It's not a new revelation that Bryce Dallas Howard earned less than her male co-star Chris Pratt for the Jurassic World movies, one of many examples of high-profile gender pay gaps in Hollywood.
In 2018, Variety reported that Howard made $8 million for the 2018 sequel Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom while Pratt was paid $10 million, despite the two sharing equal billing and screen time. In a new interview with Insider, however, 41-year-old actress-director Howard says the disparity between their compensation was actually much more significant.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
What is it like to try to live what Julian Assange is living, incarcerated as he is in London’s Belmarsh prison since April 11, 2019 for having had the audacity to make public the secret war crimes, environmental crimes and human rights crimes of the United States and the United Kingdom? A young woman from Como has decided to reenact Assange’s dramatic condition – albeit in the open air and only for a limited time – with a “street installation” in a central square of the Northern Italian town of Como. She hopes that passersbys will be led to put themselves into Julian’s shoes and thus better comprehend the conditions under which he is trying to survive.
It is now well over 1,220 days, in fact, that Assange has been imprisoned, in solitary confinement, in a cell that measures three meters by two (roughly 7 feet by 10 feet),
- with only one hour of air time,
- with only two visits per month, of 15 minutes each,
- with only one phone call of just a few minutes per month, and
- with another 175 years of prison time awaiting him in the United States!
All this without there ever having been a conviction against him (except for a minor misdemeanor, no longer applicable). An incarceration which is therefore absolutely arbitrary – just like in the worst authoritarian regimes from which the very UK and US claim to distance themselves but, in this case, don’t.
It is a legal monstrosity that cries out for vengeance. And to cry out her rage, the young woman from Como has decided to enact in public what it means to be in a cell like Julian’s.
Every Saturday afternoon for the next eight months, Lorena Corrias will draw on the pavement of Piazza Verdi, in front of Como’s Social Theatre, the outline of a 7X10 foot cell – with a poster of Assange covering a space the size of the Belmarsh cot – and will sit there from 4 to 6 p.m. (during summer), getting up only to distribute leaflets to passersby. The municipality has allowed her to occupy the 64 square feet of city property until March 25, 2023. She began enacting her protest on August 6, wearing for the occasion an orange jumpsuit reminiscent of that worn by prisoners in Guantanamo. (Belmarsh prison is, in fact, often called “the British Guantanamo”.)
The Assange case is the story of a man persecuted and mistreated for revealing the sordid secrets of the powerful, in particular, war crimes, torture and corruption. It’s a story of deliberately arbitrary judicial decisions made by Western democracies eager to claim exemplary human rights records. It’s a story of deliberate collusion by intelligence services without the knowledge of national parliaments and the public. And it’s a story of manipulated and manipulative reporting by the mainstream media to deliberately isolate, demonise and destroy an individual.
Human rights lawyer Stella Assange — the wife of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — says her husband’s ongoing extradition battle has set a dangerous precedent for press freedom worldwide.
Assange is wanted in the United States on 18 criminal charges, including espionage, for publishing classified documents that detailed war crimes. If he is extradited, he could be sentenced to up to 175 years in prison.
“This is the most dangerous attack on press freedom globally because it is the United States that is going after a foreign journalist working abroad, publishing abroad,” Assange’s wife told DW’s Birgit Maas.
As most international legal luminaries had predicted, the British government succumbed to pressure from the US and is fast-tracking the process of deporting Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, to that country to face trial on the serious charges of espionage. British Home Secretary Priti Patel, notorious for her tough stance on immigration, gave the green light for his deportation.
The Supreme Court of the UK ruled in February that Assange could not appeal the decision of lower courts in his extradition case. In April, a magistrates’ court ordered Assange’s extradition under laws relating to the US’ Espionage Act.
Under British laws, Assange had a month’s time to appeal to the Home Secretary against the Supreme Court’s ruling.. In a statement in mid June rejecting the appeal, the British Home Office claimed that the UK could comply with the US government’s long-standing extradition demand because “the UK courts” have come to the conclusion that it would not be “oppressive, unjust or an abuse of power to extradite Mr Assange”. It went on to say that the courts did not find that extradition “would be incompatible with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and to the freedom of expression, and that whilst in the US he will be treated appropriately, including in relation to his health”.
Edith Cabrera of the group “#24F Julian Assange Life and Liberty Coalition” said in an interview that supporters of Assange hope extradition will not take place despite the British government’s decision in June to extradite the Australian journalist.
The group “#24F Julian Assange Life and Freedom Coalition” held a protest in Mexico City this Saturday in front of the embassies of the United Kingdom and the United States to demand Assange’s release as well as his non-extradition.
Gabriel Shipton, brother of Julian Assange, also spoke up to confirm the move, saying, “Julian will be able to bring more offensive legal proceedings using these funds in different territories where the irregularities and government corruption have been.” The statement has been tweeted via AssangeDAO.
Note that the raised capital of $53 million was used to win the “Clock NFT Auction”. The amount was then transferred to the non-profit Wau Holland Stiftung Foundation, dedicated to supporting Julian Assange in his legal battle.
In April, Wau Holland transferred $1.8 million to the Australian Assange Campaign to support them continue their work defending Julian Assange and his human rights.
Lawyers and journalists who visited WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London are suing the CIA and its former Director Mike Pompeo for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless search and seizure of their property, including privileged client-attorney information during visits to the embassy.
Attorneys Margaret Ratner Kunstler and Deborah Hrbek, and journalists John Goetz and Charles Glass are seeking monetary and injunctive relief against the CIA, Pompeo, Spanish security firm UC Global and its owner David Morales. All four plaintiffs are US citizens who visited Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy between January 2017 and March 2018.
Their lawsuit was filed Monday morning in the Southern District of New York and was announced at a press conference livestreamed shortly after.
Richard Roth, whose law firm filed suit, said his clients had learned that when they visited Assange at the embassy their equipment was “taken, imaged and in addition their conversations were recorded by a company at the direction of Mike Pompeo of the CIA.
“It is somewhat startling in light of the Fourth Amendment protection we have in the Constitution, that the federal government would actually go ahead and take this confidential information, some of which is attorney-client privileged, some which of which was [from] journalists and even doctors that visited Mr Assange.”
Roth said the CIA’s “nefarious activities” had violated his clients’ rights and they were seeking damages, including “the return of all this information which was improperly gathered during the visits to Mr Assange.”
Robert Boyle, a New York civil rights and constitutional law attorney who is consulting on the case, explained its significance for the democratic rights of US citizens, “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects US citizens from being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. That fundamental principle applies to searches and seizures directed toward US citizens by US law enforcement anywhere in the world.
“These Fourth Amendment protections were blatantly violated. The contents of the plaintiffs’ digital devices were secretly copied by security personnel recruited by the CIA and then that information was turned over to the CIA. This was part of an intentional plan.”
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was introduced to Congress by James Madison in 1789 and was ratified in 1791.
The suit names the CIA, former CIA director and former US secretary of state Pompeo, and the security firm Undercover Global as defendants.
The suit alleges Undercover Global, which had a security contract with the embassy, swept information on their electronic devices, including communications with Assange, and provided it to the CIA.
In addition it placed microphones around the embassy and sent recordings, as well as footage from security cameras, to the CIA, the suit alleges.
This, the attorneys claim, violated privacy protections for US citizens.
The PUK sent out a congratulatory message to the KDP on the anniversary of its establishment, saying they hope the occasion provides an opportunity to strengthen the relations between the two parties in order to confront the obstacles they have encountered in the Kurdistan Region and Iraq through "mutual understanding."
The PUK stated that they “hope” Kurdish political parties can present a united stance to address the outstanding political issues and movements, especially in Iraq, inviting the parties to confront the current political impasse in Iraq in a unified “national and Kurdistani package.”
As Americans know well, when angry protesters forcibly occupy the national legislature, violence is all too possible. Yet in Iraq, whose democracy was planted by the 2003 U.S. invasion, a similar protest in Baghdad over recent weeks has been relatively peaceful. One reason may be the quiet influence of the country’s most respected religious leader, top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
For 10 months, Iraqi politics has been in a tense stalemate following an inconclusive parliamentary election. No party won enough votes to form a government. The standoff – between two dominant alliances representing the country’s majority Shiites – has been fought behind the scenes as well as in dueling protests in the legislative building and the streets. Fears of a civil war are high with a potential to disrupt the Middle East.
In recent days, Mr. Sistani reportedly met with the leader of one political bloc, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. His bloc, which rejects meddling by Iran, won the most seats in the election. The meeting fits Mr. Sistani’s long insistence that Iraqis act responsibly as a nation to avoid the “abyss of chaos and political obstruction.”
Unlike top Muslim clerics in neighboring Iran, Mr. Sistani believes Islam calls for clerics to largely stay away from ruling a country. He seeks a strong Iraqi identity rooted in democratic values that bind the country’s religious diversity. Yet in times of crisis, the still-divided Iraqis look to him for what he calls “caretaking” and “guidance.”
As in the past, he again walks a fine line between mosque and state. In many ways, though, he speaks for Iraqi youth. Their mass protests in 2019 altered the political landscape with demands for a government based on the common good, not the current power-sharing system that divvies up national resources by sects and ethnicity – with a high dose of corruption.
The Special Representative for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, discussed on Monday the legal issues related to the political impasse in the country with the President of the Supreme Judicial Council, Faiq Zeidan, according to a press statement issued by the Supreme Judicial Council.
The statement mentioned that Plasschaert and Zeidan, during their meeting in the headquarters of the Supreme Judicial Council in Baghdad, talked about the role of the Iraqi judiciary in addressing the legal problems related to the political crisis in Iraq.
The Supreme Judicial Council announced on Sunday that it does not have the authority to dissolve the Iraqi parliament. According to the principle of separation between the three legislative, executive and judicial powers in the Iraqi constitution, the Supreme Judicial Council is not authorized to interfere in the matters of the legislative or executive authorities.
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Climate change comes to Iraq
- Media: Who practices 'identity politics' more than...
- Pardon Donald Trump?
- What we could teach that matters
- We can get behind that
- Jim's World
- Tweet of the week
- 2022 deaths
- This edition's playlist
Post a Comment