Latest News
No 10 indicates Netanyahu faces arrest if he enters UK
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces arrest if he travels to the UK, after an international arrest warrant was issued for him, Downing Street has indicated.
A No 10 spokesman refused to comment on the specific case but said the government would fulfil its “legal obligations”.
On Thursday the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, along with Israel’s former defence minister Yoav Gallant, over alleged war crimes in Gaza.
The court’s member countries, including the UK, have signed a treaty that obliges them to act on arrest warrants.
Asked whether Netanyahu would be detained if he entered the UK, the prime minister’s official spokesman refused to comment on “hypotheticals”.
However, he added: “The government would fulfil its obligations under the act and indeed its legal obligations.”
This refers to the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which states that if the court issues a warrant for arrest, a designated minister “shall transmit the request… to an appropriate judicial officer”, who, if satisfied the warrant appears to have been issued by the ICC, “shall endorse the warrant for execution in the United Kingdom”.
The PM’s spokesman confirmed the government stands by the process outlined in the act and would “always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law and indeed international law”.
He was unable to confirm which secretary of state would be involved in the process and did not answer questions about whether the government was seeking legal advice from Attorney General Lord Hermer – the UK’s top lawyer – in relation to the case.
Generally, arrest warrants and extradition requests from around the world must be sent to a special team in the Home Office for basic checks before they are acted on.
The UK’s legislation on the ICC says that the courts have the final say on whether an arrest and “delivery” of a suspect should go ahead.
Asked whether the PM was still willing to talk to Netanyahu, the PM’s spokesman said it was “obviously important that we have a dialogue with Israel on all levels”, describing the country as “a key partner across a range of areas”.
Last month Lord Hermer told the BBC he would not allow political considerations to influence his conclusions if the ICC were to issue an arrest warrant.
“My advice [on an arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu] would be legal advice, based on analysis of the law,” he said.
“It’s not for the attorney to dictate what a government chooses to do. The role of the attorney is to provide fearless legal advice as to what the law requires, what the contents of the law is, and where the law takes you. And that’s what I’m going to do.”
Following the arrest warrants being issued on Thursday, Downing Street said the UK government respected the ICC’s independence and remained focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
The court also issued a warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, who Israel says was killed in July, over alleged war crimes in relation to the 7 October 2023 attacks against Israel.
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel criticised the ICC for drawing a “moral equivalence” between Israel’s actions in Gaza and the 7 October attacks.
She called on the government to “condemn and challenge” the court’s decision, describing it as “concerning and provocative”.
After winning power, the new Labour government scrapped its predecessor’s plan to challenge the right of the ICC to issue arrest warrants, saying it was a matter for the judges to decide.
The impact of the warrants will depend on whether the court’s 124 member states – which do not include Israel or its ally, the US – decide to enforce them or not.
US President Joe Biden has called the arrest warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister “outrageous “, saying there is “no equivalence” between Israel and Hamas.
However, officials from a number of European countries have made statements standing by the court and said they would implement its decision.
Both Israel and Hamas reject the allegations made by the ICC, with Netanyahu branding the warrant “antisemitic”.
Netanyahu condemned the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic”. Hamas made no mention of the warrant for Deif but welcomed the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.
French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot has told the BBC that the ICC’s decision “is the formalisation of an accusation, it is by no means a judgement”.
He told the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show: “We also say that we’ve condemned, in [the] strongest possible terms, the fact that humanitarian help has not been able to reach civil populations in Gaza while the situation is catastrophic.
“But in no way do we draw any form of equivalence between the Hamas leaders that have been targeted by arrest warrants by the ICC and the government of Israel.”
(BBC)
Chinese President Xi Jinping has met Malaysia’s King Sultan Ibrahim in Kuala Lumpur as part of a regional push to shore up Beijing’s trade relationships.
The diplomatic stop on Wednesday marks the second leg of Xi’s three-nation tour, which also includes Vietnam and Cambodia, and comes amid sharp tariffs imposed by the United States that are reshaping the global economic landscape.
Sultan Ibrahim welcomed Xi in a colourful ceremony at the golden-domed Istana Negara palace before his meeting with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim at the administrative capital of Putrajaya.
Xi touted a “new golden era” of Chinese-Malaysian relations, following the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties last year. The king announced new cooperation between the countries in various fields, including artificial intelligence.
“This is a hugely significant visit,” said Al Jazeera’s Rob McBride, reporting from Putrajaya. “It takes place during this unprecedented trade war that is developing with the United States, with both Malaysia and China finding themselves in the middle.”
Khoo Ying Hooi, an associate professor in the department of international and strategic studies at Malaya University, said the visit offered a chance to “test the waters for regional solidarity” amid the US trade disruptions.
“It’s not just about friendship, it’s about realigning the regional centre of gravity towards Beijing,” she said.
Malaysia is the current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc, whose members are among the hardest hit by new US tariffs.
ASEAN member Vietnam, a manufacturing powerhouse, was slapped with 46 percent tariffs, and Cambodia, a significant producer of low-cost clothing for big Western brands, was hit with a 49 percent duty.
Malaysia, Southeast Asia’s third-largest economy, was hit with a lower tariff of 24 percent. Though the measures have been paused for 90 days, President Donald Trump has warned that no country is “off the hook”.
[Aljazeera]
Police urge motorists who intend to use the Ella – Wellawaya Road to use alternative roads as there is a severe vehicle congestion due to inclement weather condition.
The UK Supreme Court has unanimously backed the biological definition of “woman” under the 2010 Equality Act.
It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.
Judges sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.
Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.
The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.
The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.
Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words “woman” and “sex” are defined in the legislation.
He told the court: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
“But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.”
He added that the legislation gives transgender people “protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender”.
Campaigners who brought the case against the Scottish government hugged each other and punched the air as they left the courtroom, with several of them in tears.
The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including “sex” and “gender reassignment”.
Judges at the Supreme Court in London were asked to rule on what that law means by “sex” – whether it means biological sex, or legal, “certificated” sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The Scottish government argued the 2004 legislation was clear that obtaining a GRC amounts to a change of sex “for all purposes”.
For Women Scotland argued for a “common sense” interpretation of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an “immutable biological state”.
Outside the Supreme Court, For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith said: “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.
“Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling.”
A UK government spokesman said: “This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the ruling as a “victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious”.
But Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman, a prominent campaigner for trans-rights, said: “This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society.
“It could remove important protections and will leave many trans people and their loved ones deeply anxious and worried about how their lives will be affected and about what will come next.”
The Scottish government has not yet commented on the ruling.
[BBC]
Peru’s ex-president and first lady sentenced to 15 years in jail
China’s Xi hails ‘new golden era’ with Malaysia during trade tour
Severe traffic reported on Ella-Wellawaya road due to inclement weather
-
News5 days agoSuspect injured in police shooting hospitalised
-
Features6 days agoRobbers and Wreckers
-
Business6 days agoBhathiya Bulumulla – The Man I Knew
-
Business5 days agoSanjiv Hulugalle appointed CEO and General Manager of Cinnamon Life at City of Dreams Sri Lanka
-
Business7 days agoNational Anti-Corruption Action Plan launched with focus on economic recovery
-
Features4 days agoLiberation Day tariffs chaos could cause permanent damage to US economy, amid global tensions
-
Business4 days agoMembers’ Night of the Sri Lanka – Russia Business Council of The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce
-
Features4 days agoMinds and Memories picturing 65 years of Sri Lankan Politics and Society