parliament

July 7 (UPI) — Suriname’s parliament has elected its first female president, voting doctor and former parliamentary speaker Jennifer Simons to lead the South American country.

Thirty-four of 50 parliamentarians voted for Simons on Sunday to helm Suriname for a five-year term, the National Assembly confirmed in a release.

The 71-year-old is set to be inaugurated July 16.

“In 2030, we must hand over a country that is better off than it is now,” she said in a statement following her election. “Economically, administratively and socially, there must be clear signs of progress. This is not a task for one person or a few ministers. Everyone is needed to rebuild Suriname.”

Gregory Russia also received the support of 34 parliamentarians for vice president.

“My task is clear,” Russia said, “I will act as a bridge between policy and implementation, between president and society, between government and opposition, between city and district, between present and future.”

Simons’ election comes after the May 25 general election resulted in a divided parliament, leading to a coalition-led government and the election of the country’s first female president.

Simons is the leader of the National Democratic Party.

It also comes as the developing country prepares to handle a potential massive influx of wealth as multiple discoveries of offshore oil deposits are expected to begin production in 2028.

According to United Nations data, some 113 countries have never had a woman as the head of state.

June 23 (UPI) — Britain’s Met police banned a pro-Palestinian protest in front of the Houses of Parliament in central London scheduled to take place on Monday to “prevent serious public order,” property damage and disruption to elected representatives.

Met Commissioner Mark Rowley said in a statement Sunday that while he could not stop the demonstration going ahead, he was using powers under public order legislation to impose an exclusion zone preventing protestors from assembling in a roughly 0.5 square mile area around the Palace of Westminster and restrict the duration to between noon and 3 p.m. local time.

The We Are All Palestine protest was being organized by Palestine Action but backed by around 35 other groups, including the Stop the War Coalition, Cage and Muslim Engagement and Development.

Calling Palestine Action “an extremist criminal group” with members awaiting trial on serious charges, Rowley said he was frustrated that he lacked legal authority to ban the protest outright.

“The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it, but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest,” he said.

Rowley added that criminal charges faced by Palestine Action members, including allegedly attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer and causing millions of dollars of damage, represented extremism of a type that the vast majority of the public found abhorrent.

Palestinian Action responded by moving the protest, telling supporters in a post on X early Monday that it would now go ahead in Trafalgar Square, which is just outside the northern edge of the exclusion zone.

“The Metropolitan police are trying to deter support from Palestine Action by banning the protest from taking place at the Houses of Parliament. Don’t let them win! Make sure everyone is aware of the location change to Trafalgar Square, London. Mobilize from 12 p.m.”

The move came as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper updated lawmakers on plans to proscribe Palestinian Action as a terrorist organization after members of the group claimed responsibility for damaging military aircraft Friday after breaking into an RAF base northwest of London.

They also allegedly damaged the offices of an insurance company, which the group claimed provided services to Elbit Systems, an Israel-based military technology company and defense contractor.

Activist Saeed Taji Farouky called the move to proscribe the group a ludicrous move that “rips apart the very basic concepts of British democracy and the rule of law.”

“It’s something everyone should be terrified about,” he told the BBC.

Cooper said in a written statement to the House that she expected to bring a draft order amending the country’s anti-terror legislation before Parliament next week. Proscribing Palestine Action would make membership or promotion of the group punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Palestinian Action, escalated from targeting arms producers to vandalizing the two Airbus refuelling tanker aircraft because Britain was, it claimed, deploying aircraft to its Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus from where it can “collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza.”

The attack at RAF Brize Norton, the British military’s main hub for strategic air transport and refuelling, including flights to RAF Akrotiri, came the same day a British man appeared in a closed court in Cyprus on charges of planning an “imminent terrorist attack” on the island and espionage.

The suspect was arrested by Greek anti-terror officers on a tip-off from a foreign intelligence service claiming he’d had the RAF Akrotiri base under surveillance since April and had links with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

He faces charges of terrorism, espionage, conspiracy to commit a felony and other related offences.

RAF Akrotiri is the U.K. military’s largest base for the Middle East region and a key waypoint en route to its giant Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands, 3,800 miles to the southeast in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

The British parliament has narrowly voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people, marking a landmark moment of social reform in the country’s history.

The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291 in the House of Commons on Friday, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle, and will now undergo months of scrutiny in the House of Lords, Britain’s upper chamber.

The process could result in further amendments when it goes to the Lords, but the upper house is usually reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of parliament in the Commons.

Friday’s vote came after many hours of emotional debate, including references to personal stories, in the chamber. It followed a vote in November that approved the legislation in principle.

Prior to that, the House of Commons voted on the issue in 2015, when it rejected legalising assisted dying.

What is in the assisted dying bill?

The “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)” Bill gives mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales, who have six months or less left to live, the right to choose to end their lives with medical assistance.

Patients will have to be capable of taking fatal drugs by themselves after receiving a green light from doctors and a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist.

Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, where a healthcare practitioner or other person administers a lethal injection at a patient’s request.

Under current legislation, someone who helps a terminally ill person end their life can face a police investigation, prosecution and a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

Changes to the original draft of the new bill were made to include the appointment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board.

Logistics still need to be thrashed out, including whether the practice or any services supporting it would be integrated into the National Health Service (NHS) or would operate as a separate unit made available through third parties.

The bill will not apply in Northern Ireland or Scotland, which is holding its own vote on the issue.

What are the arguments for assisted dying?

Supporters of the bill say it will ensure dignity and compassion for people with a terminal diagnosis, who must be given a choice over whether or not to relieve their suffering.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the bill, told The Guardian newspaper that terminally ill people should be given rights over their bodies similar to those that allow a woman to choose an abortion.

“As much as I will fight for the rights of disabled people to be treated better by society, I will also fight for the rights of dying people,” she said.

Some advocates for the bill also argue that current legislation discriminates against the poor, who face possible prosecution for helping their loved ones die, while the wealthy can travel abroad to legally access the services.

Conservative MP Peter Bedford spoke against this perceived inequality. “At least one Brit every week is taking the stressful and often lonely journey to Switzerland for an assisted death, at the cost of £12,000 ($16,100),” he said. “This bill isn’t about shortening life, it is about shortening death.”

Labour MP Maureen Burke spoke about her brother David, who suffered from pancreatic cancer. “He could never have known that I would ever have the opportunity to stand in this place and ask colleagues to make sure that others don’t go through what he went through,” she said. “I’ve done right by my brother by speaking here today.”

Opinion polls show that a majority of United Kingdom citizens back assisted dying. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the UK-based Dignity in Dying campaign, said the vote sent “a clear message” and that “parliament stands with the public and change is coming”.

While there is no timetable for the implementation of the bill, under the terms of the legislation, it must begin within four years of the law being passed.

What do opponents say?

Opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives or feel pressured to do so for fear of becoming a burden to their families and society.

Protesters who rallied outside parliament as the vote was taking place on Friday held up banners urging politicians not to make the state-run health service, the NHS, the “National Suicide Service”.

Several MPs withdrew their support for the bill after the initial vote last year, saying safeguards had been weakened. One of the most important changes to the bill from last November was the dropping of the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. The latest vote passed by a majority of 23, a narrowing of support from the 55 majority (330 votes to 275) in November.

Care Not Killing, a group that opposes the law change, called the bill “deeply flawed and dangerous” and argued that politicians had not been given enough time to consider its implications.

“Members of Parliament had under 10 hours to consider over 130 amendments to the bill, or less than five minutes per change. Does anyone think this is enough time to consider changes to a draft law that quite literally is a matter of life and death?” said the group’s CEO, Gordon Macdonald.

Opponents also raised concerns about the impact of assisted dying on the finances of the state-run NHS, whether it could allow it to sidetrack requests to fund improvements to palliative care and how it might change the relationship between doctors and their patients.

Outright opponents of the legislation include Tanni Grey-Thompson, a disabled MP and Paralympic medallist. In an interview with Sky News, she said nobody needs to die a “terrible death” if they have access to specialist palliative care.

“I’m really worried that disabled people, because of the cost of health and social care, because that’s being removed, that choice is then taken away, so the only choice they have is to end their lives,” she said.

Where else is assisted dying legal?

Assisted dying laws have been introduced in several countries. About 300 million people around the world have legal access to this option, according to Dignity in Dying.

In March, the Isle of Man became the first place in the British Isles to pass an assisted dying bill, allowing terminally ill adults with a prognosis of 12 months or less to choose to end their lives.

Switzerland legalised assisted dying in 1942, making it the first country in the world to permit the practice on the condition that the motive is not selfish.

In Europe, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and Austria have some form of legalised assisted dying.

In the United States, the practice is known as “physician-assisted dying” and is legal in 10 states, while in Australia, it has been legal in every state since 2022.

In Latin America, Colombia legalised euthanasia for terminally ill adult patients in 2014, while Ecuador opted to decriminalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2024.

Canada has one of the most liberal systems of assisted dying in the world. It introduced MAID, or Medical Assistance in Dying, in 2016 for terminally ill adults. In 2021, the requirement of suffering from a terminal illness was removed and it is now debating opening the scheme to people who suffer from a mental illness as well.

Which other countries are considering legalising it?

A bill on assisted dying is being considered in Scotland. It passed an initial vote in May, but it will now need two more rounds of parliamentary scrutiny before it can become law.

French President Emmanuel Macron has backed a bill allowing some people in the last stages of a terminal illness to access assisted dying. That was approved by the National Assembly in May and will now go to the Senate before a second reading in the lower house.

According to Death with Dignity, 17 US states are considering assisted dying bills this year.

Parliament voted to impose record suspensions on the trio of legislators for their protest haka.

New Zealand legislators have voted to suspend three MPs who performed a Maori haka in the House to protest against a controversial bill.

The MPs from Te Pati Maori – the Maori Party – were handed the toughest sanctions ever imposed on legislators by New Zealand’s parliament on Thursday.

Te Pati Maori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer were both suspended from parliament for 21 days.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, New Zealand’s youngest legislator, 22, was suspended for seven days.

The length of the bans was recommended by parliament’s privileges committee, which advised the trio should be suspended for acting in “a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House”.

It recommended Maipi-Clarke be given a shorter sanction because she had written a letter of “contrition” to the parliament.

Previously, the longest suspension imposed on an MP had been a three-day ban.

Prior to Thursday’s vote, Maipi-Clarke told legislators that the suspension was an effort to stop Maori from making themselves heard in parliament.

“Are our voices too loud for this house? Is that the reason why we are being silenced?” she said. “We will never be silenced and we will never be lost.”

The legislators had performed the haka in parliament in November. Their protest interrupted voting during the first reading of a proposed bill to legally define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the 1840 pact between the British Crown and Indigenous Maori leaders signed during New Zealand’s colonisation.

The proposed law prompted widespread protests amid concerns it would erode Maori rights. It was later scrapped.

Maipi-Clarke had begun the protest by ripping a copy of the legislation, before she and fellow MPs approached the leader of the right-wing party that had backed the proposed law.

Their actions prompted complaints from fellow MPs to the parliament’s speaker that their protest was disorderly, and the matter was sent to parliament’s privileges committee, prompting months of debate.

A report from the privileges committee said that while both haka and Maori ceremonial dance and song are not uncommon in parliament, members were aware that permission was needed from the speaker beforehand.

The Parliament of the Maldives has impeached two judges of the country’s Supreme Court, deepening a political crisis triggered by President Mohamed Muizzu’s push to amend the constitution and strip legislators of their seats if they switch political parties.

The Parliament, where the governing People’s National Congress holds a supermajority, voted on Wednesday to remove Justices Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir on allegations of abuse of power.

The vote, which passed 68 – 11, took place as dozens of opposition supporters rallied outside the Parliament House, calling for Muizzu’s resignation and an end to what they called the intimidation of judges.

The move comes more than two months after the judicial watchdog, dominated by Muizzu’s allies, suspended the two judges and their colleague, Justice Husnu al-Suood. At the time, the seven-member Supreme Court bench had been holding hearings into a petition challenging the anti-defection measures.

Suood later resigned from the top court, accusing Muizzu and Attorney General Ahmed Usham of intimidating all the judges of the Supreme Court to secure a judgement in their favour.

The president and his lawyer deny the charges.

“I do not interfere with the judiciary,” Muizzu told reporters during a 14-hour news conference on May 3. “I have never done so. I do not control the [the judicial watchdog].”

The crisis has paralysed the Maldives’s Supreme Court, halting hearings in all ongoing cases, including on the constitutional amendments. It has also raised fears of renewed instability in the Indian Ocean honeymoon destination, which held its first multiparty elections in 2008, but has been roiled by political turmoil since, including a coup d’etat, disputed elections, and the killings and jailing of dissidents.

‘Attack on judiciary’

Azmiralda and Mahaz denounced their impeachment on Wednesday.

“This is an attack on the Maldivian judiciary. It is no ordinary matter to bring the Maldives Supreme Court to a halt,” Azmiralda said in a statement. “My hope is that one day, when the rule of law is established in this country … all of the various officials who took part in destroying the Supreme Court are held accountable.”

The case against the two judges stems from the arrest of Azmiralda’s husband, Ismail Latheef, during a police raid on a spa where he was receiving a massage in the Maldivian capital, Male, on December 4 of last year.

The incident happened two weeks after Muizzu ratified the anti-defection measures.

The controversial amendments stipulate that legislators elected on a political party ticket would lose their seat if they switch parties, or if they resign or are expelled from their party. The provisions effectively allow Muizzu to maintain his supermajority in Parliament, where his party controls 79 of the chamber’s 93 seats.

The president has argued they are necessary to “improve political stability”, but opponents say they would destroy the country’s system of checks and balances.

At the time of Latheef’s arrest, a former member of parliament had filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the amendments, but the bench had yet to decide to take up the case.

Latheef was held overnight for more than 12 hours, on charges of soliciting a prostitute, but was released by a judge at the Criminal Court. In the ruling, the judge noted that the masseuse treating Latheef was fully clothed at the time of the raid, and that the room they were in was unlocked.

The prosecutor’s office later shelved the case against Latheef, citing a lack of evidence.

But after the Supreme Court began reviewing the constitutional amendments in February, the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) took up a separate case against Azmiralda and Mahaz, claiming the two judges had unlawfully lobbied lower court judges to secure Latheef’s release.

The JSC recommended that the Parliament impeach them last month.

‘No ulterior motives’

The judges have denied the charges, with lawyers for Azmiralda saying that the case was “manufactured by top government officials to suspend” them “in order to influence the outcome of the constitutional case before the Supreme Court”.

Usham, the Attorney General, has told Al Jazeera that the government “categorically denies these allegations”.

“There is absolutely no truth to the claim that the executive branch had any hand in the JSC’s [the judicial watchdog’s] decision,” he wrote in an email. “The suspension was pursuant to law and… any suggestion of ulterior motives is firmly rejected by the Government.”

The case, however, has drawn criticism from the United Nations and rights groups.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN’s special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, expressed grave concern last month over the action against the three judges, saying they appear to be aimed at undermining the Supreme Court’s judicial review of the anti-defection measures.

“The disciplinary proceedings brought against three of the Supreme Court’s Justices appear to violate the principle that judges can only be dismissed on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence and in accordance with fair procedures guaranteeing objectivity and impartiality as provided for by the Constitution or the law,” she wrote. “The pressure of suspensions, disciplinary proceedings and investigations may amount to an interference in the independence of this institution.”