'Furious' Marjorie Taylor Greene demands GOP beats 'war drums' against Mexican cartels
March 16, 2023
For customer support issues contact
support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to
corrections@rawstory.com.
Stories Chosen For You
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is publicly denouncing Uganda's latest Anti-Homosexuality legislation, which is being called a "Kill the Gays" bill for its capital punishment penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."
The legislation passed in a nearly-unanimous vote and now heads to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni's desk.
"The Anti-Homosexuality Act passed by the Ugandan Parliament yesterday would undermine fundamental human rights of all Ugandans and could reverse gains in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We urge the Ugandan Government to strongly reconsider the implementation of this legislation," Secretary Blinken said via Twitter Wednesday morning.
Uganda, a far-right religious country has a long history of targeting and marginalizing its LGBTQ citizens, including passing a modified "Kill the Gays" bill that was signed into law in 2014, only to be overturned in court on a technicality. That law was drafted and promoted with the aid of American far-right evangelicals.
Ugandan lawmakers on Tuesday passed legislation that makes being LGBTQ illegal, proscribes the death penalty for certain same-sex acts, and decades or life in prison for identifying as LGBTQ. It also requires anyone with knowledge of another person being LGBTQ or engaging in same-sex acts to be reported to the government.
"All but two of the 389 legislators voted late on Tuesday for the hardline anti-homosexuality bill, which introduces capital and life imprisonment sentences for gay sex and 'recruitment, promotion and funding' of same-sex 'activities'," The Guardian reports.
“A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality and is liable, on conviction to suffer death,” the bill states.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, in a statement warned: "If the bill is signed into law, it will render LGBTIQ+ people in Uganda criminals simply for existing, for being who they are. It could provide carte blanche for the systematic violation of nearly all of their human rights and serve to incite people against each other."
One of the two Ugandan Members of Parliament who voted against the bill, Fox Odoi-Oywelowo, calls it "ill-conceived," and says parts are "unconstitutional."
He says it "reverses the gains registered in the fight against gender-based violence and criminalises individuals instead of conduct that contravenes all known legal norms.”
President Museveni, who signed into law a modified version of the 2014 "Kill the Gays" bill, will now have to decide if he wants to sign this version as well.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
A bottle of whiskey or a chew toy for dogs? Unless you've had too much to drink from said bottle, it's admittedly difficult to confuse the two.
US distillery Jack Daniel's is suing a dog products maker, however, arguing that its plastic squeaky toy called Bad Spaniels, which resembles the famous black label whiskey bottle, is violating copyright law.''
It also takes issue with toilet humor on the label.
The case going in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday may have wider ramifications for how copyright law is applied in the United States as its nine judges weigh whether free speech trumps intellectual property rights.
In its suit against Arizona-based VIP Products, Jack Daniel's says that not only is the rectangle-shaped plastic bottle visually similar to its famous whiskey, but that Bad Spaniels is also hurting the reputation of Jack Daniel's with tasteless jokes.
While the label on the Tennessee whiskey advertises a 40 percent alcohol content, Bad Spaniels is described as containing "43 percent poo" that may end up on your "Tennessee carpet."
"To be sure, everyone likes a good joke," Jack Daniel's said in a legal filing to the Supreme Court. "But VIP's profit-motivated 'joke' confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel's hard-earned goodwill."
'Freedom to mock'
The spirits maker, which is owned by Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corp., took legal action in 2014, when the dog toy appeared on the market. After an initial court victory, Jack Daniel's lost on appeal.
As the case made its way to the Supreme Court, Jack Daniel's was backed by other big American corporations, such as food giant Campbell, whose soup cans were featured in Andy Warhol's famous paintings, and clothes makers Patagonia and Levi Strauss, who argued that such humor can hurt their reputations.
But VIP Products is unconvinced.
"Freedom of speech begins with freedom to mock," the company said in a legal filing. "Objects of mockery, satire, or parody—government officials, artists, celebrities, iconic brands—may bristle at negativity or loss of control over public discourse, but they are the price of fame."
The Supreme Court must issue a ruling in the case before June 30.
© Agence France-Presse
CONTINUE READING
Show less
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has signaled a willingness to haul Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg into Congress to explain his investigation of former President Donald Trump's hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.
However, Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent believes "it’s not clear that Jordan... has thought this through," as this course of action could lead to a counteroffensive from Democrats.
Among other things, such hearings would constantly remind Americans that Trump paid money to an adult film star to cover up an affair he'd had shortly after his third wife had given birth to their son.
"If and when there is an indictment, we will be able to reconstruct all the facts of this case in a way that makes sense to the American public,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) tells Sargent.
RELATED: Trump bizarrely says charges against him 'can't be brought' in latest rant against Manhattan DA
Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), meanwhile, tells Sargent that Jordan's actions will make it easy for Democrats to argue that House Republicans are "using the official power of Congress to effectively coordinate with a criminal defendant."
Sargent adds that he finds it very difficult to imagine that Republicans will really want to burn political capital defending Trump from such an unseemly scandal.
"But do vulnerable House Republicans really want to vote on a criminal referral for law enforcement, all to defend Trump from sleazy hush-money charges?" he asks. "It’s doubtful. Doing so could yoke the House GOP ever more tightly to Trump."
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}