Refugee breakdancer stands by ‘Free Afghan Women’ message at Paris Olympics 2024

Refugee breakdancer stands by ‘Free Afghan Women’ message at Paris Olympics 2024
Refugee Olympic team’s Manizha Talash, known as Manizha wears a jacket reading “Free Afghan women” as she competes in the Women’s Breaking dance qualifying round of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games at La Concorde in Paris, on August 9, 2024. (AP/File)
Short Url
Updated 01 September 2024
Follow

Refugee breakdancer stands by ‘Free Afghan Women’ message at Paris Olympics 2024

Refugee breakdancer stands by ‘Free Afghan Women’ message at Paris Olympics 2024
  • Political slogans and statements are banned on the field of play and on podiums at the Olympics
  • Taliban’s restrictions on women have drawn sharp criticism from rights groups, foreign governments

PARIS: Manizha Talash, the Afghan breakdancer from the refugee team who was disqualified at the Paris Olympics for displaying the words “Free Afghan Women” on her cape in her routine last month, said she planned her action for four months and would do it again.
Talash, who lives in Spain, wore a light blue cape with the phrase written on it in large white letters in her pre-qualifier loss to India Sardjoe of Netherlands at Place de la Concorde, which she said was inspired by the ‘Hunger Games’ movie.
Political slogans and statement are banned on the field of play and on podiums at the Olympics and breaking’s governing body later said the 21-year-old had been disqualified.
“As long as I can remember, I grew up with the sound of the bombs around me every day, with my loved ones, some of whom I lost in the bombings,” Talash, who was in Paris after a local association for Afghan women raised funds to fly her from Spain, told Reuters at the Paralympic Games, where fellow Afghan Zakia Khudadadi clinched a bronze medal in taekwondo — a first for a para athlete from a refugee team at an Olympics.
“I am like a bomb because I grew with bombs around me.
“I used the first competition, the first dance performance I was able to do, to act directly and highlight the action I wanted to take. If I had to do it again I would do the same.”
The Taliban’s restrictions on women and freedom of expression have drawn sharp criticism from rights groups and many foreign governments since the former insurgents resumed control of Afghanistan in 2021.
WOMEN’S CAUSE
Talash, who stayed for a year in Pakistan hoping to return to her home country before moving to Spain after the Taliban took Kabul three years ago, said Afghan women were “in a cage” and it was her duty to “resist.”
“For four months I thought about what I could do so that the cause of Afghan women would he heard,” she said.
“But I want to be clear that this was not a political message, it was a message I wanted to send to the world.
“I’m not just a sports person, I’m a hip hop person who wants to be able to think and dress differently.
“My message was not about (wearing) the hijab (or not), it was about freedom of movement and education (for women in Afghanistan),” Talash added in a press conference as tears rolled down her cheeks.
After drying her eyes, two pearly jewels looking like tears remained under them.
“It’s a message and in the same way it’s the idea that a woman’s tears are important and that we have to be very careful not to have women shed tears,” she said.
Western capitals, led by Washington, have said the path to formal recognition of the Taliban is largely stalled until they reverse course on women’s rights and open high schools to girls.
“I’m also fighting for this generation, but also the future generations who will end up being illiterate,” Talash said.
“The burqa (cape) I wore at the Olympics was a symbol — like wings for Afghan women to take flight and break free.”


French prosecutors seek 7-year sentence for Sarkozy in Libya campaign financing trial

Updated 10 sec ago
Follow

French prosecutors seek 7-year sentence for Sarkozy in Libya campaign financing trial

French prosecutors seek 7-year sentence for Sarkozy in Libya campaign financing trial
The National Financial Prosecutor’s Office also called for a five-year ban on Sarkozy’s civic, civil and family rights
The accusations trace back to 2011, when a Libyan news agency and Gadhafi himself said that the Libyan state had secretly funneled millions of euros into Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign

PARIS: French prosecutors on Thursday requested a seven-year prison sentence and a 300,000-euro (around $325,000) fine for former President Nicolas Sarkozy, in connection with allegations that his 2007 presidential campaign was illegally financed by former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s government.
The National Financial Prosecutor’s Office, known by its French acronym PNF, also called for a five-year ban on Sarkozy’s civic, civil and family rights — a measure that would bar him from holding elected office or serving in any public judicial role.
The case, which opened in January and is expected to conclude on April 10, is considered the most serious of the multiple legal scandals that have clouded Sarkozy’s post-presidency.
The 70-year-old Sarkozy, who led France from 2007 to 2012, faces charges of passive corruption, illegal campaign financing, concealment of embezzlement of public funds and criminal association. He has denied any wrongdoing.
The accusations trace back to 2011, when a Libyan news agency and Gadhafi himself said that the Libyan state had secretly funneled millions of euros into Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign.
In 2012, the French investigative outlet Mediapart published what it said was a Libyan intelligence memo referencing a 50 million-euro funding agreement. Sarkozy denounced the document as a forgery and sued for defamation.
French magistrates later said that the memo appeared to be authentic, though no conclusive evidence of a completed transaction has been presented.
Investigators also looked into a series of trips by Sarkozy’s associates to Libya between 2005 and 2007.
In 2016, Franco-Lebanese businessman Ziad Takieddine told Mediapart that he had delivered suitcases filled with cash from Tripoli to the French Interior Ministry under Sarkozy. He later retracted his statement. That reversal is now the focus of a separate investigation into possible witness tampering.
Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, have both been placed under preliminary investigation in that case.
Sarkozy’s former ministers Claude Guéant, Brice Hortefeux, and Éric Woerth are also on trial, along with eight other defendants. But prosecutors have made clear the central figure is the former president himself — accused of knowingly benefiting from a “corruption pact” with a foreign dictatorship while campaigning to lead the French republic.
While Sarkozy has already been convicted in two other criminal cases, the Libya affair is widely seen as the most politically explosive — and the one most likely to shape his legacy.
In December 2024, France’s highest court upheld his conviction for corruption and influence peddling, sentencing him to one year of house arrest with an electronic bracelet. That case stemmed from tapped phone calls uncovered during the Libya investigation. In a separate ruling in February 2024, a Paris appeals court found him guilty of illegal campaign financing in his failed 2012 reelection bid.
Sarkozy has dismissed the Libya allegations as politically motivated and rooted in forged evidence. But if convicted, he would become the first former French president found guilty of accepting illegal foreign funds to win office.
A verdict is expected later this year.


French prosecutors on Thursday requested a seven-year prison sentence and a $325,000 fine for former President Nicolas Sarkozy, in connection with allegations that his 2007 presidential campaign was illegally financed by former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s government. (AFP/File)

Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries

Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries
Updated 5 min 53 sec ago
Follow

Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries

Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries
  • FBI and Justice Department for decades have been responsible for enforcing Espionage Act statutes governing the mishandling of national defense information
  • Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled at an unrelated news conference on Thursday that she was disinclined to do so

WASHINGTON: FBI Director Kash Patel was not part of a Signal chat in which other Trump administration national security officials discussed detailed attack plans, but that didn’t spare him from being questioned by lawmakers this week about whether the nation’s premier law enforcement agency would investigate.
Patel made no such commitments during the course of two days of Senate and House hearings, declining to comment on the possibility and testifying that he had not personally reviewed the text messages that were inadvertently shared with the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic who was mistakenly included on an unclassified Signal chat.
That Patel would be grilled on what the FBI might do was hardly surprising.
Even as President Donald Trump insisted “it’s not really an FBI thing,” the reality is that the FBI and Justice Department for decades have been responsible for enforcing Espionage Act statutes governing the mishandling — whether intentional or negligent — of national defense information like the kind shared on Signal, a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications but is not approved for classified information.
The Justice Department has broad discretion to open an investigation, though Attorney General Pam Bondi, who introduced Trump at a Justice Department event this month, signaled at an unrelated news conference on Thursday that she was disinclined to do so. She repeated Trump administration talking points that the highly sensitive information in the chat was not classified, though current and former US officials have said the posting of the exact launch times of aircraft and times that bombs would be released before those pilots were even in the air would have been classified.
She also quickly pivoted to two Democrats, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Joe Biden, who found themselves under investigation but never charged for allegedly mishandling classified information. Indeed, the department has conducted multiple high-profile investigations in recent years, albeit with differences in underlying facts and outcomes.
Multiple high-profile figures have found themselves under investigation in recent years over their handling of government secrets, but the differences in the underlying facts and the outcomes make it impossible to prognosticate what might happen in this instance or whether any accountability can be expected. There’s also precedent for public officials either to avoid criminal charges or be spared meaningful punishment.
“In terms of prior investigations, there were set-out standards that the department always looked at and tried to follow when making determinations about which types of disclosures they were going to pursue,” including the sensitivity of the information exposed the willfulness of the conduct, said former Justice Department prosecutor Michael Zweiback, who has handled classified information investigations.
A look at just a few of the notable prior investigations:
Hillary Clinton
The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee was investigated but not charged for her use of a private email server for the sake of convenience during her time as secretary of state in the Obama administration. There appear to be some parallels with the Signal chat episode.
The politically fraught criminal investigation was initiated by a 2015 referral from the intelligence agencies’ internal watchdog, which alerted the FBI to the presence of potentially hundreds of emails containing classified information on that server. Law enforcement then set out to determine whether Clinton, or her aides, had transmitted classified information on a server not meant to host such material.
The overall conclusions were something of a mixed bag.
Then-FBI Director James Comey, in a highly unusual public statement, asserted that the bureau had found evidence that Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information but recommended against charges because he said officials could not prove that she intended to break the law or knew that the information she and her aides were communicating about was classified.
The decision was derided by Republicans who thought the Obama administration Justice Department had let a fellow Democrat off the hook. Among those critical were some of the very same participants in the Signal chat as well as Bondi, who as Florida’s attorney general spoke at the 2016 Republican National Convention and mimicked the audience chant of “Lock her up!”
David Petraeus
Among the biggest names to actually get charged is Petraeus, the former CIA director sentenced in 2015 to two years’ probation for disclosing classified information to a biographer with whom he was having an extramarital affair.
That material consisted of eight binders of classified information that Petraeus improperly kept in his house from his time as the top military commander in Afghanistan. Among the secret details in the “black books” were the names of covert operatives, the coalition war strategy and notes about Petraeus’ discussions with President Barack Obama and the National Security Council, prosecutors have said.
Petraeus, a retired four-star Army general who led US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, wound up pleading guilty to a single misdemeanor count of unauthorized retention and removal of classified material as part of a deal with Justice Department prosecutors. Some national security experts said it smacked of a double-standard for its lenient outcome.
Comey himself would later complain about the resolution, writing in a 2018 book that he argued to the Justice Department that Petraeus should have also been charged with a felony for lying to the FBI.
“A poor person, an unknown person — say a young black Baptist minister from Richmond — would be charged with a felony and sent to jail,” he said.
Joe Biden and Donald Trump
These investigations don’t bear much parallel to the Signal episode but nonetheless serve as examples of high-profile probes launched by the department into the mishandling of classified information.
Both found themselves investigated by Justice Department special counsels, with Trump being charged with hoarding top-secret records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Trump had taken those records after leaving office. He was also accused of showing off a Pentagon attack plan to a visitor at his Bedminster golf club.
The case was dismissed by a Florida-based judge who concluded that special counsel Jack Smith had been improperly appointed. Prosecutors abandoned the case after Trump won in November.
Biden, too, was investigated for his retention of classified information in his home following his tenure as vice president. A special counsel found some evidence that Biden had willfully retained the records but concluded that criminal charges were not merited.
Jeffrey Sterling
A former CIA officer, Sterling was convicted of leaking to a reporter details of a secret mission to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions by slipping flawed nuclear blueprints to the Iranians through a Russian intermediary.
He was sentenced in 2015 to 3 1/2 years in prison, a punishment whistleblower advocates and other supporters decried as impossible to square with Petraeus’ misdemeanor guilty plea just a month earlier.
The details of the operation disclosed by Sterling were published by journalist James Risen in his 2006 book “State of War.”
Sterling was charged in 2010, but the trial was delayed for years, in part because of legal wrangling about whether Risen could be forced to testify. Ultimately, prosecutors chose not to call Risen as a witness, despite winning legal battles allowing them to do so.


Lawyer for Turkish student at Tufts University detained by feds calls for government to produce her

Lawyer for Turkish student at Tufts University detained by feds calls for government to produce her
Updated 27 March 2025
Follow

Lawyer for Turkish student at Tufts University detained by feds calls for government to produce her

Lawyer for Turkish student at Tufts University detained by feds calls for government to produce her
  • The request was made a day after Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, was stopped by masked federal agents after she left her home in Somerville
  • A federal judge presiding over her case ordered lawyers representing the government to respond to the motion Thursday morning

BOSTON: A lawyer for a Turkish national and doctoral student at Tufts University who was detained by US Department of Homeland Security agents filed an emergency motion Thursday requesting that the government produce her.
The request was made a day after Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, was stopped by masked federal agents after she left her home in Somerville, Massachusetts. A federal judge presiding over her case ordered lawyers representing the government to respond to the motion Thursday morning.
Video obtained by The Associated Press appears to show six people, their faces covered, taking away Ozturk’s phone as she yells and is handcuffed on Wednesday.
“We’re the police,” members of the group are heard saying in the video.
A bystander is heard asking, “Why are you hiding your faces?”
US District Judge Indira Talwani initially issued an order giving the government until Friday to answer why Ozturk was being detained. Talwani also ordered that Ozturk not be moved outside the District of Massachusetts without 48 hours advance notice.
The US Immigration and Custom Enforcement said Thursday that Ozturk was being held at a detention center in Basile, Louisiana, and has spoken to her lawyer. A senior Department of Homeland Security spokesperson also confirmed Ozturk’s detention and the termination of her visa.
“DHS and (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans. A visa is a privilege, not a right. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated. This is common sense security,” the spokesperson told the AP.
The DHS did not provide examples of Ozturk’s support of Hamas, which is designated by the US government as a terrorist organization.
The arrest appears to be part of President Donald Trump’s pledge to deport students who, he said, engage in “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity,” applying it broadly to those who criticize Israel and protest its military campaign in Gaza.
Hamas’ invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking about 250 hostages. Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed over 50,000 people, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and destroyed much of the enclave.
Ozturk, who is Muslim, was meeting friends for iftar, a meal that breaks a fast at sunset during Ramadan, her attorney, Mahsa Khanbabai said.
She said no charges have been filed against Ozturk.
“We are in touch with local, state, and federal elected officials and hope that Rumeysa is provided the opportunity to avail herself of her due process rights,” Tufts University President Sunil Kumar said in a statement Wednesday night. “The university is actively working to support the Tufts community as it mobilizes its collective resources and contacts to ensure our students’ safety and wellbeing.”
Ozturk was one of four students last March who wrote an op-ed in The Tufts Daily criticizing the university’s response to student demands that Tufts “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide,” disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.
After the op-ed was published, Ozturk’s name, photograph and work history were published on the website Canary Mission, a website that describes itself as documenting people who “promote hatred of the USA., Israel and Jews on North American college campuses.”
Friends of Ozturk’s say she did not play a prominent role in campus protests that erupted last spring against the Israel’s military in Gaza.
“There’s a very important distinction between writing a letter supporting the student senate and taking the kind of action they’re accusing her of, which I’ve seen no evidence of,” said Jennifer Hoyden, a friend and former classmate of Ozturk’s at Columbia University’s Teachers College.
“She came to this country seeking to expand her knowledge and contribute to a peaceful society,” Hoyden added. “I cannot stress enough how peaceful and kind and gentle she is as a human being.”


Finnish government seeks to extend ban on migrants seeking asylum on Russia border

Finnish government seeks to extend ban on migrants seeking asylum on Russia border
Updated 27 March 2025
Follow

Finnish government seeks to extend ban on migrants seeking asylum on Russia border

Finnish government seeks to extend ban on migrants seeking asylum on Russia border
  • “The threat of instrumentalized migration at Finland’s eastern border remains high and unpredictable,” Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said
  • The exceptional emergency law was part of the government’s response to more than 1,300 migrants from countries such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen

HELSINKI: Finland’s right-wing government has asked parliament to extend until the end of 2026 a law that allows it to reject asylum applications from migrants crossing its closed eastern border with Russia and to send them back, it said on Thursday.
NATO member Finland has accused Russia of weaponizing migration by encouraging migrants from third countries to cross their shared border, an assertion the Kremlin has repeatedly denied.
“The threat of instrumentalized migration at Finland’s eastern border remains high and unpredictable,” Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said in a statement, adding the situation at the border was tense but stable.
While Finland’s non-discrimination ombudsman says the law is at odds with international human rights commitments and EU asylum rules, the government of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo has said it must be extended to prevent possible future arrivals.
The exceptional emergency law, initially approved for a year in July 2024, was part of the government’s response to more than 1,300 migrants from countries such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen entering Finland from Russia in 2023. That phenomenon also prompted Finland to close the border with Russia.
The flow of migrants stopped after Finland closed down all official border crossing points at the end of 2023, and in 2024 only eight people crossed the border illegally after January, interior ministry data showed.
The government needs the support of three quarters of lawmakers in the 200-strong parliament to secure an extension of the law, a high bar reflecting the fundamental principles at stake.
The independent senior official charged with overseeing the legality of government actions said this month that the proposal to extend the asylum ban had insufficient reasoning, emphasising that emergency legislation must only be temporary in nature.
The official, known as the chancellor of justice, also said the threat assessment regarding migrants was insufficient and urged the government to explore alternatives.
The current emergency legislation expires on July 21.


UK’s Starmer: Now is not the time for lifting sanctions

UK’s Starmer: Now is not the time for lifting sanctions
Updated 27 March 2025
Follow

UK’s Starmer: Now is not the time for lifting sanctions

UK’s Starmer: Now is not the time for lifting sanctions
  • Starmer met leaders of countries involved in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’
  • “There was absolute clarity that Russia is trying to delay,” Starmer said

LONDON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Thursday that now was not the time to lift sanctions against Russia, speaking after a meeting with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and other leaders in Paris.
Starmer met leaders of countries involved in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ to discuss strengthening Kyiv’s position and what role the coalition might play if a peace deal is struck with Russia.
“There was absolute clarity that Russia is trying to delay, is playing games, and we have to be absolutely clear about that,” Starmer said, standing alongside Zelensky.
“And that has meant three outcomes. Firstly, more support for Ukraine to make sure Ukraine is in the strongest possible position.... Second, complete clarity that now is not the time for lifting of sanctions, quite the contrary.”
He also said the group discussed military and operational plans for the coalition of the willing.