Sunday, September 30, 2007

Evan Wolfson, the founder of the modern gay marriage movement, tells the waiter he would like an iced decaf and “the usual.” Wolfson, one of Time Magazine’s Most Influential People in the World, is a man who unflinchingly knows what he wants and stays his course, whether it be in his choice of restaurant or in his choice of battle. And others always know when they see Evan coming what it is that he wants.

Since his time at Harvard Law School when he wrote a paper on the topic, what Wolfson wants is the right for gay people to marry. The issue gained national prominence in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that the government had to show a reason for the denial of the freedom to marry, not just deny marriage licenses to the plaintiff gay couples. Wolfson was co-counsel in the historic 1996 Hawaii trial in which he argued that the government does not have a sufficient reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. In 1999, Wolfson contributed to Baker v. Vermont, the case that led to the creation of civil unions; advised the lead attorneys in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the case that led to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts; and since 2003, when he founded the primary umbrella organization coordinating the efforts to win marriage for gay people, Freedom to Marry, Wolfson has played a role in every marriage equality case in the United States. He is the movement’s founder and leader, and his focus remains square on winning that right. “For years,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, “many of us were saying to him, ‘We’re not ready. The country’s not ready. And, by the way, you’re crazy.'”

When I make a statement to him about his devoting his life to gay marriage, he corrects me: “I’ve played a part in cases that span the entire spectrum of eliminating gay people’s exclusions and limitations on who gay people are, and I’ve also written on immigration and economic justice, and I have worked on cases involving race discrimination in jury selection and women’s inequality. I don’t think one has to pick one of these things; they work together.”

Indeed, he has. Wolfson was lead counsel before the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the case arguing against the expulsion of gay scoutmasters. As an intrepid young assistant district attorney in Brooklyn, Wolfson worked on People v. Liberta to end the exemption that allowed women to be raped by their husbands legally, a right in New York State as early as 1984. And he helped end the practice of choosing jurors based upon their race.

Wolfson’s entire career has been at the center of the most explosive legal and cultural issues of the last 30 years in the United States, and his influence has been profound. David Shankbone sat down with him to discuss some of the recent decisions affecting gay marriage, gender in marriage and reactions in the gay community to his fight for their rights.

Friday, November 3, 2006

On November 13, Torontonians will be heading to the polls to vote for their ward’s councillor and for mayor. Among Toronto’s ridings is Don Valley West (Ward 26). Four candidates responded to Wikinews’ requests for an interview. This ward’s candidates include Muhammad Alam, Bahar Aminvaziri, Orhan Aybars, Michele Carroll-Smith, Mohamed Dhanani, Abdul Ingar, Geoff Kettel, Debbie Lechter, Natalie Maniates, John Masterson, John Parker, David Thomas, Csaba Vegh, and Fred Williams.

For more information on the election, read Toronto municipal election, 2006.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an outbreak of salmonella that has affected at least 399 people in 42 different U.S. states has been linked to King Nut, an American brand of peanut butter. In Minnesota, the state’s Health Department announced that bacteria tests for the disease on a tub of creamy King Nut peanut butter had tested positive for the disease, initiating a recall by its distributor in Solon, King Nut Companies.

Workers found evidence from these tests that the brand caused the outbreak. This has not been completely proven, however, as the Food and Drug Administration and King Nut itself are still conducting tests to discover if the case is isolated or related to the nationwide incident.

According to a statement made by the Health Department, the brand is used in many places including schools, hospitals, some restaurants and retirement homes, 20 alone being in Minnesota. A tub of peanut butter used inside of a retirement home where many of its citizens had become sick was tested positive by Minnesota’s health department.

Yesterday, King Nut Companies recalled all peanut butter distributed by their company. The president of King Nut Companies, Martin Kanan, said in a statement yesterday, “We are very sorry this happened. We are taking immediate and voluntary action because the health and safety of those who use our products is always our highest priority.”

In a web statement, King Nut told all of its customers to “put on hold all of their peanut butter in question. A recall of this product will be announced Monday morning. At this point it is unclear what Peanut Corporation of America will do with regard to this case or the national case of the salmonella outbreak.” The Peanut Corporation of America, located in Lynchburg but also operating in the states of Texas and Georgia, is the manufacturer for King Nut.

Salmonellosis is an infection of salmonella bacteria that usually results in diarrhea, fever, vomiting, and abdominal cramps. These symptoms are normally developed 12 to 72 hours after a person is infected, and can last anywhere from 3 to 7 days. Most of the time, the infected person will recover from the disease, but younger and older people have higher risks of it developing and becoming serious. Rarely, salmonella can cause hospitalization, and very rarely, it can lead to death.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Wreckage from an airplane in the Atlantic Ocean 650 kilometres from the coast of Brazil has been confirmed by the Brazilian government to be from Air France Flight 447.

Nelson Jobim, the Brazilian Defence Minister, said that there were no survivors.

An airplane seat and life vest were found floating in Atlantic waters on Tuesday. A French ship arrived at the area on the same day, and confirmed the debris. According to CNN, a vessel from the Brazilian navy is to arrive at the scene on Wednesday.

The main goal for search crews will be to find the cockpit voice and data recorder to help find out what caused the crash. However, the Brazilian defence minister said that it may be hard to find them due to the large depth of the ocean in the area, saying that “it could be at a depth of 2,000 or 3,000 metres [6,500 to 9,800 feet] in that area of the ocean.”

Air France Flight 447 was an Airbus A330 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, France, with 228 people on board, when it vanished from radar screens after entering an area with severe turbulence.

Friday, February 12, 2010

An Indonesian court has convicted the former head of the country’s anti-corruption agency of murder. The prosecution of Antasari Azhar and three others has been controversial, with some fearing the so-called “Judicial Mafia” played a role.

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) already saw a proven plot to discredit it and frame its senior members. Shortly after Azhar’s arrest in May last year police came to take away Bibit Rianto and Chandra Hamzah, two deputy commissioners, to face trial for corruption. The trial, instead, unveiled a plot to convict the men of offences they had not committed. Protests in the street ensued, and locals gave corrupt officials the joint nickname of the “Judicial Mafia”.

The scandal resulted in the resignations of a chief detective and a deputy attorney general; the KPK had begun probing the attorney general’s office and that of the national police. During Azhar’s time as chair the KPK has exposed bribery at the former and prosecuted an in-law relative of the president during the country’s election preparations, with a jail sentence being the result.

The defendants had claimed political elements orchestrated a conspiracy to see the quartet convicted. The judges disagreed, with judge Herri Swantoro telling the court, “Defendant Antasari Azhar has been legitimately proven guilty of participating in persuading the carrying out of a premeditated murder.” The court’s judgement ran to 179 pages.

The case saw the four accused of plotting the March 2009 murder of tycoon Nasruddin Zulkarnaen, shot dead in his car by a motorbike assassin in Jakarta. Zulkarnaen was Azhar’s golfing partner and the businessman was alleged by the prosecution to have been blackmailing the KPK leader, who is a former prosecutor.

Azhar is alleged to have had an affair with one of Zulkarnaen’s wives, a golf caddie. With Zulkarnaen threatening to inform the press and parliament, Azhar is alleged to have plotted murder with several other officials. Police commissioner Wiliardi Wizar was accused of locating the assassins used; he claimed his senior had ordered him to testify he had been told by Azhar to kill Zulkarnaen.

Media mogul Sigid Haryo Wibisono stood accused of financing the contract killing, and businessman Jerry Hermawan Lo of arranging a meeting with the gunmen. All three were convicted alongside Azhar, who received an eighteen-year prison sentence. Wizar was jailed for twelve years, Wibisono for fifteen and Lo for five. All intend to appeal the verdicts.

One person who feels the court got it wrong is a human rights lawyer who defended Bibit and Chandra. “I think that this is all still a mystery,” said Taufik Basari. “I don’t think the judge had all the necessary facts to warrant a verdict of eighteen years.”

Despite the conviction of his relative, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono retained the presidency last June by a landslide majority. Originally elected in 2004, Yudhoyono has used an anti-corruption stance in his campaigns, heaping praise upon the KPK which Azhar was head of from December 2007 until his arrest.

The four new convicts join five men convicted of the murder in December. Alleged to have comprised the gang behind the shooting, they received sentences varying from seventeen to eighteen years imprisonment.

Monday, September 30, 2019

Friday, the United States House of Representatives issued a subpoena for documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as part of its impeachment investigation into alleged misconduct by sitting President Donald Trump. On the same day, Kurt Volker, the United States special envoy for Ukraine negotiations, resigned without public explanation. The House issued a deposition request for Volker, scheduled for this week.

Volker’s resignation was the first since details emerged about Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Volker’s position as special envoy, an unpaid part-time role, put him in center of the Trump administration’s affairs in Ukraine. In July, he helped facilitate a meeting between Giuliani, claiming to represent the State Department, and Andriy Yermak, one of President Zelensky’s aides. Volker also worked to arrange a meeting between Zelensky and Trump himself during President Trump’s planned trip to Warsaw, which was cancelled.

The subpoena was issued jointly by Representatives Eliot Engel, Adam Schiff, and Elijah Cummings, who serve as chairmen of the House’s committees on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform, respectively. It follows repeated failed attempts to obtain documents from the State Department through previous document requests. Among other things, the House subpoenaed a full transcript of a call between Trump and then-newly elected President Zelensky in late July. It also called for records relating to the Trump administration’s temporary withholding of security aid to Ukraine, as well as files relating to attempts by Rudy Giuliani to encourage investigations into Democratic challenger former Vice President Joe Biden. Biden is one of the front runners for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in the upcoming 2020 race. Giuliani was serving as Trump’s personal lawyer at the time. The New York Times reports that more subpoenas are likely to be issued in the coming week.

According to a whistle-blower complaint, Trump may have misused his office. Last week the White House released a summary of a phone call made by President Trump late last July to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In it, Trump asks Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Shortly before the conversation, Trump had ordered his staff to delay around US$400 million in military aid that had been slated for Ukraine, which is currently in a military conflict with Russia.

The accusation against Biden is that, during his time as President Barack Obama’s vice president, he called for the government of Ukraine to reduce corruption but at the same time interfered with an investigation into Burisma Holdings; Hunter Biden was on the board of the company at the time. An investigation by PolitiFact found no such action on Joe Biden’s part, and the investigation into Burisma had already been inactive for more than a year before Biden involved himself in Ukraine’s politics in this way.

Trump said that he did indicate to the Ukrainians that the aid was contingent on their addressing corruption but denied that he made any specific deal about the Bidens. “I put no pressure on them whatsoever,” he told the press. “I could have. I think it would probably, possibly have been OK if I did. But I didn’t. I didn’t put any pressure on them whatsoever.”

While in New York City to attend the United Nations General Assembly, President Zelensky told reporters, “Nobody can put pressure on me because I am the president of an independent state. The only one person by the way who can put pressure on me […] is my son, who is six years old.”

Regarding Trump’s phone call, former federal prosecutor Elie Honig said via Twitter: “If I got a transcript like the Trump-Ukraine call in a regular criminal case for bribery or extortion, I’d think, ‘Wow, I’m surprised they’re discussing this so openly and clearly.’ “

“The only conclusion I can reach after reading that devastating call summary is that Trump’s White House staff want him to resign or be impeached,” tweeted former thinktank executive Ken Gude. “That’s the only explanation I can come up with for why they would release this call summary.”

According to a poll published by NBC News last week, over 220 members of the House of Representatives favored some form of impeachment. One of the Representatives was an independent; the rest were from the Democratic Party. Together, the number of members is enough for the simple majority vote required by the United States Constitution to impeach an official. Some reported wanting to draft articles of impeachment, while others preferred an investigation by either the House Judiciary Committee or another body. Since then, a Republican, Mark Amodei, has publicly voiced support for the impeachment inquiry, telling the Nevada Independent: “I’m a big fan of oversight, so let’s let the committees get to work and see where it goes.” He continued by noting that “Using government agencies to, if it’s proven, to put your finger on the scale of an election, I don’t think that’s right […] If it turns out that it’s something along those lines, then there’s a problem.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, the House of Representatives impeaches the official and then the impeachment trial is conducted in the Senate. The only punishments an impeachment trial may lay down are removal from office and prohibition from holding office in the future. They do not impose fines or prison terms. No U.S. president has ever been removed by impeachment, but eight federal judges have. Two-thirds of senators must vote to convict in the trial for removal from office.