confrontation

Attorneys for a documentary filmmaker who sued the city of Los Angeles for excessive police force said Wednesday that they had reached a settlement over claims their client was assaulted by an LAPD officer at a 2021 protest.

The settlement came abruptly after the first day of the civil trial, when the plaintiff, Vishal Singh, was accosted by a man, with his phone out recording, as Singh walked out of the federal courthouse downtown. Christian Contreras, an attorney for Singh, identified the man who confronted his client as Tomas Morales, a prominent alt-right livestreamer.

Proceedings had just wrapped up for the day Tuesday when Morales approached Singh, Contreras and others as they walked out of the glass-paneled building at 1st and Hill streets, according to video posted on social media.

Morales posted a clip on his Instagram account in which he can be heard demanding to know whether Singh still wants to “burn LAPD to the ground” and asking whether he is a member of “antifa.” The barrage of questions continued as the group walked up Hill away from the courthouse, the video shows.

Morales didn’t immediately respond to a message sent Wednesday to his account on X.

Contreras said Singh was so shaken by the encounter that his attorneys pushed the judge to declare a mistrial on the grounds that Morales was trying to intimidate a party to the case. After the judge declined to grant their motion, the two sides agreed to settle for an unspecified amount of money, Contreras said.

Larger settlements require a final sign-off from the City Council.

Even if the case ended in an “anticlimactic” fashion, Contreras said that “there has been some accountability” since jurors saw videos of Los Angeles Police Department officers using excessive force against Singh and others.

“He was looking forward to taking this case to a full resolution at trial, and this issue came up,” Contreras said. “It’s unsettling, but he just wants to move forward in his life.”

Singh said in the lawsuit and interviews with The Times that Singh was standing in the middle of Coronado Street outside a Koreatown establishment called Wi Spa, filming a confrontation between left-wing and far-right groups. Bystander video showed Singh rapidly walking backward as instructed by police and filming with a phone from behind a parked car when an officer leaned over and swung his baton at Singh like it was a “baseball bat.” The impact fractured a joint in Singh’s right hand and two of Singh’s fingers, the lawsuit said.

The officer, John Jenal, argued in court documents that he did not perceive the object in Singh’s raised and outstretched hand to be a phone, and that he saw Singh as an immediate threat.

“I’m relieved that there’s both compensation and validation for what Vishal has experienced through this settlement,” said Adam Rose of the Los Angeles Press Club, adding in a text message that Singh has been a “figurative and literal punching bag for far-right extremists for years.”

In one instance, the online harassment threats got so bad that Singh was forced to bow out of a speaking appearance at the Asian American Journalism Assn.’s annual conference, Rose said.

“It shows that there is this prevailing threat toward journalists of all types, but in particular it can happen to independent journalists,” he said.

The settlement comes as a federal judge is expected to make a ruling in two lawsuits brought by press advocates against the LAPD and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the treatment of journalists covering the recent pro-immigration protests.

Tunisia’s General Labour Union (UGTT) is poised to take on President Kais Saied in a protest scheduled for August 21.

The union called for a protest against what it says are government attempts to undermine workers’ rights, and the use of intimidation to curb strikes, referring to a three-day UGTT transport strike at the end of July.

Since he seized power on July 25, 2021, Saied has radically undermined the role of parliament and political parties while granting himself vastly increased powers through a constitution revised according to his edicts.

Yet the UGTT’s ability to mobilise its hundreds of thousands of members stands as one of the few remaining counters to Saied, analysts say.

“The UGTT has always been more than just a trade union,” Hamza Meddeb of the Carnegie Institute, who has written extensively on the organisation, told Al Jazeera.

“It was established even before Tunisian independence, and played a significant role in achieving that,” he said of Tunisia’s liberation from France in 1956.

“Since then, it’s played both an economic role … as well as a political role, such as in 2015, when it was the principal force behind establishing the National Dialogue,” Meddeb continued, referring to a political crisis when the UGTT and three other civil society organisations helped prevent the collapse of Tunisia’s post-revolutionary democracy.

Inevitable confrontation

Matters reached a head between UGTT and Saied on August 7 when hundreds of Saied’s supporters rallied outside UGTT headquarters, accusing it of “corruption” and “squandering people’s money” after a three-day transport strike in late July paralysed much of the country.

The following night, Saied defended the anti-union protesters, repeating their calls for union “accountability” and stressing that, contrary to claims from both the UGTT and rights groups, his supporters had not intended violence.

“There are files that must be opened because the people are demanding accountability … so that their money can be returned to them,” Saied said in a video posted on the presidency’s official Facebook page.

Further confrontations between the president and the union were inevitable, but many analysts point to what they say is a union weakened by internal schisms and the threat to its decades-long monopoly on union power in Tunisia.

“For the past two years, the UGTT has been silent, certainly on the political side of things,” a political analyst who remained in Tunisia told Al Jazeera, on condition of anonymity.

“Saied even revised the labour code without consulting them,” they said of the May decision to change laws that affected many of UGTT’s members.

“Previously, making a decision on that scale without the UGTT would have been inconceivable,” he said.

A weakened union

Much of the UGTT’s relatively low profile lies in an internal rupture, prompted by its decision in 2021 to extend its board’s mandate from two to three terms, which is said to have splintered the union’s membership and undermined it.

“There are many in the UGTT who see the 2021 decision as a coup d’etat of the union’s own, which has really weakened the board’s decision to do anything,” Meddeb said.

“You also can’t avoid the fact that the financial situation across the country is getting much, much worse, which means that the core membership of the union – the state-dependent middle class – are also suffering, and are blaming a board they already have little faith in for that, too.

“So, when Saied calls it a ‘corrupt union’ … that makes sense to much of its membership,” Meddeb said.

“It’s also easy, [given its long history and close relationships with all of Tunisia’s past governments] for Saied to paint it as part of the country’s elite that has been holding its people back,” he concluded.

A rival union emerges

Moves to undermine the UGTT’s base are already under way.

On Monday, the government announced it would halt the longstanding practice of allowing union officials to receive their government salaries while on union business, with more such moves expected.

Saied is also said to be encouraging the rival Union of Tunisian Workers (UTT), which analysts such as author Hatem Nafti say could try to take advantage of any weakening of the bond between the UGTT and its membership, to boost its standing.

How successful that would be in light of the UTT leadership’s previous convictions on corruption charges, remained to be seen, he added.

That the UTT is ready to step into any breach left by the UGTT was clear last week, when it issued a statement accusing its rivals of what it said was the “defamation” of the president.

Nafti said that the government might also seek to halt the practice of deducting UGTT membership fees from state employees’ salaries at source before transferring the funds to the union, which would give UTT more hope of winning members away from UGTT.

“That Kais Saied would move against the UGTT was written from day one,” Nafti told Al Jazeera from Paris, where he now lives.

“Populism doesn’t allow any mediator between the leader and the people, so firstly, he got rid of rival political parties, then civil society and the media.

“Even the television networks that support him don’t show political programmes any more,” he said.

“The UGTT was the logical next step.”

“A seismic legal confrontation between players and Fifa.”

The view of former Fulham midfielder-turned-lawyer Udo Onwere when asked to assess the significance of the compensation claim launched against Fifa this week on behalf of current and former professional footballers over transfer rules.

On Monday, Dutch foundation Justice for Players (JFP) said it had started a class action lawsuit against the sport’s world governing body, along with the football associations of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark.

It argues that 100,000 footballers playing in Europe since 2002 could have lost income as a result of “unlawful” Fifa regulations, and that “preliminary analysis” shows that damages could amount to several billion pounds.

The case is the result of last year’s ruling by the highest European court that Fifa regulations over some football transfers broke EU laws.

In October, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) found in favour of former Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra after he argued some of the rules restricted his freedom of movement and breached competition law, and sued Fifa.

“This class action could rewrite the rules governing player mobility across the global football industry” says Onwere, who is now a partner at law firm Bray and Krais.

“What distinguishes this case from previous skirmishes with the governing body is its sheer scale and complexity… The outcome of this litigation could usher in a new era of transfer regulations and governance – one where contractual stability is balanced with player autonomy.

“It could prove to be as transformational as the landmark 1995 Bosman ruling.”

Such a comparison is notable, because JFP is being advised by Diarra’s Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, who also won the landmark 1995 case at the CJEU on behalf of ex-player Jean-Marc Bosman.

That ruling dramatically changed the sport, meaning footballers could choose to run down their contracts and move clubs on a free transfer, with teams no longer able to demand compensation for out-of-contract players.

Thirty years on, some now believe this latest case could result in players being able to terminate their own contracts, without paying compensation, before those deals come to an end.

BBC Sport has been told that Fifa has until the start of September to respond to the threat of legal action.

States no longer employ war as a tool to achieve their goals. Preferring to utilize more peaceful methods, states employ it to pursue highly consequential objectives. BRICS serves as a manifestation of this notion. The emergence of BRICS increasingly challenges the Global North. The establishment of this cooperation reflects the efforts of the Global South to alter the global order and break free from the long-standing dominance of the Global North.

BRICS represents more than a symbol of cooperation. It is actively engaged in a geopolitical chessboard that shapes today’s global economy. Gradually yet steadily, it is shifting the global balance of power through the strength it has accumulated. This is evident in the growing interest among developing countries to join the group.

Led by two major powers perceived as threats to the Global North, China and Russia hold substantial leadership roles. China dominates the global economic landscape and poses a challenge not only to the United States but also to Europe. The European Union consistently asserts that China is a rival in the renewable energy sector, particularly in electric vehicles. Russia, on the other hand, holds significant energy leverage over Europe and poses a geopolitical challenge to NATO, which is led by the United States. The development of this cooperation is further reinforced by the accession of strategically significant global actors such as Iran and the United Arab Emirates, with their vast oil reserves; Ethiopia, with its port access; and Egypt, with its strategic geographic position in relation to the West.
The inclusion of these countries further destabilizes the seemingly absolute dominance of the Global North.

Power has long been synonymous with the realist approach, which is grounded in strength.
However, the definition of strength and power has evolved. Power is no longer solely defined in terms of military capability or weaponry. In today’s global context, power is also measured by a state’s influence in shaping the rules of the game. Cooperation serves as the foundation of this new form of power.

BRICS leverages this expanded notion of power and influence. It builds coalitions to undermine dominance not by overt force, but by subtly shifting the balance—leaving its opponents unaware that a transformation is underway. BRICS undoubtedly presents a substantial challenge to the Global North’s dominance. In response, Western countries have adopted equally measured diplomatic strategies aimed at undermining BRICS from within.

During a G7 summit, former U.S. President Donald Trump expressed regret over Russia’s removal from the G7 following its annexation of Crimea in 2014.

“I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if Russia were still in, and you wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump had been president four years ago.”

Trump also did not object to the possibility of China joining the G7, stating:

“Well, it’s not a bad idea. I don’t mind that. If someone wants to suggest China joining, I think we should suggest it, but you want people you can talk to,” he added.

At first glance, these remarks appear to suggest a constructive approach to U.S.–China relations. However, upon closer examination, they may be interpreted as part of a broader strategic effort to weaken U.S. involvement in China’s global agenda.

This statement illustrates the extent to which the Global North powers are monitoring and responding to the actions of two principal BRICS members—China and Russia—as part of their efforts to undermine alliances among the Global South countries. Beyond these two core members, the G7 extended invitations to three strategically important BRICS countries—India, South Africa, and Brazil—to attend the forum as guest participants. This move represents a calculated geopolitical effort by the Global North to engage selectively with the Global South actors on the international stage.

In early July 2025, BRICS convened a summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 6–7 July. The summit was attended by all member states, including Indonesia as the newest addition to the group. Amid widespread global instability, the summit focused on pressing international issues, particularly those concerning the global economy and sanctions imposed by the United States. The meeting also addressed and condemned the Israel–U.S. military action against Iran, characterizing it as a violation of international law. These discussions served to foster a shared perspective and unity among BRICS members, with the expressed objective of challenging and dismantling systemic dominance.

The global chessboard, once governed exclusively by the most powerful Global North actors, is now being gradually redefined by emerging powers. These new actors, having grown weary of external direction, are seeking to establish their own platforms for influence and victory.

In conclusion, cooperation may serve as a strategic instrument for gaining power—one that cannot be easily condemned by any state. It represents the power to shape a new world order. Moreover, cooperation can also function as a tool for existing powers to engage with emerging actors and potentially undermine them from within the very system those new actors have established. Thus, cooperation in this context is not merely a symbol of unity but a form of conflict—one that is waged without conventional weaponry or the noise of warfare, yet still aimed at securing or contesting global dominance. Whether that dominance is preserved or overtaken remains the central struggle.

A coalition of press rights organizations is seeking a court order to stop the “continuing abuse” of journalists by the Los Angeles Police Department during protests over President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The federal lawsuit, filed Monday by the Los Angeles Press Club and investigative reporting network Status Coup, seeks to “force the LAPD to respect the constitutional and statutory rights of journalists engaged in reporting on these protests and inevitable protests to come.”

The suit cites multiple instances of officers firing foam projectiles at members of the media and otherwise flouting state laws that restrict the use of so-called less-lethal weapons in crowd control situations and protect journalists covering the unrest. Those measures were passed in the wake of the 2020 protests over the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis when journalists were detained and injured by the LAPD while covering the unrest.

The recent suit filed in the Central District of California describes journalists being shot with less-lethal police rounds, tear-gassed and detained without cause.

Carol Sobel, a longtime civil rights attorney who represents the plaintiffs, said LAPD officers have also been blocking journalists from areas where they had a right to be, in violation of the department’s own rules and Senate Bill 98, a state law that prohibits law enforcement from interfering with or obstructing journalists from covering such events.

“You have people holding up their press credentials saying, ‘I’m press,’ and they still got shot,” she said. “The Legislature spent all this time limiting how use of force can occur in a crowd control situation, and they just all ignored it.

Apart from journalists, scores of protesters allege LAPD projectiles left them with severe bruises, lacerations and serious injuries.

The Police Department said Monday that it doesn’t comment on pending litigation. A message for the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, which represents the LAPD in most civil suits, went unreturned.

Sobel filed a similar action in the wake of the LAPD’s response to the 2020 protests on behalf of Black Lives Matter-L.A. and others who contended that LAPD caused scores of injuries by firing hard-foam projectiles. A federal judge later issued an injunction restricting the department’s use of 40-millimeter and 37-millimeter hard-foam projectile launchers to officers who are properly trained to use them.

Under the restrictions, which remain in place with the court case pending, police can target individuals with 40-millimeter rounds “only when the officer reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm.” Officers are also barred from targeting people in the head, torso and groin areas.

The city has paid out millions of dollars in settlements and jury awards related to lawsuits brought by reporters and demonstrators in 2020 who were injured.

On Monday, the LAPD announced an internal review of a June 10 incident in which a 30-year-old man suffered a broken finger during a confrontation with officers of the vaunted Metropolitan Division.

According to the department’s account, the Metro officers had been deployed to contend with an “unruly” crowd on Alameda Street and Temple Street and said that Daniel Robert Bill and several other demonstrators refused to leave the area and instead challenged officers. During a confrontation, several officers swung their batons and fired less-lethal munitions at Bill “to no effect” and then “used a team takedown” before arresting him.

After his arrest, Bill was taken to an area hospital, where he underwent surgery to repair a broken finger on his left hand.

The department’s Force Investigation Division will review the case, as it does all incidents in which someone is seriously injured or killed while in policy custody.

Department leaders have in the past argued that officers need less-lethal weapons to restore order, particularly when faced with large crowds with individuals throwing bottles and rocks.

The department’s handling of the recent protests is expected to be addressed at Tuesday’s meeting of the LAPD Police Commission, the department’s civilian policy-making body. The body reviewed complaints of excessive force against the department stemming from the 2020 protests but has not staked a public position about the continued use of the 40-millimeter projectiles and other crowd control measures.