rejects

Sudan’s army chief Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan blasted a new US-led ceasefire plan as “the worst one presented,” accusing mediators — including the United Arab Emirates — of bias. The RSF says it accepted the truce. Sudan’s 30-month war has killed tens of thousands and is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

Slovenia’s parliament had approved a law in July, allowing assisted dying after a 2024 referendum supported it.

Slovenians have rejected in a referendum a law that allowed terminally ill adults to end their lives, after critics mounted a campaign against the legislation.

About 53 percent of 1.7 million eligible voters voted against the law that proposed legalising assisted dying, according to preliminary results released by the election authorities on Sunday.

The results mean the law’s implementation will be suspended for at least one year. Slovenia’s parliament had approved the law in July, allowing assisted dying after a 2024 referendum supported it.

But the new vote was called after a civil group, backed by the Catholic Church and the conservative parliamentary opposition, gathered more than the 40,000 signatures required for a repeat.

Ales Primc, head of Voice for the Children and the Family, the NGO that organised the no vote campaign, reacted to the results, saying “solidarity and justice” had won.

“We are witnessing a miracle. The culture of life has defeated the cult of death,” Primc said after the vote.

Under the disputed law, terminally ill patients would have had the right to aid in dying if their suffering was unbearable and all treatment options had been exhausted.

It would also have allowed for assisted dying if treatment offers had no reasonable prospect of recovery or improvement in the patient’s condition, but not to end unbearable suffering from mental illness.

Prime Minister Robert Golob had urged citizens to back the law “so that each of us can decide for ourselves how and with what dignity we will end our lives”.

But the Catholic Church has said allowing assisted dying “contradicts the foundations of the Gospel, natural law and human dignity”.

In June 2024, 55 percent had backed the law.

Turnout at Sunday’s referendum was 40.9 percent – just enough for the no vote to meet the threshold.

Several European countries, including Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, allow terminally ill people to receive medical help to end their lives. However, it remains a crime in others, even in cases of severe suffering.

In May, France’s lower house of parliament approved a right-to-die bill in a first reading. The British parliament is debating similar legislation.

Stakeholders are gathering to start negotiations based on a text that the EU believes mostly favours Russian demands.

Senior Ukrainian, European Union, United Kingdom and United States officials will soon start talks in Geneva as ambiguity and deep-seated concerns hover over the fate of the 28-point plan put forward by Washington to end the war with Russia.

At the talks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be the top representative of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has given his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy until Thursday to take the deal.

Rubio emphasised in a Sunday post on X before flying to Switzerland that the proposal was authored by the US.

“It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations,” he wrote. “It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”

The comments came in rejection of a claim made by a bipartisan group of veteran US senators, most focused on foreign policy, who told a panel discussion at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada that the plan is a Russian “wish list” and not the actual proposal offering Washington’s positions.

“This administration was not responsible for this release in its current form,” said Republican Mike Rounds from South Dakota, adding that “it looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with”.

State Department deputy spokesman Tommy Pigott called the claim “blatantly false”.

The senators earlier Saturday said the plan would only “reward aggression” by Moscow and send a message to other leaders who have threatened their neighbours.

Critics of the plan have said it heavily leans into the Kremlin’s oft-repeated demands and war narrative.

The plan would stress Ukrainian sovereignty and provide a security guarantee that it will not be attacked in the future, but also includes Ukraine ceding territory and making its army smaller.

Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the proposal late Friday, saying it “could form the basis of a final peace settlement” if Washington can get Ukraine and its European allies on board.

Ukraine has been careful with its rhetoric, with Zelenskyy saying he will “work calmly” with the US and his Western allies to get through what he called “truly one of the most difficult moments in our history”.

Ukraine’s European allies are not happy with the plan, either, saying the military limitations would leave Ukraine “vulnerable to future attack”, so more talks are necessary.

France, the UK and Germany, also known as the E3, will have national security advisers at the Geneva talks.

The troubled US-led diplomatic efforts are inching forward as intense fighting continues to rage in eastern Ukraine.

Russian forces are pushing to take control of more territory in Zaporizhia and in Donetsk, part of the eastern Donbas region that is seeing fierce fighting and that Russia wants in its entirety, while also fending off Ukrainian air attacks on their oil and fuel infrastructure.

A state judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by former Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva that alleged the county defamed him, violated his rights and unfairly flagged his personnel file with a “do not rehire” tag.

In a 26-page order, Superior Court Judge Gary D. Roberts on Wednesday granted a request by the county to reject the lawsuit under California’s Anti-SLAPP law, writing that Villanueva’s claims lack “minimal merit.”

The case’s dismissal is “a major victory,” according to Jason Tokoro, an attorney for the county.

“We are pleased that the Court agreed with the County that former Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s claims are barred by California’s anti-SLAPP statute and had no merit,” he wrote in an emailed statement Thursday. “The County can now close this chapter.”

The decision marks the third time a court has dismissed Villanueva’s assertions that the county had treated him unfairly and caused him to suffer “humiliation, severe emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, and compensatory damages.”

The complaint in Villanueva’s lawsuit filed in June said it was an “attempt to clear his name, vindicate his reputation, and be made whole for the emotional distress defendants’ actions have caused him.”

Villanueva previously tried to sue in federal court. In September 2024, a judge in the Central District of California rejected the former sheriff’s $25-million federal lawsuit over the allegations, then did so again in May after Villanueva refiled the case.

Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. The Sheriff’s Department declined to comment.

The dispute began after Inspector General Max Hunstman claimed in 2022 that Villanueva engaged in a “racially based attack” by insisting on calling Huntsman by the name he was given at birth, Max-Gustaf. Villanueva also described Huntsman as a Holocaust denier, an allegation for which he did not provide any evidence and which the inspector general has denied.

The county investigated Huntsman’s allegation and slapped the former sheriff with the “do not rehire” label. Each year, a county panel recommends dozens of government employees be disciplined for a wide range of unethical behavior ranging from theft to privacy violations by adding “do not hire” or other restrictions to their personnel files.

In his state lawsuit, Villanueva argued it was unfair for him to be subject to a “do not hire” designation while multiple public officials who had engaged in illegal conduct avoided the tag. Villanueva has maintained that he never discriminated against or harassed anyone.

“The unprecedented decision by the Board to place Villanueva on a ‘Do Not Hire’ was the result of a defamatory charge of discrimination and harassment,” the former sheriff wrote in the June complaint.

Around the same time Huntsman made his allegation, Esther Lim, then-justice deputy for county Supervisor Hilda Solis, made a complaint alleging that Villanueva had a pattern of harassing women of color during livestreams on social media. The allegation also prompted an investigation and a “do not hire” tag, which Villanueva has disputed.

A French court rejected all claims brought by UFC-Que Choisir against Perrier, after the consumer group claimed the firm’s natural mineral water was deceptively labelled.

In early June, UFC-Que Choisir filed an emergency motion with a court in Nanterre near Paris seeking a recall of all Perrier bottles in circulation, as well as a temporary ban on sales of the natural mineral water.

The case centred on a dispute over the use of a filtration treatment, which the group said was contrary to French and European law. UFC-Que Choisir also claimed that the water posed health risks.

UFC-Que Choisir insisted that its demands would not have caused Perrier’s Vergèze plant to close, but it hoped that the bottles produced there would be sold as drinking water and not natural mineral water.

The consumer group noted that natural mineral water typically sells for 100 to 300 times the price of tap water.

Nestlé says decision proves Perrier’s food safety is ‘guaranteed’

The court in Nanterre said a health risk to consumers was not proven to the level required for an emergency ruling, a ruling welcomed by Nestlé.

“Today’s decision confirms that the food safety of Perrier natural mineral waters has always been guaranteed”, it said.

The company said it operates under an integrated quality management system, shared with, and controlled by, the relevant authorities to ensure the food safety of all its products.

“The results of our analyses are constantly shared with the authorities who regularly test our mineral waters, both at source and the finished product, to confirm compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, including food safety and quality standards.”

UFC-Que Choisir must pay €5,000 to Nestlé, according to a court statement.

The Nanterre ruling was the latest twist in a series of scandals hounding Nestlé in France.

In a 2024 report, the Occitanie Regional Health Agency (ARS) warned of the possibility of halting Perrier production because of persistent bacterial contaminationin water drawn from wells at the Vergèze plant.

An inquiry commissioned by France’s Senate then found that the French government had covered up the use of illegal water treatments for years, particularly with regard to Nestlé.

Nestlé said it has since stopped using these prohibited treatments, instead switching to its current filtration methods.

Nov. 18 (UPI) — Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Tuesday rebuffed the idea of the U.S. military intervening within her country’s borders to combat drug trafficking despite recent remarks from President Donald Trump.

Sheinbaum made the comments during a press conference Tuesday as the Trump administration pursues its increasingly militarized approach to drug trafficking.

Sheinbaum said Trump had offered during multiple phone conversations to send troops to Mexico to help authorities combat criminal groups. While Sheinbaum said she was willing to share information and work with the United States, she would not accept a foreign government intervening in her country.

“We don’t want intervention from any foreign government,” said Sheinbaum in Spanish. She noted that Mexico lost half its territory the last time the United States had a military presence in her country, a reference to the U.S.-Mexico war of the 19th century.

She added she was open to “collaboration and coordination without subordination” to the United States and had communicated the same message to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The Trump administration has launched a series of strikes targeting boats allegedly carrying drugs across the Pacific to the United States. Military officials have justified the strikes as legally permissible after the U.S. government designated drug traffickers as “terrorist organizations.”

Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump said the strikes had significantly reduced drug trafficking across waterways and prevented U.S. citizens from fatal overdoses. When asked if he was open to military strikes against Mexico, Trump indicated he was open to the idea, citing “big problems” in Mexico City.

“So let me just put it this way, I am not happy with Mexico,” he said.

The Security Council is set to vote on a US resolution detailing the long-awaited Gaza stabilisation force.

The US Supreme Court has declined to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, its landmark ruling that legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

On Monday (10 November), the court denied the appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who made headlines for refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. Davis faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees.

The possibility of same-sex marriage being overturned gained widespread attention in 2022 after the court’s 6-3 conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal right to abortion. Another factor is that the Supreme Court is now far more conservative than the court that decided Obergefell in 2015.

According to reports, the court did not provide an explanation for its decision to deny the appeal.

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement: “Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone – including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote who authored the Obergefell decision in 2015 and retired three years later, added: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.”

Davis was represented by Liberty Counsel, a far-right Christian legal group and Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQIA+ hate group.

Founded in 1989, the group has consistently campaigned against LGBTQ+ rights, opposing same-sex marriage, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, and measures banning conversion therapy.

In her Supreme Court appeal, Davis raised several arguments, focusing on religious freedom and claims of sovereign immunity, while also directly challenging the Obergefell decision.

She contended that the Constitution “makes no reference to same-sex marriage and no such right is implicitly recognized by any constitutional provision.”

Mary Bonauto, a seasoned civil rights attorney with GLAD Law who argued the Obergefell case, welcomed the Supreme Court’s swift dismissal of Davis’ appeal.

“The only thing that has changed since Obergefell was decided is that people across the country have seen how marriage equality provides protection for families and children, and that protection strengthens communities, the economy and our society,” she said.

“Today millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief for their families, current or hoped for, because all families deserve equal rights under the law.”

The California Supreme Court rejected a 1st Amendment challenge to a state law that protects the rights of gay and transgender people in nursing homes and forbids employees of those sites from using the wrong pronouns to address a resident or co-worker.

The ruling, handed down Friday, holds that violations of the LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights are not protected by the 1st Amendment because they relate to codes of conduct in what is in effect a workplace and a home.

“The pronouns provision constitutes a regulation of discriminatory conduct that incidentally affects speech,” the court ruled.

The opinion reversed an appeals court ruling that held provisions in the 2017 law relating to patient pronouns and names could impede an employee’s freedom of speech. Five justices signed on to the main opinion; two signed on to a concurrence. There were no dissents.

“All individuals deserve to live free from harmful, disrespectful rhetoric that attacks their sense of self, especially when receiving care necessary for their continued well-being,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a written statement commending the ruling. “State law prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace. I am glad that the California Supreme Court agrees with us on the importance of these protections and has affirmed their constitutionality.”

The group challenging the law, Taking Offense, asserted in its lawsuit that the provision mandating that long-term care facilities use people’s chosen pronouns amounts to “criminalizing and compelling speech content.”

Taking Offense described itself in court documents as a group opposing efforts “to coerce society to accept transgender fiction that a person can be whatever sex/gender s/he thinks s/he is, or chooses to be.”

The court ruled that the LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights “will be violated when willful and repeated misgendering has occurred in the presence of a resident, the resident hears or sees the misgendering, and the resident is harmed because the resident perceives that conduct to be abusive.”

The LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights is enforced by a section of California’s Health and Safety Code. Penalties can range from civil fines to criminal misdemeanor prosecutions — the potential for criminal penalties was a major element of Taking Offense’s argument. The court’s decision noted that other protections for long-term care facility residents have long carried both civil and criminal penalties.

“It seems apparent that the Legislature does not intend for such criminal penalties to be imposed except as a last resort, in the most egregious circumstances,” wrote the decision’s author, California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.

The opinion made comparisons to other free-speech decisions with similar elements, such as the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston could not force St. Patrick’s Day parade organizers to include them.

“By contrast, the present case does not involve any analogous creative product or expressive association,” Guerrero wrote, concluding that the California law is instead regulating people’s conduct.

Duara writes for CalMatters.

Brazil’s top court rejects Bolsonaro’s coup sentence appeal, affirming his 27-year penalty for post-election power grab.

A five-member panel of Brazil’s Supreme Court has formed a majority to reject former President Jair Bolsonaro’s appeal challenging his 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup to remain in power after the 2022 presidential election.

The 70-year-old far-right firebrand was found guilty by the same court in September of attempting to prevent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking power. Prosecutors said the plan failed only because of a lack of support from the military’s top brass.

Justices Flavio Dino, Alexandre de Moraes and Cristiano Zanin voted to reject the appeal filed by Bolsonaro’s legal team. The remaining members of the panel have until November 14 to cast their votes in the Supreme Court’s system.

The former president will begin serving his sentence only after all appeals are exhausted.

Bolsonaro has been under house arrest since August for violating precautionary measures in a separate case. His lawyers are expected to request that he be allowed to serve his sentence under similar conditions due to health concerns.

Bolsonaro’s lawyers argued there had been “profound injustices” and “contradictions” in his conviction, and sought to have his prison sentence reduced.

Three of the Supreme Court judges weighing the appeal voted to reject it on Friday.

However, the result is not considered official until the court-imposed deadline at midnight on November 14.

Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over the trial, was the first to cast his vote electronically and wrote that arguments by Bolsonaro’s lawyers to have his sentence reduced were “without merit”.

Moraes, in a 141-page document seen by AFP, rejected defence claims they had been given an overwhelming amount of documents and digital files, preventing them from properly mounting their case.

He also rejected an argument that Bolsonaro had given up on the coup, saying it failed only because of external factors, not because the former president renounced it.

Moraes reaffirmed that there had been a deliberate coup attempt orchestrated under Bolsonaro’s leadership, with ample proof of his involvement.

He again underscored Bolsonaro’s role in instigating the January 8 assault on Brazil’s democratic institutions, when supporters demanded a military takeover to oust Lula.

‘Ruling justified’

Moraes ruled that the sentence of 27 years and 3 months was based on Bolsonaro’s high culpability as president and the severity and impact of the crimes. Moraes said Bolsonaro’s age had already been considered as a mitigating factor.

“The ruling justified all stages of the sentencing process,” Moraes wrote.

Two other judges voted in the same way shortly afterwards.

Because of health problems stemming from a stabbing attack in 2018, Bolsonaro could ask to serve his sentence under house arrest.

The trial against Bolsonaro angered his ally, US President Donald Trump, who imposed sanctions on Brazilian officials and punitive trade tariffs.

However, in recent months, tensions have thawed between Washington and Brasilia, with a meeting taking place between Trump and Lula and negotiations to reduce the tariffs.

An initiative from Bolsonaro supporters in Congress to push through an amnesty bill that could benefit him fizzled out after massive protests around the country.

Brazil’s large conservative electorate is currently without a champion heading into 2026 presidential elections, in which Lula, 80, has said he will seek a fourth term.

“It doesn’t hurt me. Just to come back to this particular player, obviously a legend, a big player of the game who inspired so many, I can say only positive things but I feel that comment is just I would say it’s a bit of a lazy criticism.

“It’s easy to blame the other players but he knows we do it together, trying to help each and every one of us to try to get out of this. Last year when things go well you don’t hear that at all. It is what it is.

“[Pundits] have to do that job. He has an opinion and we have to deal with it. There’s no hard feelings. I don’t take it personally.”

Liverpool are third in the Premier League and seven points behind leaders Arsenal heading into a two crucial games this week.

Slot’s side host Real Madrid in the Champions League on Tuesday before they visit Manchester City in the Premier League on Sunday.

“I’ve heard the reports as well about [Slot] being under pressure, but I don’t think we play at a club that makes rash decisions,” added Van Dijk.

“We all felt that we can work our way out of this. It’s not a guarantee, but we can do it together. As long as we believe, stay humble and keep working, we can do it, and we all have that feeling.”

Hamas says US claim is ‘unfounded’, calling it ‘an attempt to justify further reduction of already limited’ aid in Gaza.

Hamas has denied accusations by the US Central Command (CENTCOM) that the Palestinian group looted aid trucks in the Gaza Strip.

CENTCOM had published drone footage that allegedly showed an aid truck being looted in the enclave. It said in a statement that the drone observed suspected Hamas operatives looting the truck that was travelling as part of a humanitarian convoy in northern Khan Younis on October 31.

On Sunday, Hamas called the United States’ accusations “unfounded” and “part of an attempt to justify the further reduction of already limited humanitarian aid, while covering up the international community’s failure to end the blockade and starvation imposed on civilians in Gaza”.

“All manifestations of chaos and looting ended immediately after the withdrawal of the [Israeli] occupying forces, proving that the occupation was the only party that sponsored these gangs and orchestrated the chaos,” it added.

Hamas said more than 1,000 Palestinian police and security forces had lost their lives and hundreds were wounded while trying to provide protection for humanitarian aid convoys and ensure that assistance reaches those in need.

It affirmed that none of the international or local institutions, nor any driver working with the aid convoys, has filed any report or complaint about looting by Hamas.

“This clearly demonstrates that the scene cited by the US Central Command is fabricated and politically motivated to justify blockade policies and the reduction of humanitarian aid,” it said, blaming the US for failing to document the ongoing Israeli attacks following the ceasefire agreement that killed 254 Palestinians and wounded 595.

CENTCOM said that the MQ-9 aerial drone was flying overhead to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel.

“Over the past week, international partners have delivered more than 600 trucks of commercial goods and aid into Gaza daily. This incident undermines these efforts,” it said in the statement.

Hamas said the average number of aid trucks entering Gaza daily does not exceed 135, while the rest are commercial trucks bearing goods that Gaza’s population cannot afford “despite our repeated calls to increase the number of humanitarian aid trucks and reduce commercial shipments”.

“The US adoption of the Israeli narrative only deepens Washington’s immoral bias and places it squarely as a partner in the blockade and the suffering of the Palestinian people,” it said.

The ceasefire took effect on October 10 under US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan.

Phase one of the deal includes the release of the captives in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. The plan also envisages the rebuilding of Gaza and the establishment of a new governing mechanism without Hamas.

Since October 2023, Israel’s war on Gaza has killed more than 68,500 people and wounded over 170,600 across Gaza.