ban

Sept. 3 (UPI) — Children younger than 16 in England will no longer be able to legally buy high-caffeine energy drinks under a proposal announced by the British government Tuesday.

The proposed ban would apply to drinks sold in shops, restaurants, cafes and vending machines, according to an announcement from the Labour-led government. If enacted, England would join other European countries with restrictions on the drinks that have been blamed for childhood obesity, poor sleep and behavioral issues in classrooms.

“How can we expect children to do well at school if they have the equivalent of four cans of cola in their system on a daily basis?” Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said in a statement. “Energy drinks might seem harmless, but the sleep, concentration and wellbeing of today’s kids are all being impacted, while high sugar versions damage their teeth and contribute to obesity.”

While most supermarkets voluntarily stopped selling energy drinks to children under 16, they can still easily be obtained in smaller shops and up to a third of British children consume them weekly, reported the Mirror.

The ban would not apply to drinks containing less than 150 milligrams of caffeine per liter, leaving out lower-caffeine soft drinks, as well as coffee and tea. That means that cans of Red Bull, Monster and Prime Energy would be banned, the paper reported.

Countries including Lithuania, Latvia, Turkey and Sweden already have similar restrictions in place. State lawmakers in the United States have sought to ban the drinks.

Previously, the Conservative-led government considered a ban but did not follow through on it. Last year, a review of previous research on how the drinks affect young people published in the journal Public Health linked them to anxiety, stress and even suicidality.

“High-caffeine energy drinks have no place in children’s hands,” Katharine Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, said in a statement. She called the ban “a common-sense, evidence-based step to protect children’s physical, mental, and dental health.”

The ban also had broad support for pediatricians, the national teachers union and public health campaigners.

However, Gavin Partington from the British Soft Drinks Association told the BBC that self-regulation was working.

“As with all government policy, it’s essential that any forthcoming regulation is based on a rigorous assessment of the evidence that’s available,” he said.

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also considering similar bans, according to the BBC.

The ban by India’s government of online betting games has ended the national cricket team’s sponsorship by Dream11.

India are looking for a new lead sponsor to replace Indian fantasy sports platform Dream11 after the government banned real-money online gaming last month, leaving the world’s richest cricket board scrambling to secure new revenue.

Dream11, which had signed a three-year contract worth about 3.6 billion rupees ($44m) running through 2026, can no longer sponsor the national team after the central government banned real-money online games as well as their promotion, including fantasy sports.

India’s upper house of parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill 2025 last month.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which commands some of the world’s most lucrative broadcast deals thanks to cricket’s popularity and India’s vast population, set a September 16 deadline for new bid submissions.

The auction is unlikely to remain unsold for long, but with the Asia Cup starting on September 9, India may take the field without a front-of-shirt sponsor in the opening week, which includes the marquee match against rivals Pakistan on September 14.

The Economic Times reported on Saturday, citing people familiar with the matter, that the board is seeking 35 million rupees ($397.6k) per match for bilaterals, and 15 million ($170.4k) per match for India’s fixtures in International Cricket Council and Asian Cricket Council tournaments in a three-year sponsorship cycle.

Over an estimated 140 games in the 2025-28 cycle, the BCCI expects to generate about 4.52 billion rupees ($51.3m), about 940 million ($10.7m) more than under Dream11’s deal, which was 3.58 billion ($40.7m) for the period July 2023 to March 2026 – an uplift of more than 20 percent.

STEPHEN LEE has returned to snooker following a 12-year ban from competition.

The Wiltshire native, 50, received the ban in 2013 when he was found guilty of match fixing.

3

3

The charges came in relation to seven matches in 2008 and 2009, including one at the World Championships.

Lee was adjudged to have accepted thousands of pounds in exchange for influencing the outcome of matches.

But the five-time ranking event winner’s ban expired last October, leaving him free to return to the table.

Now he has finally made his return through an event with the Billiard Sports Association of Thailand.

He played in an exhibition match earlier this month against former world number three James Wattana.

Lee showed that he still had some of his class, beating Wattana two frames to one, and garnering praise from viewers.

One fan said: “Stephen can still play. Still got that wonderful cue action.”

3

One commentor on YouTube praised both players, and suggested Lee still has what it takes to compete on the World Snooker Tour.

“2 brilliant players still. I’d love to see how Stephen Lee would get on if he was back on tour.

“He still has much more class than the other Q-School regulars.”

Lee has twice held a top five ranking during his peak in the early 2000s.

He has been keeping his skills sharp during his ban by teaching aspiring players in China.

He would have another run-in with the law when he was caught up in an immigration raid in Hong Kong and was found to be working illegally in 2018.

Aug. 24 (UPI) — Classical musicians and instrument makers are warning of a looming crisis ahead of a U.S. meeting in September on Brazil’s push to ban most international trade in Paubrasilia echinata, also known as Pernambuco, the tropical hardwood used in professional violin bows that has been endangered for decades due to centuries of overharvesting.

Brazil in June formally asked the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, to transfer Pernambuco from Appendix II to Appendix I, the treaty’s highest level of protection, records show. Delegates will decide at the Nov. 24-Dec. 5 conference in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

Last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced in the Federal Register that it would hold a public meeting on Sept. 10 to develop U.S. positions on CoP20 agenda items, including species proposals such as Brazil’s pernambuco uplisting. Written comments are due Sept. 17.

Steven Cundall, who runs the Texas-based Luthier Shop, was one of dozens of people and organizations who submitted public comments over the weekend. The violinmaker said in his comment that he would rather support strengthening protections under Appendix II rather than elevating it to an Appendix I listing.

Cundall said this would allow for expanded conservation efforts and heightened protections while avoiding the significant impact an Appendix I listing could have on the music industry, collectors, musicians, orchestras, and management authorities.

“Most antique bows as well as modern bows cannot be certified proving that they are not illegal according to the pending status change,” Cundall further explained in a Facebook post.

“String instrument musicians, collectors, quartets, orchestras, luthiers, bowmakers or anyone with uncertified Pernambuco bows will not be able to travel with their bows outside of their countries without fear of having their bows confiscated by customs authorities in CITES member nations.”

He suggested that the sale or resale of any Pernambuco bows could be prohibited in the same manner as elephant ivory.

“Bows made of Pernambuco, Brazil’s national tree, are without equal,” Yo-Yo Ma said in a statement published by the International Alliance of Violin and Bow Makers for Endangered Species.

“I urge musicians and the public to join the call for conservation and sustainable use of this precious species-there is work to be done and the world of music can play an important role.”

The fight has been years in the making. Pernambuco was first listed under CITES protection in 2007, which allowed trade but regulated it with export permits to ensure the wood was legally sourced and that trade would not endanger the species.

Since 2007, finished bows already outside Brazil have been essentially exempt, as musicians could travel and trade without paperwork. But Brazil has renewed calls for stricter controls since 2022.

In February 2023, CITES started requiring permits for finished bows exported from Brazil for the first time. Bows already abroad remain exempt from re-export permits. An Appendix I listing would go further.

In their public comment, the pianist for the Boston-based musical group called the Pernambuco Chamber Ensemble said the orchestra raises funds and awareness for conservation efforts and “certainly” supports Appendix II protections.

“But it is not reasonable to require document over 250 years of bows,” they wrote. “And obtaining CITES permits would create unworkable restrictions on travel for musicians.”

As the Trump administration continues to ramp up immigration enforcement actions, a group of lawmakers is suing Immigration and Customs Enforcement for placing restrictions on detention center visits — obstructing Congress’ role in overseeing government functions.

Twelve House Democrats filed a lawsuit challenging new guidelines that require advance notice for oversight visits and render certain facilities off-limits. “No child should be sleeping on concrete, and no sick person should be denied care,” said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). “Yet that’s exactly what we keep hearing is happening inside Trump’s detention centers.”

These lawmakers are right to seek access to detention facilities. Detention centers have long been plagued by poor conditions, so the need for oversight is urgent. With record numbers of migrants being detained, the public has a right to know how people in the government’s custody are being treated.

The U.S. operates the world’s largest immigration detention system, at a cost of $3 billion a year. This money is appropriated by Congress — and comes with conditions.

Under existing law, none of the funds given to Homeland Security may be used to prevent members of Congress from conducting oversight visits of “any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.” In addition, the law states that members of Congress are not required to “provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility.” So ICE’s attempt to place limits on oversight appears to be illegal.

The restrictions are also problematic because they claim to exempt the agency’s field offices from oversight. However, migrants are being locked up in such offices, including at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles, and 26 Federal Plaza in New York City. In the former, one detainee reported being fed only once a day, at 3 a.m. In the latter, as many as 80 detainees have been crammed into a single room amid sweltering summer temperatures. These offices were never set up to house people overnight or for days or weeks. If they are functioning as de facto detention centers, then they must be subject to inspections.

Congressional oversight of immigration detention is vital right now. The current capacity for U.S. detention facilities is 41,000. Yet the government was holding nearly 57,000 people as of July 27. That means facilities are far over capacity, in a system that the Vera Institute of Justice describes as “plagued by abuse and neglect.”

No matter who is president, conditions in immigrant detention are generally abysmal. Migrant detention centers have been cited for their lack of medical care, poor treatment of detainees, and physical and sexual violence. In 2019, the federal government itself reported that conditions in detention were inhumane. At least 11 people have died in detention since January. This reality cries out for more transparency and accountability — especially because Homeland Security laid off most of its internal watchdogs earlier this year.

The ranks of detainees include asylum-seekers, teenagers, DACA recipients, pregnant women, journalists and even U.S. citizens. Most of the detainees arrested lately have no criminal convictions. These folks are often arrested and moved thousands of miles away from home, complicating their access to legal representation and family visits. A visit by a congressional delegation may be the only way to ensure that they are being treated properly.

In response to the lawsuit by House Democrats, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for Homeland Security, said: “These members of Congress could have just scheduled a tour. Instead, they’re running to court to drive clicks and fundraising emails.” She added that ICE was imposing the new limits, in part, because of “obstructions to enforcement, including by politicians themselves.”

McLaughlin might have been referring to a May scuffle outside a Newark, N.J., detention center that led to charges being filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the arrest of the city’s mayor. But this incident would not have occurred if immigration officials had followed the law and allowed lawmakers inside to survey the facility’s conditions.

Indeed, the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, told a congressional hearing in May that he recognized the right of members to visit detention facilities, even with no notice. And the notion that any government agency can unilaterally regulate Congress runs afoul of the Constitution. The legislative branch has the right and obligation to supervise the executive branch. Simply put, ICE cannot tell members of Congress what they can or cannot do.

The need for oversight in detention facilities will only become greater in the future, as Congress just approved $45 billion for the expansion of immigrant detention centers. This could result in the daily detention of at least 116,000 people. Meanwhile, 55% of Americans, according to the Pew Center, disapprove of building more facilities to hold immigrants.

ICE’s new policies violate federal law. No agency is above oversight — and members of Congress must be allowed full access to detention facilities.

Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and contributor to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. X: @RaulAReyes; Instagram: @raulareyes1

A top university in the United States has declined to oppose President Donald Trump’s travel ban on Iran after a call to action by its Iranian students.

In a letter last month, the group of students called on the University of Texas at Austin to denounce Trump’s “sweeping and discriminatory” ban, take “immediate legal action” against the measure, and reaffirm support for Iranian students and scholars.

The letter, authored “on behalf of the newly admitted Iranian students”, was sent to interim university President Jim Davis on July 21, weeks after Trump signed an executive order banning citizens from 12 countries, including Iran.

“This Proclamation undermines the very principles upon which UT Austin stands. Iranian students and scholars have long been integral to the university’s academic and research excellence, particularly in STEM fields,” the letter said.

In the letter, the group noted that the university’s department of civil, architectural and environmental engineering was named after Fariborz Maseeh, an Iranian-American entrepreneur and philanthropist, in a “testament to the enduring legacy of Iranian American contributions to education, innovation, and public service”.

“This is a moment that calls for bold and principled action,” the letter said.

“UT Austin has long benefited from Iranian students’ academic contributions. It must now stand in their defense. Failing to act not only jeopardizes the futures of individual students – it risks diminishing the ethical and intellectual standing of the institution itself.”

Al Jazeera obtained the letter through a public records request.

Despite the students’ plea, neither the university nor Davis have made any public comment on the ban.

Davis’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Last year, 81 Iranians studied at the University of Texas at Austin, according to the university’s website, almost all of whom were graduate students.

The University of Texas at Austin is considered among the most prestigious tertiary institutions in the US, placing 30th in US News and World Report’s 2025 university rankings.

“After months of preparation and acceptance into the world’s leading research institutions, we now face the heartbreaking possibility of being denied entry for a long time,” an Iranian student, who was involved in the letter, told Al Jazeera, requesting anonymity.

The student said many members of a 1,500-person Telegram group of Iranian students that they belong to have reported being stuck in prolonged post-interview administrative processing.

A few of them have been refused visas, while others have chosen to skip visa interviews on the understanding that they would be denied a visa, the student said.

Prior to the ban, many of them would have already undergone extensive security vetting to obtain a student visa.

Apart from Iran, Trump’s travel ban also applies to Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

The student said Iranians were facing “collective punishment” by the Trump administration.

“People must not be equated with their governments,” the student said.

“Such blanket measures are neither reasonable nor fair, and they undermine the very principles of justice, academic freedom, and equal opportunity that the United States has long stood for.”

More than 12,300 Iranian students studied in the US during the 2023-2024 academic year, up from 10,812 a year earlier, according to the US State Department.

The new account comes as Trump has three times delayed implementing a ‘sell or ban’ law for the Chinese-owned app.

The White House has launched an official TikTok account, even as the future of the Chinese-owned social media app in the United States remains uncertain due to legislation passed by the US Congress last year.

The official White House account’s first post on Tuesday was a 27-second video featuring a voiceover from President Donald Trump, saying: “Every day I wake up determined to deliver a better life for the People all across this nation. I am your voice.”

The account’s description read: “Welcome to the Golden Age of America”.

TikTok, which remains owned by Chinese technology company ByteDance, is popular among young people, and has an estimated 170 million users in the US.

Trump has so far delayed the implementation of a 2024 law that ordered TikTok to either to sell to non-Chinese buyers or be banned in the US, with three 90-day extensions.

The US House of Representatives voted 352 to 65 in favour of the “sell or ban” bill in March 2024, with widespread support from both Republicans and Democrats.

The latest extension delaying the ban is due to expire in early September.

“My Administration has been working very hard on a Deal to SAVE TIKTOK, and we have made tremendous progress,” Trump posted on the Truth Social network, which he owns, in April.

Few representatives questioned the bill to ban TikTok at the time it was passed, although then-Democratic representative Barbara Lee asked why only one company was being singled out in an attempt to address problems that relate to social media companies more broadly.

“Rather than target one company in a rushed and secretive process, Congress should pass comprehensive data privacy protections and do a better job of informing the public of the threats these companies may pose to national security,” Lee had posted on the social media platform X.

Although the vast majority of both Democratic and Republican representatives supported the “sell or ban” bill, many members of both parties have used the TikTok platform for campaigning and official communications.

Both Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Republican nominee Trump used the app to campaign in the 2024 Presidential election.

On Tuesday, the US state of Minnesota joined a wave of states suing TikTok, alleging the social media giant preys on young people with addictive algorithms that trap them into becoming compulsive consumers of its short videos.

Minnesota is also among dozens of US states that have sued Meta Platforms for allegedly building features into Instagram and Facebook that addict people. The messaging service Snapchat and the gaming platform Roblox are also facing lawsuits by some other states alleging harm to children.

Aug. 19 (UPI) — A federal appeals court barred West Texas A&M University from enforcing a ban on drag shows on campus, overruling a lower court’s decision that said drag shows did not necessarily enjoy First Amendment protections.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the LGBTQ+ Spectrum WT student group and two of its student leaders who sued the school in March 2023, after university president Walter Wendler unilaterally canceled their then-upcoming charity drag show by arguing such performances were comparable to blackface and against his religious beliefs.

The appeals court ruling puts a hold on Wendler’s ban, allowing the student group to host drag shows on campus amid litigation.

“FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler’s unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,” JT Morris, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which filed the lawsuit, said in a statement.

“This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.”

In March 2023, Spectrum WT was planning a drag show for adults on West Texas A&M University to raise money for the Trevor Project, an LGBTQ+ suicide prevention and crisis intervention nonprofit — but was barred from hosting the event by Wendler, who issued a ban on drag shows.

In a March 21, 2023, letter to students, Wendler stated he believes humans are created in God’s image and that drag shows do not preserve human dignity.

“As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood,” he said.

“Drag shows are derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent,” he continued. “Such conduct runs counter to the purpose of WT.”

Spectrum WT then sued the school and held its performance off campus.

Before the court, Wendler argued that drag shows are not express conduct protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, and that drag shows should be restricted due to lewd conduct.

In September, the lower court agreed with Wendler that not all drag shows are inherently expressive and entitled to First Amendment protections, finding Wendler was right to cancel the performance because of “potential lewdness.”

Writing on behalf of the majority, Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, a President George W. Bush appointee, said the district court erred by concluding the student group was not likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment argument.

“Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find that plaintiffs’ drag show is protected expression, discrimination among such shows must pass strict scrutiny,” Southwick said in the ruling.

“President Wendler did not argue, either before the district court or on appeal, that restricting the intended drag show would survive strict scrutiny.”

Southwick also found that the group suffered ongoing irreparable injury to their free speech First Amendment rights as Wendler had canceled their planned show and would permit no future shows going forward.

Circuit Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, in dissent agreed that drag shows are not inherently expressive and that if universities allow men to act as women in campus events, such as drag shows, “they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women’s sports.”

“What a university allows in an auditorium, it might have to allow on an athletic field, too.”

UPI has contacted West Texas A&M University for comment.

If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded “public benefit” programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court.

The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state’s emergency healthcare system, the officials said.

Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said.

In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate “chilling effect” on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader “ripple effects” — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as “a critical safety net” for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers.

“Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,” Jaime-Milehan said.

Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote.

Tony Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the “chilling effect” from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to “seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.”

Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states’ lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations.

The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants.

The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”

Trump’s order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.

The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”

California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.

“We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues.

The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out.

Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

“Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,” she wrote.

Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county’s “safety-net” care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities.

“But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,” Chawla wrote. “This will exacerbate their health conditions.”

Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county’s residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county’s children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country.

The administration’s changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote.

“The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara’s emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,” Hansen wrote.

The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court.

In response to the states’ motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it.

They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies “merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,” and “restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.”

The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — A federal appeals court has ruled that Arkansas may enforce its ban on minors receiving gender-affirming care, overturning a lower court’s decision that found the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling Tuesday, stating the lower court erred in June 2023 when it struck down Arkansas’ Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act for violating the First Amendment and both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause.

It said the lower court’s ruling was incongruent with a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban for minors.

“Because the district court rested its permanent injunction on incorrect conclusions of law, it abused its discretion,” the appeals court ruled.

Arkansas’ Republican attorney general, Tim Griffin, celebrated the ruling.

“I applaud the court’s decision recognizing that Arkansas has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological health of children and am pleased that children in Arkansas will be protected from risky, experimental procedures with lifelong consequences,” he said in a statement.

Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, from psychological, behavioral and medical interventions with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. The medical practice has been endorsed by every medical association.

Despite the evidence and the support of the medical community, Republicans and conservatives, often with the use of misinformation, have been targeting gender-affirming care amid a larger push threatening the rights of the LGBTQ community.

Arkansas passed the SAVE Act in 2021, but then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed it that same year, calling the ban a “product of the cultural war in America” that would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. The GOP-majority legislature then overrode his veto, making Arkansas the first state to pass a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors in the United States.

Four transgender minors and their parents then challenged the law, saying it violated their rights, resulting in the 2023 ruling overturning the ban, which marked a victory in the fight for LGBTQ healthcare until Tuesday.

“This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families,” Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said in a statement.

“As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want transgender Arkansans to know they are far from alone and we remain as determined as ever to secure their right to safety, dignity and equal access to the healthcare they need.”

The ruling comes as Republicans seeking to restrict transgender healthcare have gained a support in the White House with President Donald Trump who has implemented several federal policies that align with their efforts.

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it federal policy that there are only two genders, male and female, both of which were determined at “conception.” He has also banned transgender Americans from the military and has sought to bar transgender athletes from competing on teams and in competitions that align with their gender identity.

Twenty-six states and the territory of Puerto Rico have banned gender-affirming care for minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

As a parent I have had to take drastic measures and ban Peppa Pig for good after my daughter continued to repeat and awful word

Those of you who have tuned in previously for my Peppa Pig opinion pieces will already know that I am not the show’s biggest supporter.

I have outlined in the past that I would be switching over to Disney’s family fun show Bluey, instead of allowing my two-year-old to follow the likes of Peppa, George, Mummy Pig and Daddy Pig.

However, there was one occasion since my original statement when we accidentally watched the CBeebies programme. In fairness, it was not intentional, we’d tried desperately hard to find other shows that we felt were more suitable for our toddler. We’d just been watching Justin Fletcher’s Something Special show and before we’d realised, the infamous pigs were next to follow on the channel.

Of course, as Peppa and her family began to chime their snorts in the opening introduction, we were met with a roar of excitement from a toddler – who had not seen the show for sometime now.

I shot a look at my partner, both of us providing a nod of approval that we would make one small allowance – and that she could watch it “just this once”.

What we didn’t realise is that we would pay massively for “just this once,” a mistake that would live with us for weeks to come.

I think it’s worth noting for the record that our daughter, apart from when she’s unwell, is generally a good eater and will chow down most food with minimal fuss. Any way, back to the show and how this all ties together.

We happened to allow our two-year-old to tune into episode 34, of season one, titled ‘lunch”. I would go out on a limb here and say this was probably the worst instalment I’d ever seen and regret deeply ever putting it on now.

In this episode, George, Peppa Mummy Pig and Daddy Pig are visiting Granny and Grandpa Pig, who have collected fresh vegetables from their garden and invited everyone over to sample the goods with them at their table.

As they all dig in, sampling the delicious homegrown produce, George is left looking perplexed. Granny, Grandad, Mummy and Daddy Pig prompt him to try various varieties of salad to which he rudely replies: “Yuck,” and pokes his tongue out, moving his body away from his plate and turning his nose up.

Refusing to try anything put in front of him, he simply tells them: “Yuck,” each time before finally bursting into tears.

Grandad intervene with a clever tactic, turning the salad into a dinosaur, with T-Rex obsessed George eventually lapping up the healthy goods in no time at all.

I can see where the shows creators were going with narrative, that a little bit of creativity goes a long way but to use the word “yuck” in a food environment with impressionable toddlers watching, I simply do not agree with.

As soon as we heard the word “yuck” leave George’s lips, we knew we were in store for trouble. We’re at that age where anything you say aloud will be consumed much like a sponge absorbing water.

Sure enough, even after the episode had concluded, our two-year-old continued to repeat the word “yuck,” finding it utterly hilarious. We’d hoped this would pass but it didn’t.

The next day, we presented our daughter with a homemade lasagne for dinner, a meal I had personally prepared totally from scratch and had probably taken the best part of five hours to cook – over the course of various parts of the day.

As I placed her plate on the table, I was met with the word “yuck,” yet again. I tried to encourage her to eat with playful aeroplane notions and was further shunned as she told me: “Yuck, yuck and yuck,” much like George had done previously during the episode.

It wasn’t just happening in our home and we weren’t the only ones to witness her blatant rudeness. We are fortunate enough that we have parents who help us out with childcare once or twice per week. On a visit, they’d dished up a lunchtime staple, peanut butter sandwiches, but were also met with the exact same response.

On collection, we were left embarrassed as we summarised that George was to blame for her ill-mannered behaviour at meal times. We all mutually agreed that Peppa Pig would now be firmly banned across both households.

Even if Peppa Pig happens to roll onto our screens by accident again, I’ll be lunging for the remote as quicker than Usain Bolt to turn it off because in all honesty, from one parent to another, it’s really not worth the additional stress or red faced apologies.

Peppa Pig currently airs on CBeebies and Netflix.

Srinagar, India-administered Kashmir – Hafsa Kanjwal’s book on Kashmir has just been banned, but it’s the irony of the moment that strikes her the most.

This week, authorities in India-administered Kashmir proscribed 25 books authored by acclaimed scholars, writers and journalists.

The banned books include Kanjwal’s Colonizing Kashmir: State‑Building under Indian Occupation. But even as the ban was followed by police raids on several bookstores in the region’s biggest city, Srinagar, during which they seized books on the blacklist, Indian officials are holding a book festival in the city on the banks of Dal Lake.

“Nothing is surprising about this ban, which comes at a moment when the level of censorship and surveillance in Kashmir since 2019 has reached absurd heights,” Kanjwal told Al Jazeera, referring to India’s crackdown on the region since it revoked Kashmir’s semiautonomous status six years ago.

“It is, of course, even more absurd that this ban comes at a time when the Indian army is simultaneously promoting book reading and literature through a state-sponsored Chinar Book Festival.”

Yet even with Kashmir’s long history of facing censorship, the book bans represent to many critics a particularly sweeping attempt by New Delhi to assert control over academia in the disputed region.

‘Misguiding youth’

The 25 books banned by the government offer a detailed overview of the events surrounding the Partition of India and the reasons why Kashmir became such an intransigent territorial dispute to begin with.

They include writings like Azadi by Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy, Human Rights Violations in Kashmir by Piotr Balcerowicz and Agnieszka Kuszewska, Kashmiris’ Fight for Freedom by Mohd Yusaf Saraf, Kashmir Politics and Plebiscite by Abdul Gockhami Jabbar and Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora? by Essar Batool. These are books that directly speak to rights abuses and massacres in Kashmir and promises broken by the Indian state.

Then there are books like Kanjwal’s, journalist Anuradha Bhasin’s A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370 and legal scholar AG Noorani’s The Kashmir Dispute 1947-2012, which dissect the region’s political journey over the decades.

The government has blamed these books for allegedly “misguiding youth” in Kashmir and instigating their “participation in violence and terrorism”. The government’s order states: “This literature would deeply impact the psyche of youth by promoting a culture of grievance, victimhood, and terrorist heroism.”

The dispute in Kashmir dates back to 1947 when the departing British cleaved the Indian subcontinent into the two dominions of India and Pakistan. Muslim-majority Kashmir’s Hindu king sought to be independent of both, but after Pakistan-backed fighters entered a part of the region, he agreed to join India on the condition that Kashmir enjoy a special status within the new union with some autonomy guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

But the Kashmiri people were never asked what they wanted, and India repeatedly rebuffed demands for a United Nations-sponsored plebiscite.

Discontent against Indian rule simmered on and off and exploded into an armed uprising against India in 1989 in response to allegations of election fixing.

Kanjwal’s Colonizing Kashmir sheds light on the complicated ways in which the Indian government under its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, consolidated its control over Kashmir.

Some of Nehru’s decisions that have come under criticism include the unceremonious dismissal of the region’s leader Sheikh Abdullah, who advocated for self-rule for Kashmir, and the decision to replace him with his lieutenant, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad, whose 10 years in office were marked by the strengthening of New Delhi’s rule of Indian-administered Kashmir.

Kanjwal’s book won this year’s Bernard Cohn Book Prize, which “recognizes outstanding and innovative scholarship for a first single-authored English-language monograph on South Asia”.

Kanjwal said the ban gives a sense of how “insecure” the government is.

‘Intensification of political clampdown’

India has a long history of censorship and information control in Kashmir. In 2010, after major protests broke out following the killing of 17-year-old student Tufail Mattoo by security forces, the provincial government banned SMS services and restored them only three years later.

At the height of another civil uprising in 2016, the government stopped Kashmir Reader, an independent publication in Srinagar, from going to press, citing its purported “tendency to incite violence”.

Aside from prohibitions on newspapers and modes of communication, Indian authorities have routinely detained journalists under stringent preventive detention laws in Kashmir.

That pattern has picked up since 2019.

“First they came for journalists, and realising they were successful in silencing them, they have turned their attention to academia,” said veteran editor Anuradha Bhasin, whose book on India’s revocation of Kashmir’s special status in 2019 is among those banned.

Bhasin described the accusations that her book promotes violence as strange. “Nowhere does my book glorify terrorism, but it does criticise the state. There’s a distinction between the two that authorities in Kashmir want to blur. That’s a very dangerous trend.”

Bhasin told Al Jazeera that such bans will have far-reaching implications for future works being produced on Kashmir. “Publishers will think twice before printing anything critical on Kashmir,” she said. “When my book went to print, the legal team vetted it thrice.”

‘A feeling of despair’

The book bans have drawn criticism from various quarters in Kashmir with students and researchers calling it an attempt to impose collective amnesia.

Sabir Rashid, a 27-year-old independent scholar from Kashmir, said he was very disappointed.  “If we take these books out of Kashmir’s literary canon, we are left with nothing,” he said.

Rashid is working on a book on Kashmir’s modern history concerning the period surrounding the Partition of India.

“If these works are no longer available to me, my research is naturally going to be lopsided.”

On Thursday, videos showed uniformed policemen entering bookstores in Srinagar and asking their proprietors if they possessed any of the books in the banned list.

At least one book vendor in Srinagar told Al Jazeera he had a single copy of Bhasin’s Dismantled State, which he sold just before the raids. “Except that one, I did not have any of these books,” he shrugged.

More acclaimed works on the blacklist

Historian Sumantra Bose is aghast at the suggestion by Indian authorities that his book Kashmir at the Crossroads has fuelled violence in the region. He has worked on the Kashmir dispute since 1993 and said he has focused on devising pathways for finding a lasting peace for the region. Bose is also amused at a family legacy represented by the ban.

In 1935, the colonial authorities in British India banned The Indian Struggle, 1920-1934, a compendium of political analysis authored by Subhas Chandra Bose, his great-uncle and a leader of India’s freedom struggle.

“Ninety years later, I have been accorded the singular honour of following in the legendary freedom fighter’s footsteps,” he said.

As police step up raids on bookshops in Srinagar and seize valuable, more critical works, the literary community in Kashmir has a feeling of despondency.

“This is an attack on the people’s memory,” Rashid said. “These books served as sentinels. They were supposed to remind us of our history. But now, the erasure of memory in Kashmir is nearly complete.”

The ban, originally proposed by far-right Vox party, affects Muslims celebrating religious holidays in sports centres in Jumilla.

A ban imposed by a southeastern Spanish town on religious gatherings in public sports centres, which will mainly affect members of the local Muslim community, has sparked criticism from the left-wing government and a United Nations official.

Spain’s Migration Minister Elma Saiz said on Friday that the ban, approved by the conservative local government of Jumilla last week, was “shameful”, urging local leaders to “take a step back” and apologise to residents.

The ban, approved by the mayor’s centre-right Popular Party, would be enacted in sports centres used by local Muslims in recent years to celebrate religious holidays like Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.

It was originally proposed by the far-right Vox party, with amendments passed before approval. Earlier this week, Vox’s branch in the Murcia region celebrated the measure, saying on X that “Spain is and always will be a land of Christian roots!”

The town’s mayor, Seve Gonzalez, told Spain’s El Pais newspaper that the measure did not single out any one group and that her government wanted to “promote cultural campaigns that defend our identity”.

But Mohamed El Ghaidouni, secretary of the Union of Islamic Communities of Spain, said it amounted to “institutionalised Islamophobia”, taking issue with the local government’s assertion that the Muslim festivals celebrated in the centres were “foreign to the town’s identity”.

The ban, he said, “clashes with the institutions of the Spanish state” that protect religious freedom.

Saiz told Spain’s Antena 3 broadcaster that policies like the ban in Jumilla harm “citizens who have been living for decades in our towns, in our cities, in our country, contributing and perfectly integrated without any problems of coexistence”.

Separately, Miguel Moratinos, the UN special envoy to combat Islamophobia, said he was “shocked” by the City Council of Jumilla’s decision and expressed “deep concern about the rise in xenophobic rhetoric and Islamophobic sentiments in some regions in Spain”.

I am shocked by the decision of the City Council of Jumilla to ban religious rituals and/or celebrations in municipal facilities in the municipality of Jumilla, region of Murcia, Spain.

🔗 Full Statement ⬇️https://t.co/WHADpxgITo pic.twitter.com/Rd92XMdpVF

— Miguel Ángel Moratinos (@MiguelMoratinos) August 8, 2025

“The decision undermines the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he said in a statement on Friday.

“Policies that single out or disproportionately affect one community pose a threat to social cohesion and erode the principle of living together in peace,” he added.

Far-right clashes with locals

For centuries, Spain was ruled by Muslims, whose influence is present both in the Spanish language and in many of the country’s most celebrated landmarks, including Granada’s famed Moorish Alhambra Palace.

Islamic rule ended in 1492 when the last Arab kingdom in Spain fell to the Catholics.

The ban stipulates that municipal sports facilities can only be used for athletic activities or events organised by local authorities. Under no circumstance, it said, can the centre be used for “cultural, social or religious activities foreign to the City Council”.

Its introduction follows clashes between far-right groups and residents and migrants that erupted last month in the southern Murcia region after an elderly resident in the town of Torre-Pacheco was beaten up by assailants believed to be of Moroccan origin.

Right-wing governments elsewhere in Europe have passed measures similar to the ban in Jumilla, striking at the heart of ongoing debates across the continent about nationalism and religious and cultural pluralism.

Last year in Monfalcone, a large industrial port city in northeastern Italy with a significant Bangladeshi immigrant population, far-right mayor Anna Maria Cisint banned prayers in a cultural centre.

The move led to protests involving some 8,000 people, and the city’s Muslim community is appealing it in a regional court.

When is AI not artificial intelligence? When it refers to ammonia inhalants, aka smelling salts.

When are these AIs in the news? When it was reported that the NFL banned their use, San Francisco 49ers star George Kittle protested, and the NFL walked back the ban a day later. The league’s players association clarified that players can still use AIs as long as teams don’t provide them.

Got it?

The NFLPA sent a memo to players on Wednesday saying that the ban only prohibits team employees from distributing AIs during games.

That must have pleased Kittle, who when under the impression that AIs were banned completely, grabbed a microphone on an NFL Network broadcast to say, “I honestly just came up here to air a grievance. Our team got a memo today that smelling salts and ammonia packets were made illegal in the NFL, and I’ve been distraught all day.”

The five-time All-Pro tight end said he used the substances for an energy boost before every offensive drive and joked that upon learning of the ban he “considered retirement.”

Except that it isn’t a ban. Kittle will just have to bring his own AI stash to ballgames.

“To clarify, this policy does not prohibit player use of these substances, but rather it restricts clubs from providing or supplying them in any form,” the NFLPA memo said. “The NFL has confirmed this to us.”

The use of AIs by NFL players has been under the radar despite apparently being a common practice. Their primary use is to prevent and treat fainting, with the Federal Aviation Administration requiring U.S. airlines to carry them in the event a pilot feels faint.

The ammonia gas irritates the nasal membranes, causing a reflex that increases breathing and heart rate. That can keep a person from fainting, and apparently can also help a person block and tackle.

In short, an AI — which has been described as smelling like cat urine — is a performance-enhancing substance.

The NFL, however, cited a warning from the FDA that AIs can mask symptoms of a concussion and have not been proven to be safe or effective simply to increase energy.

“In 2024, the FDA issued a warning to companies that produce commercially available ammonia inhalants (AIs), as well as to consumers about the purchase and use of AIs, regarding the lack of evidence supporting the safety or efficacy of AIs marketed for improving mental alertness or boosting energy,” the NFL memo to teams stated. “The FDA noted potential negative effects from AI use.

“AIs also have the potential to mask certain neurological signs and symptoms, including some potential signs of concussion. As a result, the NFL Head, Neck, and Spine Committee recommended prohibiting the use of AIs for any purpose during play in the NFL.”

Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Baker Mayfield — who says he uses AIs — said the logic behind the NFL no longer supplying them is convoluted.

“I think the reasoning was that it masked concussion symptoms,” Mayfield said on “Up and Adams.” “But if you get knocked out, which is the whole purpose of smelling salts — to wake you up — you’re not allowed back in the game.

“I think it was a quick trigger to ban them, just to kind of CYA [cover your ass].”

Maybe NFL officials figure that by no longer supplying AIs and forcing players to bring their own batch to games, their liability in case of concussions or other medical complications is reduced.

“You just got to bring your own juice to the party, got to wake up ready to go,” Mayfield said.

Burrows, who represented Northern Ireland at the 2022 Euros, said she was “relieved and appreciative” that Cliftonville’s challenge was successful.

“The original sanction was not only going to affect my ability to play the sport I love, but it also took a significant toll on my mental and social well-being,” added the former Blackburn and Linfield player.

“The stress of being accused of something I knew I didn’t do was incredibly emotionally difficult, and it placed strain on my relationships both on and off the pitch.

“I’m proud to represent both Cliftonville and Northern Ireland, and I’ve always tried to conduct myself with professionalism and respect for the game.

“I’m thankful the challenge process acknowledged the full context of the incident, and I now look forward to moving on and continuing to give everything for my club and country.”

Hundreds rally near Downing Street as delegation delivers letter to UK government calling for sanctions on Israel.

Leading Jewish figures in Britain have signed a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper denouncing the government’s decision to proscribe the activist group Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation.

The delivery of the letter on Tuesday coincides with a protest organised under the slogan Proscribe Genocide, Not Protest. The rally outside Downing Street is expected to draw hundreds of participants, including figures from Britain’s Jewish community.

The letter, signed by about 300 Jewish British citizens, condemns the ban as “illegitimate and unethical” and calls for urgent government action against Israel over its conduct of the war in the besieged and bombarded Gaza Strip and over escalating violence engulfing the occupied West Bank.

Among the signatories are human rights lawyer Geoffrey Bindman, filmmaker Mike Leigh, author Michael Rosen and writer Gillian Slovo. Jenny Manson, chairperson of Jewish Voice for Labour and one of the lead organisers, said the group was acting both as human beings and as Jews with a moral obligation to oppose genocide.

“We are Jews horrified by the genocide being carried out by Israel against the Palestinian people,” Manson said in a statement. “For us, ‘Never again’ does not mean only crimes against Jews but never again by anyone to anyone.”

Speakers at the rally include Andrew Feinstein, son of a Holocaust survivor and former South African MP; historian Joseph Finlay; documentary filmmaker Gillian Mosely; and comedian and author Alexei Sayle.

Hundreds of thousands of people in the United Kingdom have been protesting weekly against Israel’s genocidal war since October 2023, making it clear they feel their voices aren’t being heard.

Protest despite police warning

The rally comes as the rights group Defend Our Juries confirmed that more than 500 people have committed to “risking arrest” by participating in a related demonstration on Saturday aimed at overturning the ban on Palestine Action.

Those taking part are expected to hold placards reading, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

The Metropolitan Police Service has warned that expressing support for Palestine Action could lead to arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

“Anyone showing support for the group can expect to be arrested,” a police spokesperson said.

Defend Our Juries, which coordinated the campaign, rejected claims that the demonstration is intended to overwhelm law enforcement or the courts. “If we are allowed to protest peacefully and freely, then that is no bother to anyone,” a spokesperson said.

More than 200 people were arrested in protests across the UK last month for displaying the same message.

The letter being delivered on Tuesday urges the UK government to move beyond “handwringing” over the situation in Gaza and take meaningful action.

It calls for the immediate recognition of the State of Palestine and the imposition of sanctions on Israel, including suspension of the UK-Israel trade agreement, an end to all exports used by the Israeli military and the termination of UK military and intelligence collaboration with Israel.

It also calls for a ban on all Israeli imports, legal accountability for UK citizens serving in the Israeli military and the summoning of Israel’s ambassador to the UK for her public support of military actions.

The letter states that opposing genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing in Palestine is not anti-Semitic and should not be criminalised.

“Criticising Israel and opposing the brutality … including taking direct action, are not terrorism,” it reads.

Palestine Action was banned in July after a high-profile incident in which the group claimed responsibility for damaging two Voyager aircraft at the Brize Norton air force base, causing an estimated 7 million pounds ($9.3m) of damage.

Last week, the High Court ruled that a legal challenge against the ban by Palestine Action cofounder Huda Ammori could proceed, citing several “reasonably arguable” grounds for review. However, the court declined to pause the ban before a three-day hearing set for November.

If upheld, the proscription means membership in or support for Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Aug. 1 (UPI) — Slovenia on Friday imposed a ban on all weapons trading with Israel becoming the first European country to do so over the growing humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian enclave in Israel’s ongoing war.

Its government said in a statement that at the initiative of Prime Minister Robert Golob, Slovenia signed off on its decision that prohibits “the export and transit of military weapons and equipment from or through the Republic of Slovenia to Israel, as well as the import of such goods from Israel into the Republic of Slovenia.”

It added that Israel’s actions had constituted “serious violations of international humanitarian law” and that Slovenia would prepare “some more national measures” in the “coming weeks,” according to the statement.

The prime minister’s decision, according to the Slovenian government, stems from a promise to “act independent” if the EU “failed to adopt concrete measures” by July.

“Due to internal disagreements and lack of unity, the European Union is currently unable to fulfil this task,” the statement said in part.

On Monday, a European Commission proposal to partly suspend EU weaponry aid to Israel was blocked as Sweden became the most recent to apply pressure over trade.

Nearly 70% of Israel’s arsenal is imported from the United States with Germany its second-biggest supplier and Italy at third.

Slovenian officials have repeatedly called for a cease-fire and its government increased aid delivery to the war-torn territory.

On Friday, it said people in Gaza are dying “because humanitarian aid is systematically denied to them. They are dying under the rubble, without access to drinking water, food and basic healthcare.”

Slovenia’s government called it a “complete denial of humanitarian access” and a “conscious prevention of basic conditions for survival.”

Last year in June, Slovenia became one of the first in Europe to recognize Palestine as a state.

Israel has exported more than $560 million in weaponry since October 2023 when Iran’s terror syndicate attacked and took Israeli hostages.

Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands have since either restricted or halted exports.

This week, the Dutch government banned Israel’s national security minister and finance chief from its borders.

The foreign ministers of Britain and 28 other nations including Canada, France, Italy and Australia recently issued a joint statement saying Israel’s ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza had “reached new depths” and “must end now.”

Qatar in March called on international leaders to bring Israel’s nuclear facilities under the watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Chile’s president has sharply criticized Israel’s military actions in Gaza as the South American nation seeks to replace Israel as Chile’s primary arms supplier.

Golob visited the United States last year in October and met with then-U.S. President Joe Biden prior to November’s presidential election.

“It is the duty of every responsible state to act,” the Slovenian leader’s statement continued. “Even if this means taking a step ahead of others.”

Swathes of UK holidaymakers are being urged to do one key thing before jetting off to Turkey this year, after the country has reportedly issued a sudden ban impacting tourists

Thousands of UK holidaymakers heading to Turkey this year could get stung the second they get off the plane following a major update. Around 4.8 million Brits are slated to visit the country this year, as it braces for a record-breaking boom in international visitors. Enticed by endless stretches of golden beaches, a ubiquitous history, and impressive architecture – Turkey appears to be capitalising on anti-tourist sentiment currently rocking countries like Spain and Greece.

However, the country’s Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) has reportedly blocked access to more than a dozen international eSIM providers. According to Holafly, the move means tourists will be prevented accessing the websites and apps of the affected companies.

eSIMs have spiralled in popularity in recent years, providing travellers with a cheap and convenient way to access the internet on their phone – as well as to be able to make phone calls and texts. The alleged ban means Turkish residents aren’t able to purchase international eSIMs until they’re out of the country.

For tourists, it’s a little less black and white. You will still be able to use your eSIM if you purchase it and install it before you arrive in Turkey. Fail to do this, and you may struggle to get online.

In a statement sent to the Mirror, travel expert at Holafly Juan David Soler said: “Turkey’s sudden ban on eSIMs has caught many travellers off guard, and it’s vital that UK holidaymakers heading there this summer take action before they fly. eSIMs have become the go-to option for Brits wanting affordable mobile data abroad without the hassle of physical SIMs or costly roaming. But now, travellers will no longer be able to activate a new eSIM once they arrive in Turkey.”

To avoid getting ‘caught out’, the experts have urged Brits to ensure their eSIM is fully downloaded and activated before leaving the UK. “This means setting up your digital SIM while still on UK networks, and confirming it’s working properly before departure,” Juan added. “Otherwise, you could be left without internet access the moment you land, which can be a serious issue if you rely on your phone for maps, transport, or bookings.”

Earlier this year, Brits were also warned of a little-known rule when visiting Turkey which could land them in hot water. While technically not a new rule, purchasing or distributing e-cigarettes and liquids is prohibited in the country. According to Reuters, many people still buy vaping products in the country online.

“We’ve heard of so many travellers returning from Antalya, Marmaris, and Bodrum saying they were caught completely off guard,” Mike Byers, a vape expert over at WickdUp explained. “Shops that once stocked basic vape gear now won’t sell it at all — and if you’re used to picking up supplies on arrival, you could be left without.”

If you’re a serious vaper and can’t give up the juice for the entirety of your trip – you are allowed to bring your ‘personal supply’. This tends to be classed as ‘one device, spare pods or refill bottles no greater than 30ml in volume, or up to 10 disposable vapes per person’.

Do you have a story to share? Email us at [email protected] for a chance to be featured.

July 22 (UPI) — The Justice Department has dismissed a Biden-era lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors, as the Trump administration continues to attack the rights and medical care of transgender Americans.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that her department’s Civil Rights Division dismissed the lawsuit in a statement Monday that said the Justice Department “does not believe challenging Tennessee’s law serves the public interest.”

Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, including psychological, behavioral and medical interventions, with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. According to a recent Harvard study, cisgender minors and adults were far more likely to undergo analogous gender-affirming surgeries than their transgender counterparts.

Every major American medical association supports gender-affirming care for both adults and minors, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, the largest national medical association.

Despite the support of the medical community and evidence of its efficacy, gender-affirming care and this marginalized community continue to be targeted by conservatives and Republicans with legislation.

Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 in March 2023 to prohibit healthcare professionals from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, which attracted a lawsuit from the Justice Department under President Joe Biden, arguing the law violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as all other minors continued to have access to the same procedures and treatments.

The conservative movement targeting the healthcare of transgender minors has since gained a supporter in the White House with the re-election of President Donald Trump.

Since returning to power, Trump has implemented an agenda targeting transgender Americans, including directing the federal government to recognize only two sexes determined at “conception,” restricting gender-affirming care for youth and banning transgender Americans from the military.

Last month, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the Biden administration’s complaint to overturn the Tennessee law. The ruling fell along ideological lines, with the conservative justices voting for the law to stand. The liberal justices dissented.

“By retreating from meaningful review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent.

“Tennessee’s ban applies no matter what a minor’s parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor’s mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child.”

Bondi on Monday said the Supreme Court made “the right decision.” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said that by dismissing the lawsuit, they “undid one of the injustices the Biden administration inflicted upon the country.”