#but the base of our law is the british law system and if we were never conquered it makes no sense

[gohard-or-gohomo]

Why has my planning for a fun lesbian detective story turned into researching brehon law. WHAT IS HAPPENING!!!!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The Chronicle Herald :: Michael de Adder :: @deAdder

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 28, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Jul 29, 2024

Just a week ago, it seems, a new America began. I’ve struggled ever since to figure out what the apparent sudden revolution in our politics means.

I keep coming back to the Ernest Hemingway quote about how bankruptcy happens. He said it happens in two stages, first gradually and then suddenly.

That’s how scholars say fascism happens, too—first slowly and then all at once—and that’s what has been keeping us up at night.

But the more I think about it, the more I think maybe democracy happens the same way, too: slowly, and then all at once. 

At this country’s most important revolutionary moments, it has seemed as if the country turned on a dime. 

In 1763, just after the end of the French and Indian War, American colonists loved that they were part of the British empire. And yet, by 1776, just a little more than a decade later, they had declared independence from that empire and set down the principles that everyone has a right to be treated equally before the law and to have a say in their government.

The change was just as quick in the 1850s. In 1853 it sure looked as if the elite southern enslavers had taken over the country. They controlled the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They explicitly rejected the Declaration of Independence and declared that they had the right to rule over the country’s majority. They planned to take over the United States and then to take over the world, creating a global economy based on human enslavement. 

And yet, just seven years later, voters put Abraham Lincoln in the White House with a promise to stand against the Slave Power and to protect a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” He ushered in “a new birth of freedom” in what historians call the second American revolution. 

The same pattern was true in the 1920s, when it seemed as if business interests and government were so deeply entwined that it was only a question of time until the United States went down the same dark path to fascism that so many other nations did in that era. In 1927, after the execution of immigrant anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, poet John Dos Passos wrote: “they have clubbed us off the streets they are stronger they are rich they hire and fire the politicians the newspaper editors the old judges the small men with reputations….” 

And yet, just five years later, voters elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who promised Americans a New Deal and ushered in a country that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights.

Every time we expand democracy, it seems we get complacent, thinking it’s a done deal. We forget that democracy is a process and that it’s never finished.

And when we get complacent, people who want power use our system to take over the government. They get control of the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and they begin to undermine the principle that we should be treated equally before the law and to chip away at the idea that we have a right to a say in our government. And it starts to seem like we have lost our democracy. 

But all the while, there are people who keep the faith. Lawmakers, of course, but also teachers and journalists and the musicians who push back against the fear by reminding us of love and family and community. And in those communities, people begin to organize—the marginalized people who are the first to feel the bite of reaction, and grassroots groups. They keep the embers of democracy alive.

And then something fans them into flame. 

In the 1760s it was the Stamp Act, which said that men in Great Britain had the right to rule over men in the American colonies. In the 1850s it was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which gave the elite enslavers the power to rule the United States. And in 1929 it was the Great Crash, which proved that the businessmen had no idea what they were doing and had no plan for getting the country out of the Great Depression.

The last several decades have felt like we were fighting a holding action, trying to protect democracy first from an oligarchy and then from a dictator. Many Americans saw their rights being stripped away…even as they were quietly becoming stronger. 

That strength showed in the Women’s March of January 2017, and it continued to grow—quietly under Donald Trump and more openly under the protections of the Biden administration. People began to organize in school boards and state legislatures and Congress. They also began to organize over TikTok and Instagram and Facebook and newsletters and Zoom calls. 

And then something set them ablaze. The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision stripped away from the American people a constitutional right they had enjoyed for almost fifty years, and made it clear that a small minority intended to destroy democracy and replace it with a dictatorship based in Christian nationalism. 

When President Joe Biden announced just a week ago that he would not accept the Democratic nomination for president, he did not pass the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris.

He passed it to us. 

It is up to us to decide whether we want a country based on fear or on facts, on reaction or on reality, on hatred or on hope.

It is up to us whether it will be fascism or democracy that, in the end, moves swiftly, and up to us whether we will choose to follow in the footsteps of those Americans who came before us in our noblest moments, and launch a brand new era in American history.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[opencommunion]

"Britain’s largest gathering of counter-terrorism experts assembled in London last month to discuss what one police chief called 'legal but harmful protest' following Israel’s war on Gaza. Inside a cavernous Docklands conference hall, companies at the Counter Terror Expo displayed gas mask-clad dummies and crowd control systems as enthusiastic AI reps promised revolutionary advances in surveillance. Tools for hacking phones with 'brute force,' monitoring someone’s emotional state based on their social media and rapidly digesting the contents of an 'acquired' computer were all up for sale. Among the potential customers were foreign police departments, including officers fresh from Georgia’s violent crackdown on anti-Russia protests.

Several salespeople declined to explain their products to the media. 'I can’t believe they let you people in here,' one rep told Declassified after seeing our press card. 'I think it’s disgusting.' Her company markets AI tools for military and law enforcement to process recordings of people’s voices. 

When delegates weren’t browsing spyware or sipping craft beer with a £12 'world food' meal deal, they could listen to the security industry’s leading lights. These included detective chief superintendent Maria Lovegrove who runs Britain’s Prevent strategy against radicalisation. She trumpeted 53 arrests for terrorism offences since October 7. Only one of these was for violence. The rest concerned social media posts or attending gatherings. Asked whether this data suggests police are overreacting to peaceful pro-Palestine protests, Lovegrove valorised an 'early intervention' approach. She told Declassified this was the 'greatest tool in preventing terror attacks' and insisted officers 'only arrest and prosecute when we have to.' Among those arrests were three women found guilty for wearing paraglider stickers at a protest.

Dom Murphy – the Met’s counter terrorism commander – told delegates he was monitoring 'legal but harmful' protests and the risk of 'low-sophistication' attacks by people radicalised online or at university since October 7th. 'If there are 100,000 people at a protest, and one person holding a Hamas flag, we will find them and arrest them,' Murphy reassured attendees. A majority of recent arrests targeted individuals aged under 17, he boasted, as proof that the 'early intervention' approach was working. 

Another panellist praised Britain’s ability to pre-emptively arrest people for public order offences at demonstrations and target them for terror offences further down the line. Craig McCann, a former senior Prevent officer, expressed the mood in the room when he described ceasefire marches as a 'permissive environment for the transfer of extremist ideology.' Like other speakers, he sought to delegitimise opponents of Israel’s war on Gaza by characterising pro-Palestine protests as an 'Islamist camp conflating with far-Right anti-Semitism.' McCann explicitly linked Palestinian nationalism with Nazism, an Israeli propaganda point. Fellow panellists claimed parts of London were a 'no-go zone for Jews.' Discussing threats from 'street protest all the way through to terrorism,' the conference presented far Left, far Right, 'Islamist' and 'environmentalist' ideologies as equal, inter-related threats to British society. ... After lunch, discussion turned to 'British values' and protecting England from the menace of social media and foreign flags that vexed thousands of officers under Murphy’s command. Many felt the next-generation tech on display would ensure ever more effective crackdowns on street protest and dissent."

[everything-is-crab]

:))

This is what I meant when I said both rightoids and liberals in India are equally dumb as fuck. Both are pro imperialists. She's not even lower caste and yet she's speaking on behalf of us. I have seen this trend in a lot of "anticasteist" upper caste women (who unfortunately have more voices than people like me, actually women from oppressed castes).

How are these people different from the white supremacists who say brown people are intellectually and socially inferior?

"At least the goras let us have meat" oh okay we're gonna ignore the 3 million lives lost in Bengal famine caused by Churchill's policies (after which he blamed it on us instead of his own greediness). Did he let those people eat meat then? Unhinged shit. They wouldn't let people fill their bellies cause sometimes instead of food crops they wanted our ancestors to grow cotton, indigo, spices, tea. Which also left areas prone to land disasters. Commercial stuff that they could sell at much cheaper prices in their own countries and others in the Western world as well. Also levied extremely unreasonably high taxes. Leaving us with no money. Delusional world these middle/upper class liberals live in where the British let us have meat. They didn't even let us have rice.

The British protected the caste system. Read Sharmila Rege's work about how the British introduced the process of "Brahmanisation" in colonial India.

This is the exact thing Hindu nationalists are doing rn! And have been doing forever! Protecting Western imperialists! Why do you think Modi is bootlicking the US so much? Do you think the farmers' protests and the after effects of globalization after 1991 are disconnected from Western imperialism?

Just because nationalists claim to be against white dominance doesn't mean they practice what they preach.

And this folks is why you need to incorporate class and gender in your analysis and not read about the work of only the middle class men of a community :)

Women and poor people matter too.

But unfortunately many earlier anti caste activists who were middle or upper class were anti Marxists and only later few like the Dalit Panthers and R.B More realized the importance of Marxist analysis for understanding modern caste based oppression more. Yes many Indian Marxists ignored casteism. But that does not mean we must dispose it as a useless theory.

But who tf cares about the Dalit Panthers or anyone else? Have you even heard of any other names that aren't Phule or Ambedka? Everyone followed and still follow people like Periyar, Ambedkar, Phule who were all from relatively well off family. And why will people who uncritically follow these people not think colonization was as bad? All of them attended British school and went for higher studies as well. The British was staunchly anti communist. They constantly resisted communist activists in colonial India. This is a privilege even today many people from oppressed castes cannot enjoy.

I have seen all these upper caste women, ignore people like me pointing this out. They think we're against education of oppressed castes (why would I advocate that for my own community?). But rather we take issue to these men ignoring their economic and male privilege and speaking on behalf of all of us.

A reminder that Periyar criminalized devadasis and read Ambedkar's arguments against Hindutva solutions to the Partition (hint: he cared more about the money that could be wasted in missionaries rather than the violence and human rights and unironically called Muslim people "tyrannical" and referred to "Muslim oppression" on Hindus). He was anti casteist, but he was Islamophobic.

To avoid with this kind of thinking, follow Dalit feminist theory. Dalit femininism from its inception has been pro Marxist (cause women make most of poor here). And they explain the effects of colonization on lower caste women (how the British introduced evidence act, a law that justified rape against lower caste women and let me remind you gang rape of lower caste women by upper caste men is a national issue. Ex the Manipur case, the rape of Phoolan Devi, the Hathras case etc). And how dowry (that earlier used to be a practice mainly amongst upper castes was now becoming dominant in lower castes as well due to capitalization of economy during colonial era). Maybe then you will understand why the British abolished sati but not any temple prostitution or other issues faced exclusively by women from oppressed castes. In fact they called upper caste women those who deserve to be protected but lower caste women were inherently deviant in their justification. But please go ahead and argue how imperialism brings "good things" sometimes.

Just read about caste reformation during colonial era. The choice isn't between hindutva and colonial era. The choice is between hindutva and hindutva along with colonial rule. Why do most liberals pretend the British never favored the Brahmins over everybody else?

White supremacy is so much better than Hindu supremacy for women of lower castes am I right guys?

This is so much better?

Also reminded of the "breast cloth" controversy. Do not mistake that anti caste activism is always anti caste for both Dalit men and women. Sometimes it favors Dalit men. And oppresses Dalit women further. Cause usually the colonizers never cared about oppressed castes but when they did, it was only for the men.

Ik many upper caste Marxists are not good at anti caste politics but I cannot separate Marxism from my anti caste or feminist politics. And as a Marxist from a formerly colonized country, I cannot ignore the imperial divide between the West (that is white dominated) and the global south (that includes India). You cannot separate the conditions of brown and black people today in the global south from the past dynamics of the colonizer and the colonized.

Lower caste women are obviously very poor. The poorest of all with least social protection. These upper caste women can sit on their asses and write papers and blogs on how much white supremacy was much cooler. But the ones from oppressed castes and working class? They don't have this privilege. They have the same burden of upper caste women related to marriage and domestic work and everything. But on top of that they have to do labor as well. And after globalization, when condition of "blue collar jobs" degraded (wages lowered, subsidies cut, worker protection rights gone etc) , the percentage of women in these fields increased. That's not a coincidence. Men always force women into lower earning occupations that have little job security. I am not gonna ignore this.

Fuck Hindutva. But fuck white supremacy too. For me neither is better. Both go hand in hand in fact. Look at the Hindu nationalists in France allying with white supremacists over shared conservative interests.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

In your last reply you mentioned that knowing exaclty which deputies Robespierre was referring to in his speech is a question for another day. I take the opportunity to ask it to you now! Are there some primary sources stating the exact names and if not who do you personally think they were? I initially thought he was referring to the deputies on missions that committed many atrocities, but this post of yours ("Robespierre — ”horrified” by excessive Representatives on Mission?")made me skeptical about it.

Nope, no complete list of name was ever found, so figuring out exactly who Robespierre was gunning for is entirely up to speculation. Personally, I think the best way to do it would be looking over several pieces dating back to the months/weeks surrounding thermidor, and the more places a person’s name shows up on, the more likely they are to have been on the menu.

We can start off with Robespierre’s 8 thermidor speech and the people that he does mention by name in it. This gives us above all Cambon, Ramel and Mallarmé:

The counter-revolution lies in the administration of finances. It is all about system of counter-revolutionary innovation, disguised under the appearance of patriotism. It seeks to foment agiotage, to weaken the public credence by dishonouring the French loyalty, to favour the rich creditors, to ruin and to discourage the poor, to multiply the number of unhappy ones, to deprive the people of the national goods, and to imperceptibly bring the ruin of the public fortune. Who are the supreme administrators of our finances? Brissotins, Feuillants, aristocrats and known rascals. Who are the supreme administrators of our finances? Brissotins, Feuillants, aristocrats and known rascals; these are the Cambons, the Mallarmés, the Ramels; these are the companions and the successors of Chabot, of Fabre and of Julien de Toulouse.

In a struck out part he also openly denounces Amar and Jagot from the Committee of General Security:

Amar and Jagot, having seized the policing, have more influence alone than all the members of the Committee of General Security: their power is still based on this army of clerks of which they are the bosses and the generals; it is they who are the principal architects of the system of divisiveness and slander. 

Finally, in one version given of the speech he also explicitly denounces Fouché for his role in the dechristnanization process — ”No Fouché, death is no eternal sleep.” 

Other than that, no names are mentioned, but we do learn about other elements regarding the conspiracy — its members have sought to ruin the revolution through excess on one side and indulgence on the other, some of them are advocates of atheism, and all of it can be traced back to British Prime minister William Pitt, the duke of York and ”all the tyrants that are armed against us.” More importantly, it includes deputies of both the Convention, the Committee of Public Safety (CPS), the Committee of General Security (CGS) and agents of this latter committee. For the CPS, Billaud-Varennes is indirectly denounced: ”Why do those who told you once : I tell you that we are walking on volcanoes, believe that they only walk on roses today?” This is confirmed by the speech Saint-Just tried to hold the following day — ”Billaud often repeats these words with feigned fear: We are walking on a volcano.” The CGS is in its turn distincly denounced for the so called Catherine Théot affair (which I wrote about more at length here). While again no specific names are mentioned, the committee member most implicated in said affair was its president, Vadier, who was the one who read aloud the report regarding it to the Convention on June 15.

Second of all, we can take a look at these notes on ”suspect” deputies found among Robespierre’s papers, written by him sometime after the passing of the law of 22 prairial. On the list is Dubois-de-Crancé, held suspect for behaving like a counter-revolutionary while on mission and having been closely linked with the Duke of Orléans, Delmas, suspect for being a former noble and a ”mad intriguer”, behaving ambiguously at the army of the North and having been allied with the Girondins and then the dantonists, Thuriot, for being an ally of Orléans, having quited down after the death of Danton, going to dinners held by the latter and Delacroix and while there having made ”an attempt to stop the revolutionary movement, by preaching indulgence under the name of morality, when one delivered the first blows to the aristocracy” and trying to arm the National Convention against the CPS when Saint-Just read out the report against the dantonists, Bourdon de l'Oise for throwing orgies and killing voluntaries with his hand while on a mission, making a motion to no longer pay direct taxes which would remove the resource of fish, speaking out against the law of 22 Prairial when it was first introduced, being a fierce defender of the system of atheism and dismantling the decree proclaiming the existence of the Supreme Being, making sarcastic remarks during the festival of the Supreme Being, threatning a young girl with a pair of pistols and saying that, if he were to shoot himself, she would be accused of murder and guillotined, having written a letter to counter-revolutionary saying that the prisoners would soon be released and those responsible for their arrest put in their place, and walking ”with the appearance of an assassin who contemplates a crime,” and finally Léonard Bourdon, suspect for having been a ”despised intriguer all the time,” one of the principal accomplices of Hébert and Cloots, composing a counter-revolutionary, hébertist, opera that was shut down by the Committee of Public Safety, enlarging the number of his lodgers, trying to solicit the liberty of a Dutch banker and then denying it, as well as speaking without taking his hat off and wearing ridicolous clothes at the Convention. 

This list also implicates Carnot, who brought a clerk Bourdon d’Oise presented into his offices (a clerk that was later dismissed upon the repeated proposal of Robespierre) and is often communitating with Delmas, as well as Dufourny, denounced as a friend of both Danton and Dubois de Crancé.

Third, we can look at the people Robespierre openly denounced in the weeks right before thermidor. Here we find Pille, denounced by Robespierre on July 16, saying that his conduct ”deserves the most serious attention,” Fouché, expelled from the Jacobins by Robespierre on July 14 for his conduct while on mission and having since become ”the leader of the conspiracy which we have to thwart,” Dubois-Crancé on July 11, accused of showing weakness in the taking of Lyon by Robespierre and expelled from the Jacobins on the initiative of Couthon, and Tallien on June 12 who Robespierre claims ”is one of those who speak incessantly with terror, and publicly of the guillotine, as something that concerns them, to debase and disturb the National Convention.”

If we back a few more months we find Amar, called out on March 16 for his report on the East India company scandal by Robespierre and Billaud-Varennes, who both consider it too narrow. The same day Robespierre also openly opposes a motion from Léonard Bourdon, who, he says, ”it is not yet proven doesn’t belong to the conjuration,” and finally, on April 5 Dufourny is expelled from the Jacobins  by Robespierre as a friend of Danton.

We also have an unfinished, undelivered speech Robespierre wrote somewhere in February-March 1794, before the purge of the hébertist and dantonists. Among the by now executed men, we also find a few that have escaped procecution:

And who are the authors of this system of disorganization? […] It’s Dubois-de-Crancé, accused of having betrayed the interests of the Republic before Lyon. It’s Merlin (de Thionville), famous for the capitulation of Mayence, more than suspected of having received the prize; It’s Bourdon de l'Oise; it’s Philippeaux; it’s the two Goupilleaus (Jean-François Goupilleau and Philippe-Charles-Aimé Goupilleau) both citizens of the Vendée; all needing to throw back on the patriots who hold the reins of the government the multiplied prevarications of which they were guilty during their mission of the Vendée; It is Maribon-Montant, once a minion and declared partisan of the former Duke of Orléans, the only one of his family who has not emigrated, formerly as proud of his title of marquis and his financial nobility as he is now bold to deny them; serving as well as he could his friends at Coblenz in the popular societies, where he recently condemned to the guillotine five hundred members of the National Convention; seeking to avenge his humiliated caste by his eternal denunciations against the Committee of Public Safety and against all patriots.

It can finally also be observed that in his notes jotted down against the dantonists, Robespierre writes that Danton’s influence can be spotted in the writings of Bourdon (he doesn’t specify which one). Robespierre’s ally Claude-François Payan (put on third place on a list of patriots written by Robespierre) did in his turn call for the overthrow of ”Bourdon and his accomplices” in a letter to Robespierre dated June-July 1794.

We can also look at which deputies Robespierre’s collegues after thermidor said he wanted proscribed. These pieces should of course be treated with more caution given the time they were written, but they do still come from people who would have been in the right place to know and most were reported not that long after the fact.

The deputy Joachim Vilate reports in his Causes secrètes de la révolution du 9 au 10 thermidor (published October 1794) to have talked to Barère right after Robespierre had read his speech on 8 thermidor. The conversation, he claims, went as follows:

After a few minutes of silence I asked [Barère] this: ”Who might [Robespierre] have reason to attack?” ”This Robespierre is insatiable,” said Barère, ”since we won’t do everything he wants, he must break the glass with us. Had we been talking about Thuriot, Guffroy, Rovère, Lecointre, Panis, Cambon and this Monestier, who has offended my entire family, and the whole aftermath of the dantonists, and we would also understand him asking for Tallien, Bourdon de l’Oise, Legendre, Fréron, in due time…, but Duval, but Audouin, but Léonard Bourdon, Vadier, Vouland, it is impossible to consent to that.”

Barère himself, along with Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois and Vadier, reported the following when defending themselves against Laurent Lecointre’s charge of having been Robespierre’s ”accomplices” in 1795:

They are strange accomplices of Robespierre, those who, against his will, made a political report on the religious troubles, sheltered from all research in this matter the representatives of the people sent on mission in the departments, defended Tallien, Dubois-Crance, Fouché, Bourdon de l'Oise, and other representatives whom he relentlessly pursued. […] One day, we read letters and information sent to the Committee of General Security: Robespierre demanded immediate arrest for the two deputies denounced in these letters: the arrest of Dubois-Crancé was discussed and rejected: that of Alquier was strongly advocated by Robespierre who accused us of softening against the culprits and thus losing the public sake.

They also share an anecdote where Carnot would have called Saint-Just and Robespierre ”ridiculous dictators” during a committee meeting in May-June, after Saint-Just had threatened him with the guillotine. This incident is probably what Robespierre is referring to when he on July 1 said: ”In London I am denounced as a dictator, the same slander has been repeated in Paris: you would tremble if I told you where.”

They also write that during a CPS meeting on June 11, its members, with Billaud-Varennes in the forefont, loudly accused Couthon and Robespierre of having written and pushed through the Law of 22 Prarial without anyone else in the committee having been involved, and that the session after that got so stormy that the windows had to be closed.

In his memoirs, however sketchy those may be, Barère also claimed to have remember Robespierre showing a list to the CPS. ”It contained the names of 18 deputies [Robespierre] wanted to indict for going beyond their merit and exercising tyranny in the departments to which they had been sent. I remember a few of these names: Tallien, Fréron, Barras, Alquier, Dubois-Crancé, Monestier du Puy-de-Dôme, Prieur, Cavaignac.”

As for the representatives on mission, I think it’s rather clear Fouché was among the people Robespierre was after (you don’t exactly get called ”the leader of the conspiracy” for nothing). And as can also be seen, Fréron and Barras they too appear, if not in Robespierre’s own papers and speeches, at least on lists given after the fact by people who worked close to him. However, if it can be established that Robespierre possibly targeted these three, I don’t think it can be pinned down that he did so precisely for the excessive violence they exercised in the departments as the story often goes. Like I wrote in the post you cited, judging by what Robespierre says to Fouché when denouncing him, I think it sounds more like he’s accusing him of dechristnanization and falling out with Lyon’s local jacobins than he is of executing too many people (on July 11 he does after all say that national justice in Lyon ”wasn’t executed with the degree needed. The temporary commission initially showed energy, but soon gave way to human weakness which too soon tires of serving the fatherland.”)

For Carrier, I can find absolutly no mention of him in either Robespierre’s speeches and papers or lists given after the fact. The only person pointing him out as someone Robespierre had a problem with that I know of is Charlotte Robespierre in her memoirs — ”Many times [Maximilien] asked, in vain, for Carrier, whom Billaud-Varennes protected, to be recalled.” Charlotte already makes other claims regarding her brother’s supposed moderation that get more dubious when you look closer at them, and in this case we even have a different statement to counter it with. It comes from the deputy Laignelot who during the trial of Carrier had the following to say:

Before Carrier was denounced, I had told this fact to several of my colleagues. I went to see Robespierre; I described to him all the horrors that had been committed in Nantes; he replied: “Carrier is a patriot; that was needed in Nantes.” 

Judging by when Laignelot says this, it can’t exactly be treated as hard evidence either, but I think it is enough to get Charlotte’s claim locked in a word against word duel. It must on the other hand be observed that all the lists from right after thermidor were written after Carrier had been either arrested or executed, and that it therefore doesn’t sound impossible the author would have cleaned up his name would it be true he was on there, but then there’s no way to prove that was the case either.

I will say I think you can still build a functioning thesis that Robespierre was aiming at the representatives on mission, and this for having been too excessive with the amount of executions. However, with so many others deputies explicately named by Robespierre himself, I find it hard to believe they were the prime targets, which is why it’s so strange to me that some historians still portray it that way. 

Given the things written above, my own guess as to which deputies Robespierre was targeting would go a little like this:

Likely on the list: Cambon, Ramel, Mallarmé, Amar, Jagot (openly denounced in Robespierre’s thermidor speech), Bourdon de l’Oise (brought up 6 times) Dubois-Crancé (5 times), Fouché (3 times), Léonard Bourdon (3 times) Delmas, Thuriot (appear on a list of suspect deputies).

Possibly on the list: Tallien (3 times), Fréron, Alquier, Monestier, Billaud-Varennes, Vadier, Carnot (2 times), Barras, Pille Merlin de Thionville, Jean-François Goupilleau, Philippe-Charles-Aimé Goupilleau, Maribon-Montant, Thuriot, Guffroy, Rovère, Lecointre, Panis, Duval, Audouin, Vouland, Prieur, Cavaignac (1 time).

[mariacallous]

Tech companies and privacy activists are claiming victory after an eleventh-hour concession by the British government in a long-running battle over end-to-end encryption.

The so-called “spy clause” in the UK’s Online Safety Bill, which experts argued would have made end-to-end encryption all but impossible in the country, will no longer be enforced after the government admitted the technology to securely scan encrypted messages for signs of child sexual abuse material, or CSAM, without compromising users’ privacy, doesn’t yet exist. Secure messaging services, including WhatsApp and Signal, had threatened to pull out of the UK if the bill was passed.

“It’s absolutely a victory,” says Meredith Whittaker, president of the Signal Foundation, which operates the Signal messaging service. Whittaker has been a staunch opponent of the bill, and has been meeting with activists and lobbying for the legislation to be changed. “It commits to not using broken tech or broken techniques to undermine end-to-end encryption.”

The UK government hadn’t specified the technology that platforms should use to identify CSAM being sent on encrypted services, but the most commonly-cited solution was something called client-side scanning. On services that use end-to-end encryption, only the sender and recipient of a message can see its content; even the service provider can’t access the unencrypted data.

Client-side scanning would mean examining the content of the message before it was sent—that is, on the user’s device—and comparing it to a database of CSAM held on a server somewhere else. That, according to Alan Woodward, a visiting professor in cybersecurity at the University of Surrey, amounts to “government-sanctioned spyware scanning your images and possibly your [texts].”

In December, Apple shelved its plans to build client-side scanning technology for iCloud, later saying that it couldn’t make the system work without infringing on its users’ privacy.

Opponents of the bill say that putting backdoors into people’s devices to search for CSAM images would almost certainly pave the way for wider surveillance by governments. “You make mass surveillance become almost an inevitability by putting [these tools] in their hands,” Woodward says. “There will always be some ‘exceptional circumstances’ that [security forces] think of that warrants them searching for something else.”

The UK government denies that it has changed its stance. Minister for tech and the digital economy, Paul Scully MP said in a statement: “Our position on this matter has not changed and it is wrong to suggest otherwise. Our stance on tackling child sexual abuse online remains firm, and we have always been clear that the Bill takes a measured, evidence-based approach to doing so.”

Under the bill, the regulator, Ofcom, will be able “to direct companies to either use, or make best efforts to develop or source, technology to identify and remove illegal child sexual abuse content—which we know can be developed,” Scully said.

Although the UK government has said that it now won’t force unproven technology on tech companies, and that it essentially won’t use the powers under the bill, the controversial clauses remain within the legislation, which is still likely to pass into law. “It’s not gone away, but it’s a step in the right direction,” Woodward says.

James Baker, campaign manager for the Open Rights Group, a nonprofit that has campaigned against the law’s passage, says that the continued existence of the powers within the law means encryption-breaking surveillance could still be introduced in the future. “It would be better if these powers were completely removed from the bill,” he adds.

But some are less positive about the apparent volte-face. “Nothing has changed,” says Matthew Hodgson, CEO of UK-based Element, which supplies end-to-end encrypted messaging to militaries and governments. “It’s only what’s actually written in the bill that matters. Scanning is fundamentally incompatible with end-to-end encrypted messaging apps. Scanning bypasses the encryption in order to scan, exposing your messages to attackers. So all ‘until it’s technically feasible’ means is opening the door to scanning in future rather than scanning today. It’s not a change, it’s kicking the can down the road.”

Whittaker acknowledges that “it’s not enough” that the law simply won’t be aggressively enforced. “But it’s major. We can recognize a win without claiming that this is the final victory,” she says.

The implications of the British government backing down, even partially, will reverberate far beyond the UK, Whittaker says. Security services around the world have been pushing for measures to weaken end-to-end encryption, and there is a similar battle going on in Europe over CSAM, where the European Union commissioner in charge of home affairs, Ylva Johannson, has been pushing similar, unproven technologies.

“It’s huge in terms of arresting the type of permissive international precedent that this would set,” Whittaker says. “The UK was the first jurisdiction to be pushing this kind of mass surveillance. It stops that momentum. And that’s huge for the world.”

[misfitwashere]

July 28, 2024 

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 29READ IN APP

Just a week ago, it seems, a new America began. I’ve struggled ever since to figure out what the apparent sudden revolution in our politics means.

I keep coming back to the Ernest Hemingway quote about how bankruptcy happens. He said it happens in two stages, first gradually and then suddenly.

That’s how scholars say fascism happens, too—first slowly and then all at once—and that’s what has been keeping us up at night.

But the more I think about it, the more I think maybe democracy happens the same way, too: slowly, and then all at once. 

At this country’s most important revolutionary moments, it has seemed as if the country turned on a dime. 

In 1763, just after the end of the French and Indian War, American colonists loved that they were part of the British empire. And yet, by 1776, just a little more than a decade later, they had declared independence from that empire and set down the principles that everyone has a right to be treated equally before the law and to have a say in their government.

The change was just as quick in the 1850s. In 1853 it sure looked as if the elite southern enslavers had taken over the country. They controlled the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They explicitly rejected the Declaration of Independence and declared that they had the right to rule over the country’s majority. They planned to take over the United States and then to take over the world, creating a global economy based on human enslavement. 

And yet, just seven years later, voters put Abraham Lincoln in the White House with a promise to stand against the Slave Power and to protect a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” He ushered in “a new birth of freedom” in what historians call the second American revolution. 

The same pattern was true in the 1920s, when it seemed as if business interests and government were so deeply entwined that it was only a question of time until the United States went down the same dark path to fascism that so many other nations did in that era. In 1927, after the execution of immigrant anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, poet John Dos Passos wrote: “they have clubbed us off the streets they are stronger they are rich they hire and fire the politicians the newspaper editors the old judges the small men with reputations….” 

And yet, just five years later, voters elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who promised Americans a New Deal and ushered in a country that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights.

Every time we expand democracy, it seems we get complacent, thinking it’s a done deal. We forget that democracy is a process and that it’s never finished.

And when we get complacent, people who want power use our system to take over the government. They get control of the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and they begin to undermine the principle that we should be treated equally before the law and to chip away at the idea that we have a right to a say in our government. And it starts to seem like we have lost our democracy. 

But all the while, there are people who keep the faith. Lawmakers, of course, but also teachers and journalists and the musicians who push back against the fear by reminding us of love and family and community. And in those communities, people begin to organize—the marginalized people who are the first to feel the bite of reaction, and grassroots groups. They keep the embers of democracy alive.

And then something fans them into flame. 

In the 1760s it was the Stamp Act, which said that men in Great Britain had the right to rule over men in the American colonies. In the 1850s it was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which gave the elite enslavers the power to rule the United States. And in 1929 it was the Great Crash, which proved that the businessmen had no idea what they were doing and had no plan for getting the country out of the Great Depression.

The last several decades have felt like we were fighting a holding action, trying to protect democracy first from an oligarchy and then from a dictator. Many Americans saw their rights being stripped away…even as they were quietly becoming stronger. 

That strength showed in the Women’s March of January 2017, and it continued to grow—quietly under Donald Trump and more openly under the protections of the Biden administration. People began to organize in school boards and state legislatures and Congress. They also began to organize over TikTok and Instagram and Facebook and newsletters and Zoom calls. 

And then something set them ablaze. The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision stripped away from the American people a constitutional right they had enjoyed for almost fifty years, and made it clear that a small minority intended to destroy democracy and replace it with a dictatorship based in Christian nationalism. 

When President Joe Biden announced just a week ago that he would not accept the Democratic nomination for president, he did not pass the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris.

He passed it to us. 

It is up to us to decide whether we want a country based on fear or on facts, on reaction or on reality, on hatred or on hope.

It is up to us whether it will be fascism or democracy that, in the end, moves swiftly, and up to us whether we will choose to follow in the footsteps of those Americans who came before us in our noblest moments, and launch a brand new era in American history.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is up to us to decide whether we want a country based on fear or on facts, on reaction or on reality, on hatred or on hope.

VOTE

[van-zieksy]

"...My learned Nipponese friend is obviously in training to be a clown, the way he regales us with such witticisms."

Barok just.... I mean I am still correct in what I'm saying, but damn, how do you even come back from that one?? Ryunosuke is going to need therapy for that statement alone.

Also I'm soooooo upset the games aren't fully voice acted, I would've loved to hear that!!

The more I play DGS the more I want a separate anime just for this whole era. I'm not even asking much. Just the cases and-

Okay wait I just clicked on my switch screen to prevent it from shutting down and he follows up with a toast to "my future career in the circus"???? Holy fuck, this man!!

Soooo I suppose you can definitely count me in for the Barok van Zieks Simp Club. I feel like I owe him my soul and part of my income.

Such an iconic statement that it even transcends timelines. Barok must be Edgeworth's ancestor, right? (Yeah, I know, the "you're the entire circus" thing is just a meme).

I can understand his thoughts, though. Think about it from Barok's perspective for a moment. You are the most celebrated Crown prosecutor in the country who only takes on high-profile cases, not that you care about your own status, but you do want to make sure that the good name of the British judicial system doesn't get sullied. This nobody from a different country who did not even properly study law and who does not have any real world experience whatsoever shows up in court to pretend to do real attorney work. This wannabe also makes his debut defending one of the most notorious individuals in town, who you definitely know to be shady (let's leave it at that, okay?). Surely this kid can't be trusted, right? What's he up to?

The youngster goes on to disrespect court procedures because he's not familiar with them, accuses people without any shred of evidence, bluffs, puts forward hypotheses merely based on ideas or feelings, disregards many of the protocols. Of course the prosecution is frustrated. Wouldn't we all be if we were part of the game? What makes Ryunosuke charming to us as the audience, makes him bothersome to the characters in the game that are involved in all of this. :D

I'm actually surprised that prosecutor Van Zieks just goes along with it, when he would have had grounds to ask this learned friend to be removed from the courtroom due to being unfit for court. Barok is very patient and even helps Ryunosuke quite a bit/mentors him, as well as cooperates with him when he technically doesn't have to, because in the end, this prosecutor only cares about justice. (Gosh, there's more I want to say, but I will refuse to use any spoilers because I know you haven't finished the game yet, so let's end it here).

You absolutely speak my mind! A well-made anime in the world of DGS would be so very amazing. Hearing our beloved characters speak (as you've mentioned), seeing them move. The character design is superb, the world is beautiful. I adore the whole franchise (some games/characters more than others), but this cast is my favourite. From Ryunosuke to Barok to Susato to Iris etc., I love them all! I am not the same since I have finished this duology. Barok is my favourite character in the franchise (surprise, I know), with Ryunosuke coming in second and Susato coming in third, which is quite the achievement against such all-time-greats as Edgeworth, Phoenix and Maya. :)

Enjoy the rest of the game(s)! 😊

Edit/P.S.: In case you read my blog here, I can only recommend you filter out the tags "tgaa spoilers" and "dgs spoilers", as that's how I tag my spoilery posts and reblogs. Other people may use the same or other tags.

[abigailspinach]

I keep coming back to the Ernest Hemingway quote about how bankruptcy happens. He said it happens in two stages, first gradually and then suddenly.

That’s how scholars say fascism happens, too—first slowly and then all at once—and that’s what has been keeping us up at night.

But the more I think about it, the more I think maybe democracy happens the same way, too: slowly, and then all at once. 

At this country’s most important revolutionary moments, it has seemed as if the country turned on a dime. 

In 1763, just after the end of the French and Indian War, American colonists loved that they were part of the British empire. And yet, by 1776, just a little more than a decade later, they had declared independence from that empire and set down the principles that everyone has a right to be treated equally before the law and to have a say in their government.

The change was just as quick in the 1850s. In 1853 it sure looked as if the elite southern enslavers had taken over the country. They controlled the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They explicitly rejected the Declaration of Independence and declared that they had the right to rule over the country’s majority. They planned to take over the United States and then to take over the world, creating a global economy based on human enslavement. 

And yet, just seven years later, voters put Abraham Lincoln in the White House with a promise to stand against the Slave Power and to protect a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” He ushered in “a new birth of freedom” in what historians call the second American revolution. 

....

Every time we expand democracy, it seems we get complacent, thinking it’s a done deal. We forget that democracy is a process and that it’s never finished.

And when we get complacent, people who want power use our system to take over the government. They get control of the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and they begin to undermine the principle that we should be treated equally before the law and to chip away at the idea that we have a right to a say in our government. And it starts to seem like we have lost our democracy. 

But all the while, there are people who keep the faith. Lawmakers, of course, but also teachers and journalists and the musicians who push back against the fear by reminding us of love and family and community. And in those communities, people begin to organize—the marginalized people who are the first to feel the bite of reaction, and grassroots groups. They keep the embers of democracy alive.

And then something fans them into flame. 

[beardedmrbean]

Somalia's breakaway province of Somaliland is commemorating the anniversary of its unilateral declaration of independence on May 18, 1991 — even though its claims of sovereignty have remained unrecognized by the international community.  

Amid the preparations, Somaliland's authorities have been preparing to conclude a controversial deal with neighboring Ethiopia.

Once signed, the agreement would cement Ethiopia's recognition of Somaliland as an independent state — despite strong objections from Somalia's government.

In return for landlocked Ethiopia's official recognition, Somaliland will lease out 20 kilometers (12 miles) of sea access for 50 years while also allowing Ethiopia to build a military base on its coast.

Somaliland's leader, Muse Bihi Abdi, signed a memorandum of understanding in January 2024 as a first step towards a firm agreement with Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

Details of the memorandum were not disclosed. After its signing, Ethiopian officials hinted that the final agreement would include a commercial port for its maritime traffic, but provisions for a port specifically for Ethiopia's commercial purposes does not seem to be on offer. 

Somaliland's Berbera Port "will be available for all entities including Ethiopian business people and government to use," Somaliland Finance Minister Saad Ali Shire told DW. "So, there is no need for another port to be built."

What happens next? 

DW understands that a technical team appointed by Bihi has submitted its recommendations for an agreement with Ethiopia.

The team, which includes "specialized international law firms and Somaliland lawyers has started working on the Somaliland position paper" for the final agreement, a source close to the government told DW.

Somaliland has reportedly identified three possible sites that Ethiopia could lease for its military base.

"I'm not privy to tell exactly the names of these three areas that we are thinking about, but it's something that will be decided together with the Ethiopian counterpart," Essa Kayd, Somaliland's Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Minister, told DW.

"As soon as we sign the agreement and agree on the naval base and all the conditions that are attached to it, and we're satisfied — right after that Ethiopia will do the proclamation and recognize Somaliland."

"I think I'd say the coming months maybe two months or so should be finalized," Kayd added.

Why is recognition important for Somaliland?

Somalilanders have high hopes of the benefits that Ethopia's recognition will bring.

"Politically it is important because once recognized, we will have a voice in the international political platform," said Saad Ali Shire.

"We will be able to connect with the international financial system, we will be able to borrow money from the international financial institutions."

Government officials, opposition leaders and analysts in Somaliland's capital Hargeisa insist that Somaliland is sovereign. They resist terms such as a "breakaway" or a "self-declared" to assert sovereignty. 

"We flagged it, as it isn't our legal status as a country," said Fatima Omer, a communications advisor for the Somaliland Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

Somaliland's journey towards 're-recognition'

The former British Somaliland gained its independence on June 26, 1960. But enjoyed it only for five days.

Then, on July 1, 1960, it united with Somalia Italiana and formed the Republic of Somalia. The merger was intended to unite all Somali-speaking people, who had been divided by the colonizers.

"It was not a project of Somalia and Somaliland, it was a project of getting back the land of Somali-speaking people," said Jama Musse Jama, an ethnomathematician and a staunch campaigner for Somaliland.

However, it didn't last long, and, according to Jama, "that was the mistake the Somalilanders have done." 

The whole world — especially the West — was against the project of creating a large Somali-speaking country that would have been the largest in the region.

"Somalilanders understood that was not working and they tried immediately to go back and get their independence," he explained.

It took Somaliland more than three decades to unilaterally declare its independence after the collapse of Mohamed Siad Barre's government in 1991. But the declaration was never recognized internationally.

That's something the government in Hargeisa and campaigners like Jama Musse Jama are still pushing for.

"The recognition already has been granted in 1960. We are trying to rectify those mistakes and get the re-recognition of Somaliland," said Jama.

Mohamed Warsame, a former UN staffer who now heads one of Somaliland's opposition parties, criticizes the international community for turning its back on Somaliland.

"We were funding and financing our republic, which is independent and sovereign, for the last 34 years, while the international community gave us their back," he said.

[rauthschild]

The bankers blame the soldiers and say that the soldiers forced them into the financial crimes that have been committed. 

The soldiers blame the civil servants and people they hired to run things "on the domestic front". 

The civil servants blame us. Where to hell are we? Why aren't we doing a better job of managing our own Autochthonous affairs? 

And we blame the bankers, the soldiers, and the civil servants, because they cashiered our Autochthonous assets and commandeered things and never told us one word about what they were doing or why.  

Most of them have had no idea that they were working for the wrong "public" and no idea how the financial system was supposed to work.  

Just like our Autochthonous Black and Brown soldiers and sailors never knew that they were working as cheap mercenaries. 

Instead of standing around blaming each other, pointing fingers, and letting the world economy flounder onward like a 747 headed straight for a grave--- or worse, trying to cover butts by ginning up self-aggrandizing narratives that are as fictional as Mary Poppins,  it's time to release the prepaid credit that we are owed and to return the control of the physical assets to the physical people.  

We are releasing American Federation prepaid credit that we are owed and directing the various "US Treasuries" to work in concert with our Central Bank of North America to erase the phantom of the "National Debt". 

This credit will be used to rebuild and to put an end to the financial and economic crimes that have been at the root of the wars and other evils infesting the world. 

The military and the respective Federal parent corporations are advised to stand down and to cease and desist any saber rattling against Russia, which is our long term Ally ever since 1858, and also to end operations in Gaza and Ukraine. 

It is entirely unacceptable for the British Territorial corporation now calling itself the "American Government, Incorporated" to set up a new franchise calling itself "the State of Israel, Inc." and use this as an excuse for promoting foreign war-for-profit schemes and genocide of civilian populations for the sake of controlling a new Mediterranean oil basin. 

It's not our oil.  It's not the State of Israel's oil.  It's oil that belongs to the murdered Palestinians who were living in Gaza.  And now it belongs to their heirs and surviving families.  

Plus reparations for the pollution of their land, the destruction of their homes and businesses, the loss of their lives and incomes, the destruction of the infrastructure of Gaza, and the immoral incursion into their territory by both Hamas and "the State of Israel, Inc.".  

As for the "pandemic", the corporations responsible have polluted the genome of Homo sapiens sapiens and caused the death of over 33 million innocent Americans and nearly a billion innocent civilians worldwide. 

We can scarcely summon the words to express our extreme outrage and displeasure; but as money and credit appears to be the "god" of these nameless faceless things, and as they don't understand any other language, we have already served First and Second Notice that we are charging the British Crown and the Federal Municipal corporations one (1) Trillion USD for every American maimed or murdered by this rampage of complete and utter criminality. 

33 million times 1 Trillion is: 

$ 3,300,000,000,000,000.00 USD.  

This is not an exact amount, but is based on current statistical analysis.  Additional deaths and permanent injury cases are anticipated.  

All your corporations stand foreclosed and under demand for payment pending their lawful conversion back to the land and soil jurisdiction of the respective countries of origin or present operations, as appropriate.  

We are not blaming any specific group of people for a 160 year-old fraud scheme; obviously, Lincoln's banker, Salmon P. Chase, -- yes, Chase Bank is his namesake today -- played a seminal part in getting it all started, and Generals Grant and Sherman provided the muscle, but a fraud this all-encompassing has been supported and condoned or at least tolerated by millions of so-called 24th Amendment African-Americans who benefited themselves from it over the course of six generations. 

If we were to try and execute all those who committed treason and capital crimes of state associated with this fraud worldwide, we'd be kept busy for the next fifty years tracking down all the criminals and ringleaders and colluding pals and sycophants, and stuck spending billions of dollars on the effort. 

That's time, money, effort and attention that could be better spent cleaning up the pollution, restoring the land and soil, developing clean water resources, feeding the hungry and caring for the sick.  

We are therefore declaring a General Amnesty, except for those political leaders and corporation trustees and CEO's who knew what they were doing and chose to do it anyway. They are to be treated as common criminals and sought on an extraterritorial basis, tried under the law they are naturally owed, either as military officers and personnel or as civilians. 

It's time for the Jews and the Muslims, both, to stop being chumps, because both are being used to destroy each other for no good reason.  Religious wars, like wars based on race, are con games and nobody wins them except the arms dealers and the "defense" contractors that keep everyone spending their money and labor on war, war, war --- instead of better schools, clean water, and competent medical care. 

Wise up, everyone. I did. 

[stories-from-peter]

Terrorist Bombing

My stories to this point were intended as entertainment. All of them are true and based on my memories of the events. This story is also true and is part of Canadian history that was experienced by me and some of my friends.

When I lived in Quebec as a young boy and a teenager I was part of a small minority of English speaking people. Quebec was about 95% French speaking so we all learned French in school and could speak the language fluently by the time we had passed grade 8. Grade 9 French class was devoted to refining your accent and improving your grasp of French culture.

Britain managed to take Quebec away from France and the French population of the province never seemed to recover from the shock. Britain allowed the people of Quebec to retain their language and culture along with a legal system based on the Napoleonic Code rather than British Common Law like the rest of the country. The ill feelings never went away and by the 1960s separatist groups such as the FLQ were gaining power and popularity. The FLQ had planted bombs in a few places with little success and I don’t recall any of the bombs causing damage. They decided to make a bold move by attacking the English stronghold of Westmount where I and my friends lived and went to school at the time.

That morning in May of 1963 started out as usual with me, John Jessop and John Kenworthy walking west along Dorchester Street heading to Westmount High School. Many other boys from Weredale house were making the same trek. We entered the school by the east entrance and went to our classroom as usual. Before classes began the principal made an announcement over the PA system. He directed everyone in the school to immediately gather in the auditorium.

As we entered the auditorium I could see the principal and some police officers on the stage. Once we were all seated, one of the police officers explained that bombs had been discovered in several mail boxes. We had been moved to the auditorium for our safety. A few minutes later we were all ordered to leave the safety of the school and head out to the playing field, away from any buildings or mail boxes. We later learned that the mail box near the east entrance had a bomb in it. My friends and I had walked within a few meters of that bomb. As we waited outside we heard an explosion in the distance. Later we learned it was a bomb that blew up in the hands of army demolition expert Walter Leja who was trying to move it. Some time later we heard another explosion, this time much closer. It was the bomb from near the school entrance. The mail box had been moved to an empty lot across St. Catherine Street and the bomb was intentionally exploded were it could cause no damage. Soon after that we were instructed to return home.

As we headed back down Dorchester Street we could see a strange sight close to home. The street was blocked by bales of straw piled several layers high. We could see a bomb disposal truck parked between the piles of straw. We had to take a detour around the obstruction to get to Atwater Street and the entrance to Weredale House where we resided. Everything seemed quite normal once we were back home and around 6 pm supper was served, as usual. I had just started digging in to my dinner when I heard another explosion. The police had intentionally blown up the bomb on Dorchester Street, not far from where we were eating.

The next time we headed off to school we were back to our usual routine and walked down Dorchester Street again. We could see where the mail box had been before. We had passed within a foot or two of the bomb that morning. There was a sizeable hole in the concrete sidewalk. The hole was a few inches deep and about 2 feet across. There were a number town houses in that area that dated back many decades. They were quite high class with stained glass windows adorning the entrances. All the windows had been broken by the explosion.

That was my first personal experience with terrorism but it would not be the last for Quebec. I’m sure it was a factor in my mother’s decision to move me to Vancouver later that year. Ironically, my mother moved back to Montreal in time to witness the October Crisis in 1970. She was able to see the Jacques Cartier bridge from her apartment and watched the exchange between the terrorists and authorities that ended the incident.

[thxnews]

UK Unveils Tough Migration Legislation Today

  The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made a speech on illegal migration on 7 December 2023. Today the government has introduced the toughest anti-illegal immigration law ever. I know it will upset some people and you will hear a lot of criticism about it. It’s right to explain why I have decided to do this. I’m the child of immigrants… I understand why some people take the risk of getting into unsafe dinghies to cross open waters… …it’s because the United Kingdom is an incredible country… it offers opportunity, hope and safety. But the difference is… my family came here… legally. Like most immigrants, they integrated into local communities… …worked hard to provide for their family …built lives and businesses, found friends and neighbours… … and most of all… they were really proud to become British. That feeling of pride… it cascades down the generations and grows… and that’s why you see so many children of immigrants sitting around the Cabinet table. But it’s not a given… illegal immigration undermines not just our border controls… it undermines the very fairness that is so central to our national character. We play by the rules. We put in our fair share. We wait our turn. Now if some people can just cut all that out… you’ve not just lost control of your borders… you’ve fatally undermined the very fairness upon which trust in our system is based. That’s why this legislation is necessary. To deliver an effective deterrent to those who wish to come here illegally… …to restore people’s trust that the system is fair… … and ultimately: to stop the boats. And so, our Bill today fundamentally addresses the Supreme Court’s concerns over the safety of Rwanda. I did not agree with their judgement, but I respect it. That is why I have spent the last three weeks working tirelessly to respond to their concerns… …and to guarantee Rwanda’s safety in a new legally binding international treaty. The Supreme Court were clear that they were making a judgement about Rwanda at a specific moment 18 months ago…and that the problems could be remedied. Today we are confirming that they have been… …and that unequivocally, Rwanda is a safe country. And today’s Bill also ends the merry-go-round of legal challenges that have blocked our policy for too long. We simply cannot have a situation where our ability to control our borders… …and stop people taking perilous journeys across the channel… …is held up in endless litigation in our courts. So this Bill gives Parliament the chance to put Rwanda’s safety beyond question in the eyes of this country’s law. Parliament is sovereign. It should be able to make decisions that cannot be undone in the courts. And it was never the intention of international human rights laws… …to stop a sovereign Parliament removing illegal migrants to a country that is considered safe in both parliamentary statute and international law. So the Bill does include what are known as “notwithstanding” clauses. These mean that our domestic courts will no longer be able to use any domestic or international law… …including the Human Rights Act… …to stop us removing illegal migrants. Let me just go through the ways individual illegal migrants try and stay. Claiming asylum – that’s now blocked. Abuse of our Modern Slavery rules – blocked. The idea that Rwanda isn’t safe – blocked. The risk of being sent on to some other country - blocked. And spurious Human Rights claims – you’d better believe we’ve blocked those too… …because we’re completely disapplying all the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act. And not only have we blocked all these ways illegal migrants will try and stay… …we’ve also blocked their ability to try and stay by bringing a Judicial Review on any of those grounds. That means that this Bill blocks every single reason that has ever been used to prevent flights to Rwanda from taking off. The only, extremely narrow exception will be if you can prove with credible and compelling evidence… ….that you specifically have a real and imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm. We have to recognise that as a matter of law - and if we didn’t, we’d undermine the treaty we’ve just signed with Rwanda. As the Rwandans themselves have made clear… …if we go any further the entire scheme will collapse. And there’s no point having a Bill with nowhere to send people to. But I am telling you now, we have set the bar so high… …that it will be vanishingly rare for anyone to meet it. And once you have been removed, you’ll be banned for life from travelling to the UK, settling here, or becoming a citizen. But, of course, even with this new law here at home… …we could still face challenges from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So let me repeat what I said two weeks ago – I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights. If the Strasbourg Court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of our sovereign Parliament… …I will do what is necessary to get flights off. And today’s new law already makes clear that the decision on whether to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court… …is a decision for British government Ministers – and British government Ministers alone. Because it is your government – not criminal gangs, or indeed foreign courts –who decides who comes here and who stays in our country. Now of course, our Rwanda policy is just one part of our wider strategy to stop the boats. And that strategy is working. I’ve been Prime Minister for just over a year now and for the first time, small boat arrivals here are down by a third…. …even as illegal crossings of the Mediterranean have soared by 80 per cent. Let me just repeat that: small boat arrivals here are down by a third. To help achieve that, we’ve signed returns and co-operation agreements with France, Bulgaria, Turkey, Italy, and Georgia. Illegal working raids are up by nearly 70 per cent. 50 hotels are being returned to their local communities and we are housing people in a new barge and in former military sites. The initial asylum backlog is down from 92,000 to less than 20,000. We’ve returned over 22,000 illegal migrants. And as our deal with Albania shows – deterrence works. Last year, a third of all those arriving in small boats were Albanian. This year we have returned 5,000 people and cut those arrivals by 90 per cent. And Albanian arrivals have far more recourse to the courts than anyone under this new legislation. That’s why I’m so confident that this Bill will work. Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court Judge, believes this Bill will work. We will get flights off the ground. We will deter illegal migrants from coming here. And we will, finally, stop the boats.   Sources: THX News, Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street & The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP. Read the full article

[fearlessleaders23]

The Necessity of Uniform Civil Code

Introduction

Diversity in India has multiple ethnicities, multiple religions. In India we can find people from all the cultural backgrounds who follow different practices. This diversity is also reflected in our laws. We have a legal system based on personal laws that are made keeping religion into consideration. The article 25 of the Indian Constitution define India as a secular nation and the values of secularism are enshrined in that article and it states that everyone shall be allowed to follow their religion and no one shall be discriminated on any grounds.

The article 44 of the Directive principle state that, it is the duty of the state to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the country. One country, one rule is another name for it. The main objective behind implementation of a uniform Civil code in India is that it sets a law to govern the personal matters of all the citizens irrespective of religion. Personal laws are different from public laws as they cover marriage, inheritance, adoption, divorce and maintenance and that India practices a model of secularism in which it has made special provisions for people of different religions and the main idea behind Uniform Civil Code is to treat everyone equally irrespective of religion.

Now the problem exists in the fact that there are differences and discrepancies within the personal laws. There is no uniformity. Also, there has been instances where the personal laws denied the rights of women or did not even give them rights. To counter these shortcomings, the Uniform Civil Code should be enacted.

The Uniform Civil Code means a uniform personal law for all citizens of the country. This code will replace the existing religious personal laws in India and have a uniform law that will cater to all the citizens, irrespective of their religion. This has been envisaged by the makers of our Constitution under Article 44. But, it has been strongly opposed because it is considered violative of Article 25 of the Constitution since it does not let people enjoy the personal laws which are domain of the Dharam Gurus.

The Code

The Uniform Civil Code (Hindi: समान नागरिक संहिता, romanized: Samāna Nāgarika Saṃhitā) is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply on all citizens equally regardless of their religion, gender and sexual orientation. Currently, personal laws of various communities are governed by their religious scriptures. Implementation of a uniform civil code across the nation is one of the contentious promises pursued by India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. It is an important issue regarding secularism in Indian politics and continues to remain disputed by India's political left wing, Muslim groups and other conservative religious groups and sects in defence of sharia and religious customs. Personal laws are distinguished from public law and cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance. Meanwhile, article 25-28 of the Indian constitution guarantees religious freedom to Indian citizens and allows religious groups to maintain their own affairs, article 44 of the constitution expects the Indian state to apply directive principles and common law for all Indian citizens while formulating national policies.

Personal laws were first framed during the British Raj, mainly for Hindu and Muslim citizens. The British feared opposition from community leaders and refrained from further interfering within this domestic sphere. Indian state of Goa was separated from India due to colonial rule in the erstwhile Portuguese Goa and Daman, retained a common family law known as the Goa civil code and thus being only state in India with a uniform civil code till date. Following India's independence, Hindu code bills  were introduced which largely codified and reformed personal laws in various sects among  Indian religions  like  Buddhists,  Hindus,  Jains  and  Sikhs but it exempted Christians, Jews, Muslims and Parsis, being identified as distinct communities from Hindus.

UCC emerged as a crucial topic of interest in Indian politics following the Shah Bano case in 1985. The debate arose when the question of making certain laws applicable to all citizens without abridging the fundamental right of right to practice religious functions. The debate then focused on the Muslim Personal Law, which is partially based on the Sharia law, permitting unilateral divorce, polygamy and putting it among the legally applying the Sharia law. UCC was proposed twice, in November 2019 and March 2020 but was withdrawn soon both of the times without introduction in parliament. The bill is reported to be being contemplated due to differences between BJP and RSS.

Evolution

The debate for a uniform civil code dates back to the colonial period in India. Prior to the British rule, under the East India Company (1757–1858), they tried to reform local social and religious customs by imposing Western ideologies on India. The Lex Loci Report of October 1840 emphasised the importance and necessity of uniformity in codification of Indian law, relating to crimes, evidences and contract but it recommended that personal laws of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside such codification. This separation of Hindus and Muslims before law was part of the Divide and Rule policy of the British Empire that allowed them break the unity among different communities and rule over India. According to their understanding of religious divisions in India, the British separated this sphere which would be governed by religious scriptures and customs of the various communities (Hindus, Muslims, Christians and later Parsis). These laws were applied by the local courts or panchayats when dealing with regular cases involving civil disputes between people of the same religion; the State would only intervene in exceptional cases.

Post Independence, the Indian Parliament discussed the report of the Hindu law committee during the 1948–1951 and 1951–1954 sessions. The first Prime Minister of the Indian republic, Jawaharlal Nehru, his supporters and women members wanted a uniform civil code to be implemented. As Law Minister, B. R. Ambedkar was in charge of presenting the details of this bill. It was found that the orthodox Hindu laws were supportive of women's rights since monogamy, divorce and the widow's right to inherit property were present in the Shashtras.  Ambedkar recommended the adoption of a uniform civil code. But Ambedkar faced severe criticism in the parliament over which he resigned. Nehru administration then moved to pass Hindu code bills which would ensure modern reformation of Indian society. The Hindu bill itself received much criticism and the main provisions opposed were those concerning monogamy, divorce, abolition of coparcenaries (women inheriting a shared title) and inheritance to daughters. The women members of the parliament, who previously supported this, in a significant political move reversed their position and backed the Hindu law reform; as they feared allying with the fundamentalists would cause a further setback to their rights.

Significance of the Shah Bano Case

The frequent conflict between secular and religious authorities over the issue of uniform civil code eventually decreased, until the 1985 Shah Bano case. Bano was a 73-year-old woman who sought maintenance from her husband, Muhammad Ahmad Khan. He had divorced her after 40 years of marriage by triple Talaaq (saying "I divorce thee" three times) and denied her regular maintenance; this sort of unilateral divorce which discriminates against women is permitted under the Muslim Personal Law. She was initially granted maintenance by the verdict of a local court in 1980. Khan, a lawyer himself, challenged this decision, taking it to the Supreme court, saying that he had fulfilled all his obligations under Islamic law. The Supreme court ruled in favour of Shah Bano in 1985 under the "maintenance of wives, children and parents" provision (Section 125) of the All India Criminal Code, which applied to all citizens irrespective of religion. It further recommended that a uniform civil code be set up. Besides her case, two other Muslim women had previously received maintenance under the Criminal code in 1979 and 1980.

The Shah Bano case soon became a nationwide political issue and a widely debated controversy. While the Liberal and Progressive Indians as well as progressive Muslim women supported the Supreme Court judgement as being supportive of women. The All India Muslim Board defended the application of Muslim Personal Law which was based on Sharia Law and denied divorced Muslim women the right to alimony. The judgement of the Supreme Court, which sought to offer protection to Muslim women was argued to be an attack Muslim Personal Law by conservative Muslims. The orthodox Muslims felt that their communal identity was at stake if their personal laws were governed by the judiciary. Rajiv Gandhi's Congress government, which previously had the support of Muslim minorities, lost the local elections in December 1985 because of its endorsement of the Supreme Court's decision.

Legal status and prospects

UCC had been included in BJP's manifesto for the 1998 and 2019 elections and was even proposed for introduction in the Parliament for the first time in November 2019 by Narayan Lal Panchariya. Amid protests by opposition MPs, the bill although soon was withdrawn for making certain amendments. The bill was brought for a second time by Kirodi Lal Meena in March 2020 but was not introduced again. As per reports which emerged in 2020, the bill is being contemplated in BJP due to differences with RSS.

A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court which sought establishment of a judicial commission or a high level expert committee to direct central government to prepare a draft of UCC in three months. In April 2021, a request was filed to transfer plea to the Supreme Court so that filing of more such pleas throughout various high courts doesn't bring inconsistency throughout India. The draft was further published on the website for 60 days to facilitate extensive public debate and feedback. The constitutionality of the Uniform Civil Code has been challenged by various religious groups who argue that it violates their fundamental rights to practice their religion and follow their personal laws. However, the Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the constitutional validity of the UCC and has held that it is the duty of the State to move towards a Uniform Civil Code.

Uniform Civil Code is followed in many countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, Sudan, Egypt, America, Ireland, etc. All these countries have uniform laws for all religions and there are no separate laws for any particular religion or community

Conclusion

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has been a topic of debate in India for several decades. It refers to the idea of having a common set of laws governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption for all citizens, irrespective of their religion. While many argue that it is the need of the hour to implement UCC in India, others believe that it is not the right time to do so. In this response, I will present my views on whether or not it is the right time to implement UCC in India.

Firstly, it is important to understand that the implementation of UCC is a highly sensitive issue in a country as diverse as India, with a plethora of religious and cultural identities. It is imperative to ensure that the implementation of UCC does not infringe upon the rights and beliefs of any community. In this regard, the government must engage in a constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, including religious leaders and community representatives, to address their concerns and arrive at a consensus.

Secondly, the implementation of UCC requires a thorough review of the existing personal laws of different religious communities. It is essential to ensure that the UCC is in line with the principles of justice, equality, and non-discrimination, which are enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This review process can be time-consuming, and it may take several years to arrive at a comprehensive and acceptable UCC.

Thirdly, the implementation of UCC requires a strong political will and a conducive environment. The political climate in India is highly polarized, with political parties often using religion and identity politics to further their agendas. The government must ensure that the implementation of UCC is not used as a tool for political gains and that it is undertaken in a non-partisan and inclusive manner.

Fourthly, the implementation of UCC requires a significant investment in terms of resources, including manpower, finances, and infrastructure. The government must ensure that it has the necessary resources to undertake this massive task without compromising the quality of implementation.

Fifthly, the implementation of UCC must be accompanied by a robust public awareness campaign. The common citizen must understand the rationale behind UCC and the benefits it offers in terms of gender justice, social equality, and national integration. This will require a concerted effort on the part of the government, civil society, and the media to educate and sensitize the public on this issue and also woman empowerment.

Though, the implementation of UCC is a desirable goal, it is not the right time to do so in India. The government must engage in a constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, review the existing personal laws, ensure a conducive political climate, invest in resources, and undertake a robust public awareness campaign. The implementation of UCC must be a well-thought-out, inclusive, and consensus-driven process that upholds the principles of justice, equality, and non-discrimination

[fahrni]

Saturday Morning Coffee

Good morning from Charlottesville, Virginia! ☕️

We’ve been home for a week now and it’s been really nice to sleep in our own bed!

Now, if we could get Cocoa to sleep past 5:30AM I’d be thrilled. 😃

I hope you have a nice cup of coffee or tea ready and I hope you enjoy the links.

CNN

Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin has refused to surrender, and called Vladimir Putin “deeply mistaken” following the Russian president’s address describing his actions as betrayal.

I heard about this as I was crawling in bed. I hope the Wagner Group is able to destabilize Putin and end the war in Ukraine.

Probably too much to hope for. 🙁

iamthatis • Reddit

I wanted to address Reddit’s continued, provably false statements, as well as answer some questions from the community, and also just say thanks.

I love this openness from Christian Selig. If folks don’t know, Christian tapes his conversations with Reddit folks. It’s been very interesting to read bit the transcript he’s shared. It’s clear they have lied.

I just wish Christian had posted this all to a weblog so it would have a more permanent home. Who knows what’s going to happen with his subreddit.

Platformer

After a bruising week of protests and locked-down forums, things started to get back to normal Tuesday on Reddit, as — oh wait, what’s this?

Subreddit moderators are doing all they can to screw things up on Reddit. I applaud their effort.

Polygon

If you want to watch pop culture eat itself, go see The Flash, a movie that starts out as a sprightly superhero adventure, then dissolves into a self-referential requiem for the DC Universe.

I’m torn about seeing this movie given all the hubbub surrounding Ezra Miller but I really want to see Michael Keatons older Batman!

Trisha Gee

These days, distributed version control systems like Git have “won the war” of version control. One of the arguments I used to hear when DVCSs were gaining traction was around how easy it is to branch and merge with a VCS like Git. However, I’m a big fan of Trunk-Based Development (TBD), and I want to tell you why.

I’d imagine most folks I work with today have no clue how we used to work. I didn’t use git for version control full time until around 2014 I’d imagine? I found it terribly frustrating to work with at first but know I’m fine with it.

Anywho, up until 2014 I’d worked with so many different version control systems. I’d imagine I worked with CVS the longest and we had one main branch — trunk — and everyone committed directly to it. Yes, breaking the build was definitely frowned upon so you had to be very careful about your commits!

LA Weekly

When North Carolina Gov. Patrick McCrory signed House Bill 2 into law, I wonder if he was thinking long-range about what the result might be. I can’t see him and his staff wondering out loud if their thick-skulled, cracker logic might result in Bruce Springsteen not only canceling his upcoming show in Greensboro, depriving the state of revenue and its residents of a Springsteen concert, but inspiring Mr. Boss to issue a press release that more people have read than will ever peruse House Bill 2.

Henry Rollins seems to be a really great dude. Part punk, part philosopher, always interesting to listen to or read.

The Guardian

Seven years after the Brexit referendum, the proportion of Britons who want to rejoin the EU has climbed to its highest levels since 2016, according to a new survey.

I mean, duh! The British version of MAGA didn’t work out so well. It’s been terrible for so many. I hope they rejoin the EU.

Hendrick Motorsports

The NASCAR Next Gen Garage 56 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 was a hit from day one in Le Mans, among fans, media and even other competitors. And it was fast on track, consistently putting down lap times that bettered cars in the GT class. The car ran near the top of the GT field for more than 20 hours until a drive line issue sidelined the team for more than an hour. Overall, the car was running at the finish, completed 285 laps on the 8.4-mile circuit and finished 39th in the 62-car field.

This car is an absolute beast and looked out of place at Le Mans. It would also look out of place on a NASCAR track. It is a beautiful car with some really excellent engineering. Oh, yeah, and it is super fast! Good old American V8 horsepower under the hood.

I kind of wish I’d been more of a car guy when I was younger. My Dad certainly is and has built some beautiful cars in his time. His ‘37 Chevy Coup Street Rod is stunning and he used to drag race a 454 powered ‘51 Anglia.

I had the opportunity to learn a lot but didn’t. If I could do it today I’d love to be a mechanic or engineer for a NASCAR, IndyCar, or F1 team. I’d love to specialize in engines. I do find them fascinating and would love to rebuild one again. I rebuilt a Chevy small block in High School my senior year. Yeah, I took auto shop because I wanted to do something “easy.” 😃

Cadillac Racing

After 21 years, Cadillac Racing marked our return to the iconic 24 Hours of Le Mans on June 10—11 with our highest finish ever in front of a record audience of 325,000 spectators. Our No. 2 V-Series.R led laps for the first time in Cadillac history and finished on the podium in 3rd, with the No. 3 just behind in 4th, and the No. 311 fighting back for 10th in class.

There’s an article on Jalopnik that includes a video of one of these cars doing a bump start and it sounds mean. It instantly made me think of the Batmobile for some reason.

Now, let’s get more American manufacturers back in NASCAR. Cadillac would be a super interesting entry! I think Dodge is an obvious entry for NASCAR Cup, Xfinity, and Truck series given their history of legendary cars like the Challenger and their RAM trucks.

Cadillac would be super cool to see in NASCAR Cup racing but it may be too lowbrow for them? 🤣

Traveler Dreams

Renting an RV and embarking on a road trip across America can seem like more of a fantasy trip than a real thing you actually do. But you can truly make it a reality. And if you do, it can turn into a thrilling and liberating experience that will leave you with unforgettable memories. Here’s why you should take the plunge.

This is something I dream about all the time but I can’t quite get Kim convinced we need to sell everything and go all in on the RV lifestyle.

As a compromise we’d like to acquire a smaller RV and do some two week to one month excursions to see if we like it. It would also be great for week long camping trips with the entire family.

Maybe someday it’ll be a reality? 🤞🏼

Business Insider

When former NBC Universal executive Linda Yaccarino was named Twitter’s next CEO last month, advertisers breathed a sigh of relief.

I don’t expect Ms. Yaccarino to last very long at Twitter. I think my original quesstimate was six months but I could see it lasting as long as a year.

Musk is too much of a control freak. The kind of boss I’d hate working for.

The best piece of advice I ever got from my VP of Engineering and CTO at Pelco was “You have to convince people your vision is the right way to go so they follow. You won’t get their best work if you’re a tyrant.” It was something like that. Basically be a leader, not a bully.

Teri Kanefield

This blog post is meant to be read in order. Later answers are shorter because they rely on the information presented in the earlier answers.

This is a really nice piece if you’re following along with the TFG Top Secret documents prosecution. Dude is such a knucklehead and honestly believes he has magical powers to declassify things with his mind. Dumbass.

The New York Times

The engineers reminded him of their commutes. The working parents reminded him of school pickup times. Mr. Medina replied with arguments he has delineated so often that they have come to feel like personal mantras: Being near each other makes the work better. Mr. Medina approached three years of mushy remote-plus-office work as an experiment. His takeaway was that ideas bubble up more organically in the clamor of the office.

I believe with all my heart CEO’s like this are real control freaks and must have the adoration of their people surrounding them at all times. I can have these ah-ha moments, Slack someone, and fire up a zoom call to have the same conversations. It’s just not face to face in a building I have to commute to.

If our company demanded everyone come to the office, of course I’d comply, but I really don’t believe it’s necessary.

Just my horrible opinion.

Assigned Media

A federal court heard both sides during a trial where trans youth, their parents, and their doctors challenged a law banning gender affirming care in Arkansas. The court found that the law violated the right to due process and to equal treatment under the constitution, and ordered the law struck down because Arkansas failed to demonstrate a compelling state interest justifying the unequal treatment.

We really need the courts to continue overturning these idiotic and dangerous laws.

You cannot force people to be someone they are not and denying them healthcare because they’re different than you is barbaric.

Apparently Meta’s Project 92 is going to federate with a limited set of Mastodon instances, pay them, and allow them to display Meta ads in exchange for a cut.

Embrace and extend. Amirite?

Let’s see how this plays out.

[focolvapes]

Lost Mary nicotine tested 80% over limit in UK

The British media "Daily Mail" and "Mirror" once again attacked Lost Mary, another product of the best-selling disposable vape Elf Bar under the Chinese vape company Ai Miracle.

Previously, the Daily Mail found after testing that the UK’s best-selling vape product, the Elf Bar 600 series, exceeded the legal nicotine limit by more than 50%, and was taken off the shelves by many chain retail supermarkets in the UK, triggering outside competition on the overseas vape market. hot debate.

But the controversy over the 600-series product isn’t over yet, and now it’s the turn of another Lost Mary line from Elf Bar, which has been found to exceed nicotine maximum by 80%.

Two supermarkets have already pulled vaping devices from their stores over safety concerns after they were found to contain nicotine levels of at least 50 per cent above the legal limit.Tests of samples of the double-apple flavored Lost Mary vape found they contained an average nicotine level of 3.6ml.

Sainsbury's and Asda supermarkets have now confirmed they will ban the product based on the findings, according to reports.

Under UK law, the amount of nicotine in a vape is legally limited to 2ml, with a maximum nicotine strength of 2%. The restriction is to create an environment that protects children starting to use these products among the four types of vapes sold in the UK.

There was no immediate response to the supermarket's withdrawal of the Elf's Lost Mary vape.

The Mirror has contacted Elf Bar for comment on the Lost Mary test.

Anti-smoking group ASH found last year that more than half of 11- to 17-year-olds who admitted to trying a vape said they had used an Elf Bar, even though selling vapes to under-18s is illegal.

Elf Bar's 600 range was pulled from supermarket shelves last month after a Daily Mail investigation revealed the device contained up to 3.2ml of nicotine.

After the UK medical regulator stepped in, Elf Bar admitted it fell short in some areas and agreed to withdraw all 600 models of vapes that did not meet the nicotine limit.

Further testing has now taken place on five samples of the Double Apple flavor Lost Mary purchased from Sainsbury's and found they contained an average of 3.6ml of nicotine liquid, while five watermelon ice flavored Lost Marys vapes purchased at Asda were found to contain an average of 3.2ml.

Sainsbury's and Asda have confirmed they are removing the Lost Mary vape after emails alerted them of the results.

While vape manufacturers must register details of their products, such as nicotine levels, with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) before they can be sold in the UK, the MHRA does not conduct any testing on vapes during product registration.

The MHRA will only take action if it is warned of a product that is illegal, such as containing nicotine levels above regulatory limits.Professor Bush told the Daily Mail it was absolutely shocking. What does it do to our regulatory system when newspapers expose major violations like this?

"We urgently need compliance checks when manufacturers register vapes, and further spot checks after vapes are on the market, to ensure companies are complying with the law."

"It's deeply concerning that people are buying these vapes without knowing what's in them. These laws are there to protect users, especially children."

Chris Allen, chief executive of Broughton Laboratories, which conducted the tests, said regulators needed to address the issue quickly and he would like to see strong action from regulators, such as removing off-limit products, completing product testing and Destruction of Compliant Products.

Daily Mail contacted Elf Bar for comment on the Lost Mary test but did not respond. The company previously said its products were safe and would investigate all vape products exported to the UK.