Washington, DC – Journalists, academics, airline employees, doctors and restaurant workers across the United States have been fired or investigated by their employers over the past week for comments deemed insensitive on the killing of Charlie Kirk.
The firings at a moment of rising political tensions in the US have ignited debates over the limits of free speech, cancel culture, doxxing and labour protections, as well as the legacy of Kirk.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The 31-year-old right-wing commentator was fatally shot in Utah last week.
While parts of the country mourned Kirk as a martyr who championed patriotism and open debate, others recalled his divisive views, including his anti-immigrant and Islamophobic rhetoric. Some even celebrated his death.
Many Republicans responded with a campaign of naming and shaming to ostracise people who reacted to the assassination in ways that they considered objectionable.
Former MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd was one of the earliest targets of that effort.
Shortly after Kirk was shot, Dowd said the conservative commentator pushed “hate speech” against some groups. “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” the analyst said on air.
The comment sparked outrage from Kirk’s supporters, leading MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler to apologise for what she called the “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” remarks.
Dowd was later fired – a move that he rejected and blamed on a right-wing “media mob” that “misconstrued” his words.
This week, columnist Karen Attiah was also sacked from her position at the Washington Post over her response to the killing of Kirk.
Attiah had fired off a series of social media posts around race and gun violence after the assassination.
A letter of termination that she shared online on Tuesday cited a post in which she defended refusing to engage in “performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence” without explicitly mentioning Kirk as one of the reasons for her sacking.
Officials back sacking campaign
Private citizens from all walks of life have also faced calls to be let go from their jobs over their takes on the killing of Kirk – social media posts that ranged from revelling in his death to linking the assassination to the commentator’s own views and support for gun rights.
For example, influential right-wing social media accounts have been demanding the firing of a Pennsylvania teacher for calling Kirk “racist”, although she also said that he “didn’t deserve to die”.
Kirk himself was no stranger to controversial opinions. He repeatedly attacked Islam and Muslims.
“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America,” he wrote in a recent social media post.
He was also a promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory – the notion that there is a plan (usually claimed to be carried out by Jewish elites) to replace white populations with immigrants, which has inspired white nationalist mass shooters across the world.
But on the right, the status of Kirk only rose after his death. With that apparent canonisation came the push to protect his legacy from detractors and those finding humour, joy or irony in his death.
Almost immediately after the shooting, right-wing groups started publishing the names and personal information – including place of employment – of social media users who allegedly celebrated the assassination.
Republican politicians, including lawmakers, joined calls for the firing of individuals over Kirk-related social media posts deemed by them to be offensive.
In Indiana, State Attorney General Todd Rokita encouraged submissions to a database on school employees who made “comments that celebrate or rationalise” the shooting of Kirk.
US Vice President JD Vance backed the effort as well, saying that people who celebrated the assassination should be held to account. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he said on Monday.
US Congressman Randy Fine, of Florida, threatened to revoke the professional state licences of offenders, including lawyers, teachers and doctors.
Fine himself cheered for the killing of US citizen Aysenur Ezgi Eygi by Israeli forces last year. “One less #MuslimTerrorist. #FireAway,” he wrote on social media after Eygi was fatally shot in the occupied West Bank.
Is it legal?
While the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not apply to private employers.
But some states have laws to protect speech and political activities of employees when they are not at work.
Jenin Younes, a prominent free speech lawyer who recently became the legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said private companies have “a lot of latitude” to reprimand workers for their speech.
However, when it comes to public schools and universities, it’s more complicated.
“Public employers, broadly speaking, are bound by the First Amendment,” Younes said. “But there are circumstances in which they can consider someone’s speech to fire them.”
These “exceptions and qualifications” are on a case-by-case basis.
For example, Younes said a public school teacher could say that Kirk’s ideas were “loathsome”, but saying that he deserves to die would probably cross the line.
The law aside, Younes said the firing frenzy is “problematic philosophically”, especially given that some of the people were sacked for simply criticising Kirk, not glorifying violence.
“It’s very bad for a free society,” she told Al Jazeera. “People rely on their jobs. They need their jobs in order to live and support their families. So, if we want to live in a society where we have robust dialogue and debate, which is the purpose of the First Amendment, it’s bad from a practical standpoint.”
Younes said she understands why private employers may want to curb social media posts by employees that clash with the company’s brand and mission.
But a better approach than letting go of workers, she added, is to discuss the matter with them and warn them to refrain from posting similar messages in the future.
“We should always err towards more discussion and debate and not silencing people,” Younes said. “And we have to remember people have moments when they get emotional and say things they don’t mean.”
Beyond the firing campaign, several Republican politicians have pushed policy ideas to regulate speech, especially on social media, after Kirk was killed.
Republican US Congressman Clay Higgins vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate [an] immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination” of Kirk.
US Congressman Chip Roy led a congressional letter requesting the formation of a committee to investigate the “radical left”.
For her part, Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that federal authorities will push to penalise speech that they view as hateful.
“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” she said on Monday. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
Role reversal
For some observers, that right-wing push is increasingly appearing like a role reversal of the ideological blocs in the US.
For years, the right raged against the notion of “hate speech” and some left-wing activists’ push to fire and “cancel” those with views they find offensive – especially on issues of race and gender identity.
Right-wing politicians were also vocal opponents of any governmental efforts to regulate social media content.
Kirk himself had rejected penalising “hate speech”, although he backed US President Donald Trump’s clampdown on pro-Palestine student activists.
“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” Kirk wrote in a social media post last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Younes, who led a lawsuit against the Democratic administration of former US President Joe Biden over alleged social media censorship efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, noted what she called “the hypocrisy”.
“A lot of the people who were against ‘cancel culture’, when it was the left doing it, are now suddenly very eager to embrace cancel culture when they don’t like the speech in question, which I think shows the heart of the struggle on this issue,” she said.
“Everybody claims to be against censorship when it’s ideas that they like that are being censored, but then when it’s their ideological opponents, they’re very happy to do the censoring.”
She warned that the push to curb freedom of expression around the killing of Kirk could extend to other issues, including intensifying the crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy.
“Any kind of censorship that’s used for one type of speech can always be adjusted to apply to another type of speech,” she said.
‘The Kitchen’ is closing: Reactions as food talk show is nixed
It’s almost a wrap for “The Kitchen.”
Food Network announced Monday that its long-running weekend culinary talk show “The Kitchen” is coming to an end. The final episode of the series, co-hosted by network favorites Sunny Anderson, Katie Lee Biegel, Jeff Mauro, Geoffrey Zakarian and recurring guest Alex Guarnaschelli, will air Dec. 13.
“It’s the end of an era,” Biegel said in her Instagram story sharing the news. “Thank you so much to all of our fans. The Kitchen was the greatest professional honor of my life and I will be forever grateful.” Biegel has served as one of the show’s co-hosts since its 2014 premiere.
Mauro, who has also been with the show since the beginning, echoed her sentiments on his own Instagram post.
“I always knew what we had was special — rare, a unicorn, an anomaly,” Mauro said in a lengthy caption thanking fans and colleagues. “I got to spend a dozen years with my best friends — cooking, laughing, and eating life-changing bites from some of the world’s greatest chefs and cooks.”
Currently in its 40th season, the Daytime Emmy-nominated cooking-themed talk show featured its hosts and guests sharing recipes, discussing food trends and offering other food tips. In addition to celebrated chefs and culinary personalities, “The Kitchen” opened its doors to various actors, musicians and celebrities.
“For over a decade Sunny, Katie, Jeff, Geoffrey and more recently Alex have engaged audiences with their individual and distinct food sensibilities and sense of humor that together make ‘The Kitchen’ a delicious way to spend an hour,” Warner Bros. Discovery head of food content Betsy Ayala said in a statement.
“Everyone knows all good parties end up in ‘The Kitchen,’ where the conversation, laughs and food flow; the best parties probably end a little bit earlier than some guests would like, but we’ve got twelve years of memories and wanted to celebrate this team’s hard work during one final holiday season.”
Food Network titan Bobby Flay congratulated the show’s team for “an iconic run” in the comments on Food Network’s Instagram post sharing the news.
“Thank you to the Kitchen and its fabulous chefs and hosts for holding it down in daytime on [Food Network] for the last decade,” Flay wrote.
Other Food Network stars also chimed in with tributes in the comments responding to the announcement.
“I loved this show because it reminded me of why I fell in love with cooking in the first place,” wrote Aarti Sequeira, Season 6 winner of “The Next Food Network Star,” “lots of voices and hands working together in a kitchen with equal servings of love and sass!!!!”
“[C]ongrats on an incredible show — one of my favorites to watch and to be part of,” “Chopped” judge Marc Murphy wrote. “You’re all legends.”
Fellow “Chopped” judge Tiffani Faison also congratulated the show’s staff for “a run worthy only of this team.”
Source link
‘It will all be fine’: Donald Trump’s reactions boost European markets
ADVERTISEMENT
There has been a huge wave of relief across European and US markets after Friday proved to be a dark day for investors.
Leading European stock indexes started the week in the green, as well as the US futures, while bitcoin, silver and gold rallied.
After leading stock indexes on the Wall Street dropped between 1.9 and 3.6% on Friday, Asian indexes followed the lead on Monday morning, and unanimously lost between 1% and 1.7%.
US stocks skidded on Friday after US President Donald Trump threatened to crank tariffs higher on China, signalling more trouble ahead between the two biggest economies. He was responding to restrictions Beijing is imposing on exports of rare earths, which are materials that are critical for the manufacturing of everything from consumer electronics to jet engines.
However, by the European opening on Monday, investors appeared to be cheered by the US president’s promising words, as he commented on the mounting US-China trade tensions on social media, saying, “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine!”
Stock markets appear to reverse the losses from the end of last week, the FTSE 100 in London was up by 0.3% at around 10h CET on Monday, the Paris CAC 40 cheered the promise of a new government by gaining 0.7% and the Dax in Frankfurt joined the crowd by rising 0.5% by this time.
The Ibex 35 in Madrid also gained 0.8% and the European benchmark Stoxx 600 was up by nearly 0.5%.
Crypto rallies after Friday’s sharp decline
Bitcoin approached $115,000 on Monday, while Ethereum exceeded $4,200.
“The crypto market capitalisation stood at $3.9 trillion on Monday, up 4.4% from the previous day but down 6% from pre-Friday crash levels,” Alex Kuptsikevich, the FxPro chief market analyst, said.
Gold was up by more than 2.3%, trading at $4,092 an ounce, nearing 11h CET, while oil prices were also climbing, the US benchmark crude was up by nearly 0.9% at 59.85 a barrel, whereas the international benchmark Brent cost $63.69 a barrel, 1.5% increase in the price.
Meanwhile, US futures advanced, with the contract for the S&P 500 gaining 1.1% while that for the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 1.5% and Nasdaq futures were climbing 2% by 10.30 CET.
In other dealings early Monday, the dollar rose 152.22 Japanese yen from 151.89 yen late Friday. The euro fell to $1.1605 from $1.1614.
Source link
Global reactions to Palestinian state recognition | Gaza
Several Western nations, including the UK, Australia, and Canada, have formally recognised Palestine, drawing praise from Palestinians and outrage from the Israeli government, which insists it will never allow a Palestinian state.
Published On 22 Sep 202522 Sep 2025
Share
Source link
Firings over reactions to Kirk killing spark free speech debate in the US | Politics News
Washington, DC – Journalists, academics, airline employees, doctors and restaurant workers across the United States have been fired or investigated by their employers over the past week for comments deemed insensitive on the killing of Charlie Kirk.
The firings at a moment of rising political tensions in the US have ignited debates over the limits of free speech, cancel culture, doxxing and labour protections, as well as the legacy of Kirk.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The 31-year-old right-wing commentator was fatally shot in Utah last week.
While parts of the country mourned Kirk as a martyr who championed patriotism and open debate, others recalled his divisive views, including his anti-immigrant and Islamophobic rhetoric. Some even celebrated his death.
Many Republicans responded with a campaign of naming and shaming to ostracise people who reacted to the assassination in ways that they considered objectionable.
Former MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd was one of the earliest targets of that effort.
Shortly after Kirk was shot, Dowd said the conservative commentator pushed “hate speech” against some groups. “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” the analyst said on air.
The comment sparked outrage from Kirk’s supporters, leading MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler to apologise for what she called the “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” remarks.
Dowd was later fired – a move that he rejected and blamed on a right-wing “media mob” that “misconstrued” his words.
This week, columnist Karen Attiah was also sacked from her position at the Washington Post over her response to the killing of Kirk.
Attiah had fired off a series of social media posts around race and gun violence after the assassination.
A letter of termination that she shared online on Tuesday cited a post in which she defended refusing to engage in “performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence” without explicitly mentioning Kirk as one of the reasons for her sacking.
Officials back sacking campaign
Private citizens from all walks of life have also faced calls to be let go from their jobs over their takes on the killing of Kirk – social media posts that ranged from revelling in his death to linking the assassination to the commentator’s own views and support for gun rights.
For example, influential right-wing social media accounts have been demanding the firing of a Pennsylvania teacher for calling Kirk “racist”, although she also said that he “didn’t deserve to die”.
Kirk himself was no stranger to controversial opinions. He repeatedly attacked Islam and Muslims.
“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America,” he wrote in a recent social media post.
He was also a promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory – the notion that there is a plan (usually claimed to be carried out by Jewish elites) to replace white populations with immigrants, which has inspired white nationalist mass shooters across the world.
But on the right, the status of Kirk only rose after his death. With that apparent canonisation came the push to protect his legacy from detractors and those finding humour, joy or irony in his death.
Almost immediately after the shooting, right-wing groups started publishing the names and personal information – including place of employment – of social media users who allegedly celebrated the assassination.
Republican politicians, including lawmakers, joined calls for the firing of individuals over Kirk-related social media posts deemed by them to be offensive.
In Indiana, State Attorney General Todd Rokita encouraged submissions to a database on school employees who made “comments that celebrate or rationalise” the shooting of Kirk.
US Vice President JD Vance backed the effort as well, saying that people who celebrated the assassination should be held to account. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he said on Monday.
US Congressman Randy Fine, of Florida, threatened to revoke the professional state licences of offenders, including lawyers, teachers and doctors.
Fine himself cheered for the killing of US citizen Aysenur Ezgi Eygi by Israeli forces last year. “One less #MuslimTerrorist. #FireAway,” he wrote on social media after Eygi was fatally shot in the occupied West Bank.
Is it legal?
While the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not apply to private employers.
But some states have laws to protect speech and political activities of employees when they are not at work.
Jenin Younes, a prominent free speech lawyer who recently became the legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said private companies have “a lot of latitude” to reprimand workers for their speech.
However, when it comes to public schools and universities, it’s more complicated.
“Public employers, broadly speaking, are bound by the First Amendment,” Younes said. “But there are circumstances in which they can consider someone’s speech to fire them.”
These “exceptions and qualifications” are on a case-by-case basis.
For example, Younes said a public school teacher could say that Kirk’s ideas were “loathsome”, but saying that he deserves to die would probably cross the line.
The law aside, Younes said the firing frenzy is “problematic philosophically”, especially given that some of the people were sacked for simply criticising Kirk, not glorifying violence.
“It’s very bad for a free society,” she told Al Jazeera. “People rely on their jobs. They need their jobs in order to live and support their families. So, if we want to live in a society where we have robust dialogue and debate, which is the purpose of the First Amendment, it’s bad from a practical standpoint.”
Younes said she understands why private employers may want to curb social media posts by employees that clash with the company’s brand and mission.
But a better approach than letting go of workers, she added, is to discuss the matter with them and warn them to refrain from posting similar messages in the future.
“We should always err towards more discussion and debate and not silencing people,” Younes said. “And we have to remember people have moments when they get emotional and say things they don’t mean.”
Beyond the firing campaign, several Republican politicians have pushed policy ideas to regulate speech, especially on social media, after Kirk was killed.
Republican US Congressman Clay Higgins vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate [an] immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination” of Kirk.
US Congressman Chip Roy led a congressional letter requesting the formation of a committee to investigate the “radical left”.
For her part, Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that federal authorities will push to penalise speech that they view as hateful.
“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” she said on Monday. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
Role reversal
For some observers, that right-wing push is increasingly appearing like a role reversal of the ideological blocs in the US.
For years, the right raged against the notion of “hate speech” and some left-wing activists’ push to fire and “cancel” those with views they find offensive – especially on issues of race and gender identity.
Right-wing politicians were also vocal opponents of any governmental efforts to regulate social media content.
Kirk himself had rejected penalising “hate speech”, although he backed US President Donald Trump’s clampdown on pro-Palestine student activists.
“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” Kirk wrote in a social media post last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Younes, who led a lawsuit against the Democratic administration of former US President Joe Biden over alleged social media censorship efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, noted what she called “the hypocrisy”.
“A lot of the people who were against ‘cancel culture’, when it was the left doing it, are now suddenly very eager to embrace cancel culture when they don’t like the speech in question, which I think shows the heart of the struggle on this issue,” she said.
“Everybody claims to be against censorship when it’s ideas that they like that are being censored, but then when it’s their ideological opponents, they’re very happy to do the censoring.”
She warned that the push to curb freedom of expression around the killing of Kirk could extend to other issues, including intensifying the crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy.
“Any kind of censorship that’s used for one type of speech can always be adjusted to apply to another type of speech,” she said.
Source link
Diogo Jota: Reactions to death of Liverpool and Portugal star | Football News
Tributes are coming in following the passing of the popular footballer, who died in a car crash in Spain on Thursday.
Liverpool forward Diogo Jota has died following a car crash in Spain, according to a police report.
Jota, 28, had been travelling in the car with his brother Andre, 26, also a footballer, when the vehicle went off the road, according to the reporting by Portugal’s public broadcaster, TVE.
The tragedy comes just two weeks after Jota married his long-term girlfriend Rute Cardoso in Porto, in his native Portugal.
The following are quotes and reactions to his death:
Liverpool Football Club
“Liverpool Football Club are devastated by the tragic passing of Diogo Jota.
“The club have been informed the 28-year-old has passed away following a road traffic accident in Spain along with his brother, Andre.
“Liverpool FC will be making no further comment at this time and request the privacy of Diogo and Andre’s family, friends, teammates and club staff is respected as they try to come to terms with an unimaginable loss.
“We will continue to provide them with our full support.”
Luis Montenegro, Portugal Prime Minister
“The news of the death of Diogo Jota, an athlete who greatly honoured Portugal’s name, and his brother is unexpected and tragic. I extend my deepest condolences to their family. It is a sad day for football and for national and international sports.”
Portuguese Football Federation
“The Portuguese Football Federation and the entire Portuguese football community are devastated by the deaths of Diogo Jota and Andre Silva in Spain this morning.
“Diogo Jota was not only a fantastic player with almost 50 caps for the national team, but also an extraordinary person who was respected by all his teammates and opponents. He had a contagious joy and was a reference point in his own community … We have lost two champions. Their deaths represent irreparable losses for Portuguese football, and we will do everything we can to honour their legacy every day.”
Jamie Carragher, former Liverpool player
“Devastating news about Diogo Jota & his brother Andre this morning. Thoughts are with everyone of their family & friends, especially his wife Rute & their three lovely kids.”
Ruben Neves, Portugal and Al Hilal midfielder
“They say that we only lose people when we forget them. I will never forget you … FC Porto is in mourning.
“It is with shock and deep regret that we send our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Diogo Jota and his brother Andre Silva, who was also our athlete in the youth ranks. Rest in peace.”
Sporting CP
“The world of football is poorer. Sporting CP expresses its sorrow at the death of Portuguese international Diogo Jota and his brother Andre Silva. Our deepest condolences go out to the whole family at this difficult time.”
Source link
L.A.’s Iranian community grapples with reactions to U.S. military attack
Roozbeh Farahanipour sat in the blue-green glow of his Westwood restaurant’s 220-gallon saltwater aquarium and worried about Iran, his voice accented in anguish.
It was Sunday morning, and the homeland he fled a quarter-century ago had been bombed by the U.S. military, escalating a conflict that began nine days earlier when Israel sprang a surprise attack on its perennial Middle Eastern foe.
“Anger and hate for the Iranian regime — I have it, but I try to manage it,” said Farahanipour, owner of Delphi Greek restaurant and two other nearby eateries. “I don’t think that anything good will come out of this. If, for any reason, the regime is going to be changed, either we’re facing another Iraq or Afghanistan, or we’re going to see the Balkans situation. Iran is going to be split in pieces.”
Farahanipour, 53, who’d been a political activist before fleeing Iran, rattled off a series of questions as a gray-colored shark made lazy loops in the tank behind him. What might happen to civilians in Iran if the U.S. attack triggers a more widespread war? What about the potential loss of Israeli lives? And Americans, too? After wrestling with those weighty questions, he posed a more workaday one: “What’s gonna be the gas price tomorrow?”
Such is life for Iranian Americans in Los Angeles, a diaspora that comprises the largest Iranian community outside of Iran. Farahanipour, like other Iranian Americans interviewed by The Times, described “very mixed and complicated” feelings over the crisis in Iran, which escalated early Sunday when the U.S. struck three nuclear sites there, joining an Israeli effort to disrupt the country’s quest for an atomic weapon.
About 141,000 Iranian Americans live in L.A. County, according to the Iranian Data Dashboard, which is hosted by the UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies. The epicenter of the community is Westwood, where the neighborhood’s namesake boulevard is speckled with storefronts covered in Persian script.
On Sunday morning, reaction to news of the conflict was muted in an area nicknamed “Tehrangeles” — a reference to Iran’s capital — after it welcomed Iranians who emigrated to L.A. during the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In some stores and restaurants, journalists from CNN, Spectrum News and other outlets outnumbered Iranian patrons. At Attari Sandwich Shop, known for its beef tongue sandwich, the pre-revolution Iranian flag hung near the cash register — but none of the diners wanted to give an interview.
“No thank you; [I’m] not really political,” one middle-aged guest said with a wry smile.
Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology at UCLA, said that any U.S. involvement in a military conflict with Iran is freighted with meaning, and has long been the subject of hand-wringing.
“This scenario — which seems almost fantastical in a way — is something that has been in the imagination: the United States is going to bomb Iran,” said Harris, an Iranian American who wrote the book “A Social Revolution: Politics and the Welfare State in Iran.” “For 20 years, this is something that has been regularly discussed.”
Many emigres find themselves torn between deep dislike and resentment of the authoritarian government they fled, and concern about the family members left behind. Some in Westwood were willing to chat.
A woman who asked to be identified only as Mary, out of safety concerns for her family in Iran, said she had emigrated five years ago and was visiting L.A. with her husband. The Chicago resident said that the last week and a half have been very difficult, partly because many in her immediate family, including her parents, still live in Tehran. They recently left the city for another location in Iran due to the ongoing attacks by Israeli forces.
“I am talking to them every day,” said Mary, 35.
Standing outside Shater Abbass Bakery & Market — whose owner also has hung the pre-1979 Iranian flag — Mary said she was “hopeful and worried.”
“It’s a very confusing feeling,” she said. “Some people, they are happy because they don’t like the government — they hate the government.” Others, she said, are upset over the destruction of property and death of civilians.
Mary had been planning to visit her family in Iran in August, but that’s been scrambled. “Now, I don’t know what I should do,” she said.
Not far from Westwood, Beverly Hills’ prominent Iranian Jewish community was making its presence felt. On Sunday morning, Shahram Javidnia, 62, walked near a group of pro-Israel supporters who were staging a procession headed toward the city’s large “Beverly Hills” sign. One of them waved an Israeli flag.
Javidnia, an Iranian Jew who lives in Beverly Hills and opposes the government in Iran, said he monitors social media, TV and radio for news of the situation there.
“Now that they’re in a weak point,” he said of Iran’s authoritarian leadership, “that’s the time maybe for the Iranians to rise up and try to do what is right.”
Javidnia came to the U.S. in 1978 as a teenager, a year before revolution would lead to the overthrow of the shah and establishment of the Islamic Republic. He settled in the L.A. area, and hasn’t been back since. He said returning is not something he even thinks about.
“The place that I spent my childhood is not there anymore,” he said. “It doesn’t exist.”
Source link
‘Obligation’: Reactions as Nawrocki wins Poland’s presidential election | Elections News
Nationalist populist Karol Nawrocki will be Poland’s next president after a tight election race. His victory marks a significant boost for the populist tide in Europe and around the globe.
Electoral Commission results on Monday showed that Nawrocki, backed by the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, won 50.89 percent of the vote. His rival, liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, received 49.11 percent in Sunday’s run-off.
The close result is being viewed as an illustration of the deep divide in Polish society between conservative forces, often linked to the powerful Catholic Church, and liberals, largely based in major cities.
Although the government holds the majority of power in Poland, Nawrocki is expected to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Andrzej Duda from PiS in using the president’s veto power to block Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s agenda.
Tusk’s centrist coalition government has pledged to reform the judicial system, which PiS revamped during eight years in power that came to an end in 2023. PiS’s changes caused a bitter fight with the European Union, which said they politicised the judiciary and were undemocratic.
The government has also struggled to ease restrictions on abortion and institute LGBTQ rights due to Duda’s resistance.
Nawrocki has pledged to protect Poland’s sovereignty from what he calls excessive interference from Brussels while he also has been critical of Ukraine’s hopes of joining the EU and NATO.
Although he remains supportive of Kyiv in its war against Russia, Nawrocki has also promised to put the interests of Poles above the large number of Ukrainian refugees that the country has taken in.
Therefore, his victory could complicate Warsaw’s relations with the EU and impact its support for Ukrainian refugees.
United States President Donald Trump gave Nawrocki his blessing before the election, and right-wing forces in Europe, who were disappointed by the defeat of nationalist George Simion in Romania’s presidential election last month, have been quick to celebrate.
Here is how the world reacted to his victory:
Poland
Trzaskowski conceded defeat and congratulated Nawrocki on his win but also cautioned him to represent all Poles. “This win is an obligation, especially in such difficult times. Especially with a close result. Don’t forget that,” Trzaskowski said on X.
Slawomir Mentzen, leader of the far-right Confederation party, who came third in the May 18 first round of the election, told Nawrocki: “I am really counting on you not forgetting those millions of voters who did not vote for you in the first round but did yesterday. These people wanted change.”
“The referendum on the dismissal of the Tusk government has been won,” PiS lawmaker Jacek Sasin wrote on X.
European Union
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent her congratulations, saying she is “confident” that “very good cooperation” with Warsaw would continue.
“We are all stronger together in our community of peace, democracy, and values. So let us work to ensure the security and prosperity of our common home,” she said on X.
Ukraine
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he looks forward to “fruitful cooperation” with Poland.
“By reinforcing one another on our continent, we give greater strength to Europe in global competition and bring the achievement of real and lasting peace closer,” Zelenskyy said.
Germany
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier congratulated Nawrocki and urged Poland to “cooperate closely based on democracy and rule of law”, stating that the two neighbours must cooperate to “ensure a future of security, freedom and prosperity for Europe”.
NATO
Secretary-General Mark Rutte said he was looking forward to working with Nawrocki on “making sure that with Poland, NATO becomes even stronger than it is today”.
France
Far-right leader Marine Le Pen welcomed the result of the election, branding it as “a rebuff to the Brussels oligarchy, which intends to impose a standardisation of legislation on member states, contrary to any democratic will”, and the European Commission’s “authoritarian policies and federalist ambitions [that] are brutalising national sovereignty”.
Hungary
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who seeks to make himself a figurehead for Europe’s nationalist populist forces, congratulated Nawrocki on his “fantastic victory”. Orban added that he is “looking forward to working with [Nawrocki] on strengthening Visegrad cooperation”, a reference to the four-nation Visegrad Group, in which the Czech Republic and Slovakia are also members.
Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called Nawrocki’s success a “fresh victory for [European] patriots”.
Romania
“Poland WON,” Simion, whose failure to win the Romanian presidency disappointed nationalist and eurosceptic forces, wrote on X.
Source link