminal cases against Epstein and Maxwell are a matter of public interest, justifying the release of associated grand jury transcripts.
Backers of conspiracy theories about Epstein have urged President Donald Trump to release a broad array of investigative files related to Epstein, not just grand jury transcripts. Separately, US District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami was assigned on Monday to preside over Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit accusing The Wall Street Journal of defaming him by claiming he created a lewd birthday greeting for Epstein in 2003.
Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal and is part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, said it will defend against the lawsuit, and had “full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting.”
News Corp. and Murdoch are also defendants.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Journal had been removed from the press pool covering Trump’s July 25-29 trip to Scotland because of its “fake and defamatory conduct.”
“As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces,” Leavitt said in a statement.
A spokesperson for Dow Jones declined to comment on Leavitt’s statement.
Earlier this year, the White House removed The Associated Press from pool coverage because it had continued to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by that name instead of Trump’s preferred “Gulf of America.”
Many Trump supporters view the judiciary as an impediment to the Republican president’s policy and personal goals.
Each case could take several months or longer to resolve, followed by possible appeals.
Engelmayer and Gayles were appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama. US District Judge Richard Berman, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, will oversee the government’s request for transcripts in Epstein’s criminal case.
Engelmayer, 64, came under fire and drew Musk’s scorn in February after temporarily blocking Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury systems. Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Wisconsin Republican, said impeachment was justified because the judge played politics in his decision, “demonstrating clear bias and prejudice against the president and the 74,000,000 Americans who voted for him.”
Judicial impeachments are rare and normally reserved for serious misconduct, not disapproval of individual rulings.
Any unsealed transcripts are likely to be redacted, reflecting privacy or security concerns.
Gayles, 58, has been on the federal bench since 2014, after the US Senate approved his nomination by a 98-0 vote.
The Wall Street Journal case is at least the second Trump lawsuit he has overseen.
Gayles presided in 2023 over Trump’s $500-million lawsuit accusing former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen of breaching fiduciary duties by revealing confidences and spreading falsehoods in books, podcasts, and media appearances. Trump voluntarily dismissed that case after six months. The lawyer who filed that case also filed the Journal lawsuit.


Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump

Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump
Updated 43 min 14 sec ago

Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump

Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump

BOSTON: Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding.
President Donald Trump’s administration has battered the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism.
Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond.
A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday’s hearing the case is about the government trying to control the “inner workings” of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said.
“It’s not about Harvard’s conduct,” he said. “It’s about the government’s conduct toward Harvard.”
The case is before US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration’s efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration’s efforts.
At Monday’s hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard’s sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money.
A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump’s executive order combating antisemitism.
He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students.
“Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,” said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. “The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.”
Judge questions basis for government’s findings on antisemitism
Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make “ad-hoc” decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government’s assertions “mind-boggling.”
She also argued the government had provided “no documentation, no procedure” to “suss out” whether Harvard administrators “have taken enough steps or haven’t” to combat antisemitism.
“The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,” she said. “I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong.”
Velchik said the case comes down to the government’s choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding.
Harvard’s lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university’s.
The task force’s demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvard was told to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view.
Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism but said no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
Monday’s hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing.
Harvard faculty, alumni rally against cuts
Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading “Hands Off Harvard,” “Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard” and “Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.”
Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because “they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education.”
Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work.
“Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,” said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men’s and women’s health.
“This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,” he said.
Trump’s pressure campa
ign involves a series of sanctions
The same day Harvard rejected the government’s demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard.
As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies.
Harvard, which has the nation’s largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can’t absorb the full cost of the federal cuts.
In court filings, the school said the government “fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.”
The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.
The research funding is only one front in Harvard’s fight with the government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard’s federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a “death sentence.”
After Monday’s hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a “TOTAL DISASTER.” Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
“Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,” he wrote. “Much of this money comes from the USA., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.”