Prince Andrew&#8217;s interview on the BBC over the weekend, in which he blamed his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on his sense of honor, has been largely hailed as a disaster.
According to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-andrews-jeffrey-epstein-interview-considered-a-disaster-by-viewers-the-media">Fox News</a>, the British royal is now facing &#8220;harsh backlash from critics and media personalities&#8221; in the interview&#8217;s wake.
&#8220;Many in the media were quick to deride Prince Andrew for not only defending his friendship with Epstein but for failing to show empathy for the convicted sex offender’s victims,&#8221; reports the outlet.
During the interview, Prince Andrew raised more than a few eyebrows when he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/prince-andrew-says-his-tendency-to-be-too-honorable-made-him-pal-around-with-jeffrey-epstein">blamed his friendship</a> with Epstein on his &#8220;honor.&#8221;
“The problem was the fact that once he had been convicted I stayed with him,” the Duke of York told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis. “That’s the bit I kick myself for on a daily basis because it was not something that was becoming of a member of the Royal Family and we try and uphold the highest standards and practices and I let the side down, simple as that.”
Prince Andrew dug himself an even bigger hole when described Epstein&#8217;s home as a &#8220;convenient place to stay&#8221; despite him being a convicted sex offender.
“There is … I mean I’ve gone through this in my mind so many times,” Andrew said. “At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one could have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honorable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgement was probably colored by my tendency to be too honorable, but that’s just the way it is.”
Charlie Proctor, editor of the Royal Central website, described the interview as &#8220;a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion.&#8221;
In an appearance on &#8220;Good Morning Britain,&#8221; lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents many of Epstein&#8217;s victims, said Prince Andrew&#8217;s denial about Epstein&#8217;s relationship with underage girls is implausible on its face.
“I don’t see how he could have not known that there were underage girls, minors, because he did visit homes of Mr. Epstein in New York, in Palm Beach, in the Virgin Islands and I happen to know that there were underage girls in all those locations,” <a href="https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1196334743048065024" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said Allred.</a>
Top media lawyer Mark Stephens also told The Guardian that Prince Andrew should have maintained silence.
“This strategy only works if you’ve got a complete and full answer to every possible question, and here there are too many loose ends,” Stephens said. “If he’d kept his silence he’d have been able to remain outside of the case, as he’s a witness and is entitled to diplomatic immunity. He was a private individual and now he’s waived that privacy.”
According to The Guardian, the accounting empire KPMG announced in the wake of Prince Andrew&#8217;s disastrous BBC interview that it will not be &#8220;renewing its sponsorship&#8221; of the royal&#8217;s &#8220;Pitch@Palace,&#8221; which provides a platform for entrepreneurs to accelerate their work. KPMG has issued no comment on the matter.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre claimed in a 2015 lawsuit that Epstein recruited her to have sex with his powerful friends when she was just 15 years old, alleging that one of her sexual encounters with Prince Andrew occurred when she was just 17. Prince Andrew has denied those charges.

Funeral Of The Countess Mountbatten Of Burma

Prince Andrew’s Jeffrey Epstein Interview Considered A Disaster

Great Britain

Jeffrey Epstein

United Kingdom

After candidates on Great Britain’s “The Apprentice” revealed they did not know which years World War II began and ended, prompting criticism of them on social media, a British reality TV star told “Good Morning Britain” that schools should not spend much time on the subject of World War II because it would be bad for children’s mental health.
Freddie Bentley, 22, who has appeared on &#8220;The Circle,&#8221; stated:
<blockquote>It was a hard situation, World War II; I don&#8217;t want anyone to think I&#8217;m being disrespectful in that way whatsoever. However, I will stand by the point that I don’t thank it’s educational in the way that we — there’s so many problems going on in the world like Brexit, that’s not talking school, and climate change, which is a situation that I thought we should be aware of. When I left school, I felt like, it hit me like a ton of bricks, cause I didn’t know anything in general life.</blockquote>
Bentley also stated, according to <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7638687/Instagram-influencer-22-claims-learning-World-War-Two-hit-millennials-MENTAL-HEALTH.html">The Daily Mail</a>, “I remember learning it as a child thinking, ‘Oh my God, it&#8217;s so intense.&#8217;” He added, “I don&#8217;t think encouraging death or telling people how many people died in the world war is going to make it better.” Bentley suggested teaching the students about how to get a mortgage or how to understand Brexit rather than World War II.
<a href="https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tv/good-morning-britain-fans-furiously-20786460">One guest stated</a>, “Millions of people have died; fifty million people died in the second World War, to fight Fascism, to fight tyranny, people who wanted to take away people&#8217;s right to freedom, to the vote, to the franchise. That’s why people should know about the second World War, the first World War, the conflicts that have taken place and the fight for freedom that you and I enjoy.”
Bentley responded, “And I totally get that, but I don’t think it needs to be put in such a young way to such young children, mentally &#8212; their mental health, to be told that this amount of people died for you.&#8221;
The guest replied, “You can’t exaggerate; children need to know that it’s a dangerous world out there. They need to know that crossing the road is sometimes dangerous …&#8221;
Bentley answered, “But mental health is on the rise completely and I don’t think that encouraging death or telling people how many people died in a World War is going to help somebody in the future.”
Bentley’s comments triggered anger on social media; one person wrote, “This man just shows the state of this country. How can you not respect war heroes?”
<a href="https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/01/circle-star-freddie-brushes-off-backlash-arguing-millennials-dont-need-know-wwii-11023910/">Another stated</a>, “I’m sorry for you as I’m sure this will follow you for years. You need to do some learning about the world and not just how it affects you. You sounded incredibly thick and self absorbed and I’m sure that’s not you, but that’s how you look.”
A third commented, “WWII is it worth educating young people? Of course, it is! OMG if you don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s worth remembering the millions of people that fought and died for us.”
Bentley seemed unaffected by the furor he engendered, tweeting, “Good or bad tweets I have walked out with a massive smile on my face! I’m buzzing to have been a guest on GMB &amp; couldn’t be more proud of myself.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Good or bad tweets I have walked out with a massive smile on my face! Im buzzing to have been a guest on GMB &amp; couldn’t be more proud of myself <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/gmb?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#gmb</a> 😊
&mdash; Freddie (@freddiebbentley) <a href="https://twitter.com/freddiebbentley/status/1190187899532255232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Bentley

Millennial Reality TV Star: Teaching Students About World War II Is Bad For Their Mental Health.

Millennials

World War II

Despite repeatedly stating that the United Kingdom would fulfill the democratic decision of the British people and leave the European Union on October 31st, Prime Minister Boris Johnson seems to have become the latest victim of the combined weight of internal British political sabotage and a monolithic European bureaucracy.
When Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal (No. 2) Act, known as the “Benn Act,” Boris Johnson’s government was forced to work to stop a “no-deal Brexit” on October 31st. Earlier today, as the latest departure date loomed, European leaders agreed to yet another extension — this time to January 31st, 2020.
EU Council President Donald Tusk ironically dubbed this a “flextension” (because seemingly every Brexit-related failure deserves its own portmanteau), stating that the United Kingdom could leave before this ever-expanding deadline if the British Parliament were to approve a Brexit deal. However, the likelihood of reaching such agreement is absurdly small, given that Parliament has voted to reject every deal put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and her successor, Boris Johnson.
In an attempt to break this mind-numbing deadlock, Boris Johnson has been calling for a general election in a bid to consolidate more support in Parliament for some form of departure from the European Union. After calling for a general election for several years, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50205603">scuppered every attempt to actually hold such an election</a>. This leaves the United Kingdom in a perpetual state of inaction and, more importantly, as a continued member of the European Union.
While Brexit might seem complicated, it is actually depressingly simple. The European Union and the British political class are now conspiring to ignore the voice of the British people and, as a result, are rejecting the fundamental premise of democracy itself. It should also be noted that, while they are intentionally failing in their governmental duties, the elite British political class is applying a careful combination of strategies in order to achieve its goal of remaining subjugant to the unchecked, faceless, and widely undemocratic web of European bureaucracy.
The European Union, like any other pseudo-authoritarian system, works along a different timeline than does the voting population. During any form of democratic process, voters are constantly presented with choices which are promised to result in immediate or short-term impact. The Brexit referendum of 2016 was no different. After waiting over three years for any progress, the British population is unsurprisingly frustrated with the continued failure of the political class.
As frustration grows, apathy will also grow regarding the type of Brexit that is achieved. Achieving any form of change becomes more attractive than the continued failure to deliver the original objective. As apathy grows, the voices of those calling for a so-called “people’s vote,” or even the open rejection of Brexit itself, become more legitimate. Such frustration and apathy is being leveraged with the goal of erasing Brexit from the pages of history.
The legacy of British democracy is languishing due to the crushing refusal to respect the voice of the British populace. Every delay to Brexit is another rejection of the foundational expectation of basic democracy, where the result of a vote is implemented as directed by the majority of the population. We should pray that neither apathy nor frustration, fueled by an elitist political class that holds little respect for its duty as elected representatives, results in an ultimate capitulation to the European Union.
If the British government fails to deliver Brexit — whether through a “no-deal” departure or a withdrawal agreement that achieves true sovereignty for the United Kingdom — then democracy will have died in the U.K. It won’t die with violence. It’ll die with an exhausted sigh, as the very spirit of Britain collapses between the determined claws of the European Union.

Boris Johnson

HAWORTH: Brexit Delay Signals The Death Of British Democracy

Brexit

The most meaningful political story in the United States this week wasn&#8217;t unfolding in the United States. One of our potential futures was instead being played out in England, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson was fighting a pitched battle to bring the will of the people to fruition against the entrenched power of a multi-national elite.
Ever since a 2016 referendum in which British voters chose to leave the European Union by a 52% to 48% margin, the voters’ representatives have been doing everything they possibly can not to represent the voters. Prime Minister Teresa May swore that &#8220;Brexit means Brexit,&#8221; then managed to fashion a leave deal so bad that even Brexit supporters thought it worse than staying. After May staggered off in tears, Boris Johnson took over the premiership swearing that the Brits would be out of the EU by the October 31stdeadline — a deadline already once extended.
BoJo made it clear that his willingness to &#8220;crash out&#8221; on Halloween with no deal would help him negotiate a better deal with an EU that does not want to let its grip on British power go. But Parliament — with the help of a largely anti-Brexit press and elite — has so far managed to stymie Johnson&#8217;s strategy and may extend the deadline yet again — maybe forever.
The reason I say this is the most meaningful political story here in the U.S. is because it&#8217;s the first real test of whether the English-speaking peoples can wrest back their power of self-governance. If Brexit fails, the situation here will not look good. If it succeeds, there&#8217;s hope.
As Christopher Caldwell points out in his excellent Brexit piece in this summer’s issue of Claremont Review of Books, Britain&#8217;s entry into the E.U. did not just result in a diminution of British sovereignty over its own affairs, it also transferred power from the people&#8217;s representatives in Parliament to the elite’s representatives on and before the bench. British judges could now invalidate British law that conflicted with laws concocted in Brussels.
&#8220;Quangos [advisory bodies with government-appointed members] and foundations began designing cases — concerning migrants&#8217; rights, gay rights, search-and-seizure — that unraveled the centuries-old fabric woven from the rights and duties of British citizenship. A new fabric began to be woven, based (as are all such systems in Europe) on post-Civil Rights Act American law and on the litigative ethos of the American bar.&#8221;
Here in America, a similar shift has taken power out of the hands of our representatives in congress and put it into unelected administrative bodies like the EPA and the Department of Education. These bodies serve the same &#8220;rights&#8221; oriented obsessions of the elites — and can make rules and enforce rules in a completely unconstitutional and anti-freedom manner that, so far, has had the support of a feckless Supreme Court.
Legislators love this system. They no longer have to study issues and fashion laws that have a specific effect. They no longer have to take real stances that could get them voted out of office. They simply have to pose for the cameras, use big, emotional words, take money from entrenched interests and then announce that they &#8220;did something&#8221; about the big issue of the day. The &#8220;something&#8221; is some 2,000 page collection of vaguely worded gobbledygook that can be interpreted by some drone at the EPA to mean he can do whatever he wants. When the EPA guy then rules that you can&#8217;t go to the bathroom because your toilet is a public waterway, you&#8217;ve got no one to appeal to but the same petty tyrant at the EPA. Your property rights, your rights to due process, not to mention your vote, essentially mean nothing.
Donald Trump has done an excellent job of cutting regulations, but they&#8217;ll bounce right back once the next person, Democrat or Republican, takes his place. The entire system needs to be dismantled, probably at the level of the Supreme Court.
With the election of Donald Trump and with the vote for Brexit, the English-speaking peoples are demanding their age-old representative systems back. If Boris Johnson succeeds in Britain, it will be a hopeful sign. But if the combined power of the elites and their press can prevent the crash out, then Trump, instead of the change we need, may turn out to be just a bump in the road that leads to the end of the republic.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51400/haworth-americans-must-see-brexit-betrayal-warning-ian-haworth">HAWORTH: Americans Must See The Brexit Betrayal As A Warning</a>

KLAVAN: Where Britain Goes, America May Follow

Donald Trump

England

European Union

Trump Administration

The ongoing saga that is Brexit may seem distant to some of us here in the United States. News of the latest British capitulation to the ever-expanding political monolith that is the European Union sporadically trickles across our airwaves, but soon crumbles beneath the weight of a frantic news cycle. However, what’s currently unfolding in the United Kingdom should require the attention of everyone who values freedom and fears the creeping threat of authoritarianism.
As the most recent departure date from the E.U. of October 31st fast approached, it seemed like the slog towards Brexit was almost complete. Unfortunately, there has been a continued attempt to undermine the referendum result at every stage by a class of globalist political elites, buoyed by a vocal and petulant minority that has refused to accept reality. Sound familiar?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the most recent occupant of the seemingly cursed No. 10 Downing Street, was defeated twice by the House of Commons this week. The first defeat came after opposition members of Parliament (MPs) and Conservative Party rebels <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49580185">voted 327 to </a><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49580185">299</a> in favor of a bill that would block a no-deal Brexit. If passed, Boris Johnson would be forced to “ask” the European Union for yet another deal negotiation extension beyond October 31st. In response, Johnson attempted to push for a new general election, but <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49584907">MPs turned down his motion</a> — with Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn stating that his party would support Johnson’s call for a new general election once the bill blocking a no-deal Brexit passed.
Now, it is fair to argue that binary referenda aren’t the most effective or positive way of achieving policy changes in a representative democracy. They enable the political evasion of responsibility by punting impactful decisions to the populace, with politicians claiming credit for success and blaming the public for failure. They are also divisive by definition, with the societal impact of Brexit often compared to the vicious aftermath of the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. Regardless, the very foundation of a democratic system is that the decisions made by the voters are respected by those who have been elected as their representatives. The referendum result of June 23rd, 2016 was clear, with 17.4 million people voting to leave the European Union — a gargantuan bureaucracy that has grown far beyond the economic-centric “European Community” that Britons had supported in their last relevant referendum of 1975.
Despite it being a duty bestowed upon the British political class to act in accordance with the will of the people, every method of satisfactory departure from the European Union has been intentionally blockaded by those who have no respect for the referendum result — or for democracy itself. As a final insult, the refusal to hold a general election before officially preventing a no-deal Brexit is simply an attempt to delay Brexit indefinitely.
The reason for this is that “no-deal” is the only remaining way for Britain to leave the E.U. The only deal supported by the E.U. is the disastrous “Withdrawal Agreement” negotiated by former Prime Minister Theresa May, which has been rejected on multiple occasions by the House of Commons. With a no-deal Brexit taken off the table, we are left with two equally unacceptable outcomes.
<ol>
<li>Without facing the threat of crashing out of the E.U., the prime minister will be handed the impossible task of negotiating with the European Union without any meaningful leverage. This will mean that the E.U. can keep the U.K. trapped as the parties fail to negotiate, forcing Britain to beg for extension after extension. Result: U.K. stays in the E.U.</li>
<li>As the deadly combination of impatience and apathy grows among the British public, the government will finally adopt Theresa May’s absurd “Withdrawal Agreement” out of an exhausted desire to “do something” and escape the never-ending chaos of Brexit. Result: U.K. effectively stays in the E.U.</li>
</ol>
Because “no-deal” is the only way that the United Kingdom will ever achieve the result demanded by its 2016 national referendum, it is the final obstacle for hordes of “Remainers” who have decreed a “no-deal” Brexit an apocalyptic disaster that must be avoided at all costs. Combined with the refusal of many politicians who support “no-deal” to respect the intelligence and resilience of the British public by acknowledging the non-disastrous but realistically negative impact of “no-deal,” “no-deal” supporters are seemingly handing the reins of control to the minority. As a result, the only exit from the bureaucratic maze of perpetual servitude to the E.U. is being closed. When this door closes, these politicians may have achieved their desired result, but they will have failed to honor the fundamental principles of democracy.
There are multiple similarities between the societal impact of Brexit and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As we approach another election in 2020, Brexit should stand as a warning to the threats of those in the U.S. who hope to undermine democracy. We must remember that politicians, at their core, are our servants.
If we allow ourselves to forget that elected officials work for us, then we will enable a growing class of opportunistic politicians who seek to tighten their authoritarian grip on our lives. Brexit is forcefully revealing the true nature of many such politicians. With that in mind, if you care about liberty, then you must care about Brexit.

BRITAIN-EU-POLITICS-BREXIT-DEMONSTRATION

HAWORTH: Americans Must See The Brexit Betrayal As A Warning

Democracy

Europe

In a historic move, Queen Elizabeth II found herself at the center of British politics by granting Prime Minister Boris Johnson permission to suspend Parliament. The move prompted fierce backlash in the U.K.
&#8220;At a secretive meeting in Balmoral Castle, the fairy tale royal residence in Scotland, ministers sent by Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked the queen, 93, to suspend Parliament for a month,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-isn-t-meant-get-involved-u-k-politics-boris-n1047296">NBC News</a>. &#8220;The world&#8217;s longest-serving living monarch had little choice but to agree to &#8216;prorogue&#8217; Parliament, the formal name for the suspension. And this has triggered what many across the political spectrum say is an unprecedented constitutional crisis that threatens the values of British democracy.&#8221;
While Queen Elizabeth&#8217;s permission appears to be political in nature, her role as a constitutional monarch essentially means she cannot directly insert herself in the political process by opposing Johnson&#8217;s request.
&#8220;In a democratic system, you can’t expect the unelected head of state — whose whole legitimacy depends on her being outside of the political system — you can’t expect that person to be your guardian of democracy,&#8221; Michael Gordon, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Liverpool, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/world/europe/uk-queen-parliament-boris-johnson.html">The New York Times</a>.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed suspending Parliament until mid-October this week, claiming it will help him enact a &#8220;bold and ambitious domestic legislative agenda.&#8221;
&#8220;The decision to end the current parliamentary session — the longest in close to 400 years and, in recent months, one of the least active — will enable the prime minister to put a fresh domestic program in front of [members of Parliament] for debate and scrutiny while also ensuring that there is good time before and after the European Council for Parliament to further consider Brexit issues,&#8221; 10 Downing Street <a href="https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a28846461/queen-elizabeth-parliament-suspension-brexit-explained/">said in a released statement</a>.
Johnson&#8217;s critics, however, allege that the move seeks to stifle his opponent&#8217;s abilities to block a so-called &#8220;no-deal&#8221; Brexit before the U.K. officially leaves the European Union this fall, in accordance with the 2016 referendum.
&#8220;The normally fractious opposition swiftly united in outrage at Mr. Johnson’s maneuver on Wednesday, which brought protesters onto the streets in London and other cities across the country, while an online petition against the action drew well over a million signatures,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-parliament-backlash.html">The New York Times</a>. &#8220;The move also strained relations within Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party and prompted claims from critics that the government was trampling the conventions of the country’s unwritten Constitution, undermining its democracy.&#8221;
The move demonstrates the stark difference in governance that exists between the United States and Britain, according to Gavin Phillipson, professor of constitutional law at Bristol University.
&#8220;This shows the contrast between the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress, because nothing like this could happen to the U.S. Congress,&#8221; Phillipson told Newsweek. &#8220;President [Donald] Trump can&#8217;t suspend or interfere with the normal sittings of Congress. This reveals the old royal roots of the British constitution, which still come to the surface.&#8221;
&#8220;Those kinds of royal powers over Parliament demonstrate the way in which Parliament is substantially weaker than the U.S. Congress, which stands completely independent from the executive because of the American constitution&#8217;s conception of the separation of powers,&#8221; he concluded.

Queen Receives Outgoing and Incoming Prime Ministers

Queen Elizabeth Allows Boris Johnson To Suspend Parliament, Prompting Severe Outcry

Two months ago, Britain detained an oil tanker in Gibraltar that was suspected of violating European Union sanctions. The U.S. says the Panamanian-flagged ship, a super oil tanker with around $100 million worth of crude on board, was in fact owned by Iran and aiding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp, which was officially designated a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-designation-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-foreign-terrorist-organization/">Foreign Terrorist Organization</a> by the U.S. in April. The ship has now been released and is bound for Greece, or at least that&#8217;s what Iran claims.
The ship was detained after America notified British authorities that the ship was flying under a proxy flag and was in reality owned by Iran and, according to the U.S., involved in &#8220;illicit shipments to Syria from Iran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),&#8221; as reported by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/17/world/us-warrant-seizure-iran-oil-tanker-gibraltar-intl/index.html">CNN</a>. The US government says that the oil, which was designated for delivery at the Syrian port of Baniyas, would be used to aid dictator Bashar al-Assad in his civil war. Such an action would be a direct violation of E.U. sanction.
At the behest of the American government, the local Royal Gibraltar Police detained the ship on July 4. Iran claimed this action was an act of modern-day piracy. In retaliation, they attempted a reprisal attack on a British ship in the Gulf, but the Royal Navy was able to intervene and force the Iranians to disengage. The Iranians would attempt a similar action against another British tanker, which would prove successful.
For the next two months, Iran pressured Gibraltar’s court system to release their oil tanker. Britain eventually relented, releasing it on August 15 after the Iranian government promised the oil would never make it to Syria.
Prior to the ship setting sail, the U.S. State Department issued a warrant for the detainment of the vessel based on the ship’s connection to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp.
The British court ignored the warrant because neither the United Kingdom nor the European Union classify the group as a terrorist organization.
The tanker left port on Aug. 18. Before setting sail, the ship changed its name and ran up an Iranian flag.
The ship claims to be heading to Greece. However, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-greece/greece-says-has-had-no-request-from-iranian-oil-tanker-to-dock-idUSKCN1VA104">Reuters</a> recently reported that Greece has yet to receive any notice that the oil tanker plans on arriving there. This suggests that the ship still intends to carry out its original assignment.
If they do intend to dispose of their cargo in Syria, Greece would be the most logical place to claim to be unloading the oil, allowing them to avoid attracting suspicion until they are within a few miles of Syrian waters and before any navy could possibly respond. Once they are within Syria’s territorial waters, any intervention becomes highly unlikely.
Their intent will become apparent as their course develops. If the ship passes by the Ionian Sea, then Greece would likely be their destination, but if the oil tanker’s course circumvents Crete, then it is likely headed toward Syria.
Editor&#8217;s note: This article has been revised to clarify that the U.S. has accused the tanker of assisting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp, rather than being controlled by it.

TOPSHOT-GULF-SHIPPING-OIL-US-IRAN-JAPAN-NORWAY-DIPLOMACY

UK Releases Oil Tanker Accused Of Assisting Iranian Terrorist Group

Foreign Policy

Iran

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps

The population of Hong Kong has been out en masse protesting for months. The protestors have seen their rights and liberties slowly chipped away by the Chinese government. This gradual reduction of freedoms has been a decade-long process, but recent legislation was a bridge too far for the people of Hong Kong. The legislative boiling point was an extradition bill that would have allowed Hong Kong residents to be transferred and tried in mainland China courts.
Even though Honk Kong is officially part of China, their history kept the island distinct from the rest of the country, both culturally and legally. Hong Kong was seceded to the British by the previous Chinese dynasty in 1842, and the territory remained a British Colony almost uninterrupted for the next 150 years. The mainly Cantonese native population of the island colony was entitled to the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to all citizens under the British Crown. The citizens enjoyed a much higher income compared to those on the mainland, as it was a major trading port, with the economy running under a laissez-faire capitalist model, while mainland Chinese lived under a system that lacked civil liberties and free markets. China would consolidate and fracture in constant cycles of volatility for the next 100 years. During this time, the Hong Kongese found refuge in the stability of their island, and Hong Kong grew to be culturally and economically independent from the mainland.
According to <a href="https://www.scmp.com/article/48108/thatcher-reveals-dengs-threat-seize-hong-kong-day">The South China Morning Post</a>, in 1982, Deng Xiaoping, the effective dictator of China, told Margaret Thatcher that they would just take the islands by force if Britain did not willingly hand it over. She knew this to be true and was forced to negotiate the handover of Hong Kong. Britain relinquished the territory in 1997, but in the negotiation the U.K. was able to secure the freedoms and liberties that the population had grown to expect. These protections were stipulated in a document known as the &#8220;Sino-British Joint Declaration.&#8221; Rights such as freedom of speech, democracy, and the ability to have a fair and impartial trial were to be preserved for 50 years after the handover, known as the &#8220;One country, two systems&#8221; policy.
The protesters, many of whom used to live under British Dominion, believe these guarantees are being rolled back prematurely. In response they have risen up in protest to stop the regression of their rights. In 2014 the &#8220;Umbrella&#8221; protests occurred in which half a million people rose up against a bill requiring politicians to be approved by the Chinese Communist Party before they were allowed to run for office. The public pressure was so great that it forced the authorities to relent.
The current controversy started from a homicide case in Taiwan. A Hong Kong man was suspected of committing the crime, and the Hong Kong government wanted the accused to be extradited to face trial in Hong Kong. The two entities currently do not have an extradition treaty in place. In response, a bill was proposed in the Hong Kong legislature to allow for an extradition agreement. The controversy arose when it was discovered that the bill&#8217;s provisions would also allow for a suspected criminal to be extradited to mainland China.
The Hong Kong population saw this as a direct threat to their freedoms, as any citizen would be capable of being tried in the mainland. In the People&#8217;s Republic of China, death penalty cases are usually decided in under 20 minutes, and the criminal justice system has a 99.9% conviction rate, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/11/china-scored-99-9-percent-conviction-rate-last-year/">The Washington Post</a>.
The demonstrations began March 31. At first, it was mainly students who protested, and then on June 6 there was a Silent Lawyer&#8217;s March — where a fourth of the city&#8217;s legal professionals marched against the bill. Soon, every level of Hong Kong society joined the protests. On June 9, over 1,000,000 people took to the streets in protest of the extradition bill. The demonstrations have continued for months with hundreds of thousands filling the streets regularly.
On July 9, Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, declared the bill &#8220;dead.&#8221; This did not stop the protests as there is no legal meaning behind saying a bill is &#8220;dead&#8221;; declaring the bill &#8220;withdrawn&#8221; is the actual terminology that would &#8220;kill&#8221; the bill. Once a bill is withdrawn, it must be reintroduced from the beginning of procedure, if the bill is to become law. Carrie Lam has refused multiple times to declare the bill officially withdrawn. This has led many protestors to believe her plan is to quietly pass the proposition when public pressure dies down.
Carrie Lam has sided against the protests in favor of the bill and has branded the protestors &#8220;rioters.&#8221; After significant backlash from the public, Lam apologized for the statement.
Progressively, police actions toward protestors have become increasingly violent, some of which has been documented in videos showing police brutality. Footage shows uniformed police bashing protestors heads in with clubs and shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at demonstrators. One of the main demands of the protest is for an independent investigation into police brutality that allegedly occurred. There have even been cases of the infamous &#8220;Hong Kong Tirades&#8221; orchestrating attacks against protestors — with police aware of the events prior to happening and refusing to intervene.
In the past few days, there was a major sit-in protest in Hong Kong&#8217;s main international airport, which halted all flights at the facility. The Chinese government has also been reportedly moving troops to the Hong Kong border.

HONG KONG-CHINA-POLITICS

The Full Story Behind The Hong Kong Protests

China

Free Speech

Freedom of the Press

Protest

Britain has now resorted to printing warnings about the dangers of knife crimes on takeout fried chicken boxes.
&#8220;Special chicken boxes warning about the dangers of carrying a knife are to be distributed to takeaways across England and Wales by the government,&#8221; reports <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/special-chicken-boxes-to-warn-about-dangers-of-carrying-a-knife-11785385">Sky News</a>. &#8220;More than 320,000 of them — featuring the Home Office #knifefree campaign — will replace the standard packaging in 210 outlets.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">We are rolling out our <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KnifeFree?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KnifeFree</a> chicken boxes in over 210 chicken shops in England and Wales, including Morley’s, Dixy Chicken and Chicken Cottage. They use real life stories to show people how they can go <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KnifeFree?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KnifeFree</a>. <a href="https://t.co/vrG4WWa56v">pic.twitter.com/vrG4WWa56v</a>
— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) <a href="https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1161629920856084481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The boxes feature true stories of young people who either fell victim to knife crime or escaped it. The boxes will be distributed at partnering chicken shops Morley&#8217;s, Chicken Cottage, and Dixy Chicken. Participating shops may also feature screens displaying #Knifefree messages. Earlier this year, Morley&#8217;s distributed 20,000 #Knifefree chicken boxes across 15 branches.
&#8220;We want to promote being knife free by using custom chicken boxes to deliver the message and start conversations amongst all of our customers,&#8221; Morley&#8217;s managing director Shan Selvendran said of the campaign.
Policing minister Kit Malthouse hoped that the boxes will illustrate the &#8220;tragic consequences&#8221; of carrying a knife while challenging the &#8220;the idea that it makes you safer&#8221;.
&#8220;The government is doing everything it can to tackle the senseless violence that is traumatizing communities and claiming too many young lives, including bolstering the police&#8217;s ranks with 20,000 new police officers on our streets,&#8221; said Malthouse.
The #Knifefree campaign has largely prompted mockery on social media, with even some government figures denouncing it. Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott called it a &#8220;crude, offensive and probably expensive campaign.&#8221;
&#8220;Is this some kind of joke?! Why have you chosen chicken shops? What&#8217;s next, #KnifeFree watermelons?&#8221; MP David Lammy said on Twitter.
&#8220;Honest to god if the best idea you have to tackle knife crime is to write stuff on fried chicken you should quit power forever in embarrassment, not tweet it out proudly like you’ve just solved world hunger you ridiculous sack of used d****,&#8221; said one Twitter user.
&#8220;Cutting funding to youth services and then sticking anti-crime messages on chicken shop boxes is some next level gaslighting and racism <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/knifefree?src=hashtag_click" data-focusable="true">#knifefree</a> tell the tories to go knife free when they&#8217;re about to devastate entire communities with funding cuts,&#8221; said another.
Britain has increasingly sought to curtail violent knife crime throughout the country. In London, for instance, Mayor Sadiq Khan had to implement &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/29179/londons-mayor-declares-intense-new-knife-control-emily-zanotti">knife control</a>&#8221; measures to combat the rise in crime rates.
&#8220;An epidemic of stabbings and acid attacks in London has gotten so bad that London mayor Sadiq Khan is announcing broad new &#8216;knife control&#8217; policies designed to keep these weapons of war out of the hands of Londoners looking to cause others harm,&#8221; reported The Daily Wire&#8217;s Emily Zanotti in April of last year. &#8220;The &#8216;tough, immediate&#8217; measures involve an incredible police crackdown, a ban on home deliveries of knives and acid, and expanding law enforcement stop-and-search powers so that police may stop anyone they believe to be a threat, or planning a knife or acid attack.&#8221;
The crackdown on knife crime has even led to instances in which the police have confiscated basic tools such as screwdrivers and scissors from citizens during so-called &#8220;weapons sweeps.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">These items were found during a <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/weaponSweep?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#weaponSweep</a> near <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MackworthHouse?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MackworthHouse</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AugustasSt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AugustasSt</a> during <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OpSceptre?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OpSceptre</a> . Safely disposed and taken off the streets <a href="https://t.co/53HdeqMKu1">pic.twitter.com/53HdeqMKu1</a>
— Regents Park Police (@MPSRegentsPark) <a href="https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>

Fried Chicken

NOT SATIRE: Britain Prints Knife Crime Warnings On Fried Chicken Boxes

Crime

While the Department of Justice is investigating what triggered the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign that commenced at the end of July 2016, a new piece of information has been thrown into the mix: Andrew McCabe, who was FBI deputy director during the 2016 campaign, was exchanging messages with his counterpart in Britain&#8217;s MI5, Jeremy Fleming, at the time.
As <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/30/secret-texts-cast-light-uk-early-role-trump-russia-inquiry">The Guardian</a> reported on Tuesday, after the successful Brexit vote, FBI officials surmised that Russia might have influenced the outcome of the vote, and McCabe and Fleming were surprised by the results as well. The Guardian noted:
<blockquote>In one exchange in August 2016, Fleming noted that members of the FBI and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/mi5">MI5</a> had “met on our strange situation,” a veiled reference to discussions about Russian activities, according to the source. The text messages between the two men were infrequent and cryptic and did not contain specific or sensitive materials, but occurred with some regularity after the referendum in June 2016.</blockquote>
The Guardian added, “Their exchanges offer new insights into the start of the FBI’s Russia investigation, and how British intelligence appears to have played a key role in the early stages.”
The current DOJ investigation is focusing in part on the activities of senior British M16 official Christopher Steele, who created the dossier in 2017 which alleged there was potential collusion between Russia and Trump&#8217;s campaign.
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7303497/Secret-2016-texts-intelligence-officials-raise-questions-UKs-role-Russia-probe.html">The Daily Mail</a> noted that in August 2016, “Senior FBI official Peter Strzok had traveled to London that same month to meet with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. Downer agreed to speak with the FBI about Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who had told him that Russia had dirt on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.” The Daily Mail added of the text messages between Fleming and McCabe, “U.S. and UK intelligence agencies typically share information, but using texts as a mode of communication is atypical.”
In April 2017, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia">The Guardian</a> reported that Great Britain’s spy agencies “played a crucial role” in informing American intelligence about members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives making contact. The Guardian added, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/gchq">GCHQ</a> first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious ‘interactions’; between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.”
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48456/disgraced-former-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-ashe-schow">The Daily Wire</a> noted, roughly two weeks ago, interviewed by CNN’s Chris Cuomo, McCabe adamantly stated that it was time to start impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Cuomo asked, “Do you believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted based on what you understand and what has come out of the Mueller report?&#8221; McCabe answered, “Absolutely … I think we are clearly there with the results of the special counsel team. There are so many witnesses who could provide important, essential testimony to Congress that can only be done in the scope of an impeachment inquiry.&#8221; He added, “Action should be taken immediately.”
The Daily Wire noted that McCabe was fired from his position at the FBI when the inspector general found he had leaked information to the media regarding the special counsel investigation and then lied repeatedly to investigators about doing so.

REVEALED: Secret Texts Between FBI&#8217;s McCabe And British Intelligence During 2016 Campaign

Andrew McCabe

Russia

Further revealing her progressive street cred, the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle selected transgender actor Laverne Cox — a man presenting himself as a woman — as a &#8220;woman of impact&#8221; in the upcoming September <a href="https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/meghan-markle-guest-editor-september-issue-british-vogue-2019">British Vogue</a> <a href="https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/meghan-markle-guest-editor-september-issue-british-vogue-2019">magazine</a>, which she contributed to as an editor
LifeSiteNews <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/meghan-markle-guest-editing-vogue-praises-gender-confused-man-as-woman-of-impact">reports</a> that Markle&#8217;s <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B0ebh7tlnVl/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet">official Instagram account</a> featured a sample cover for the September issue, titled &#8220;Forces for Change,&#8221; while announcing that the duchess chose a &#8220;diverse selection of women from all walks of life&#8221; to raise awareness for &#8220;equality, kindness, justice and open-mindedness.&#8221; From the announcement:
<blockquote>We are proud to announce that Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Sussex is the Guest Editor for the September issue of <a href="https://www.instagram.com/BritishVogue/">@BritishVogue</a>. For the past seven months, The Duchess has curated the content with British Vogue&#8217;s Editor-in-Chief Edward Enninful to create an issue that highlights the power of the collective. They have named the issue: &#8216;Forces for Change.&#8217;
For the cover, The Duchess chose a diverse selection of women from all walks of life, each driving impact and raising the bar for equality, kindness, justice and open-mindedness. The sixteenth space on the cover, a mirror, was included so that when you hold the issue in your hands, you see yourself as part of this collective.
We are excited to announce that within the issue you’ll find: an exclusive interview between The Duchess and former First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama, a candid conversation between The Duke of Sussex and Dr Jane Goodall, inspirational articles written by Brené Brown, Jameela Jamil and many others. Equally, you’ll find grassroots organisations and incredible trailblazers working tirelessly behind the scenes to change the world for the better.</blockquote>
Among this list of impactful women that Meghan Markle selected to profile is actor Laverne Cox, who is also featured on the cover. So basically, one fully-qualified woman was not profiled in the September issue of Vogue magazine in order to make way for Laverne Cox. Take a look:
<div class="embed">
<blockquote data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/B0ebh7tlnVl/" data-instgrm-version="12">
<div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B0ebh7tlnVl/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">View this post on Instagram</a></div>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B0ebh7tlnVl/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">We are proud to announce that Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Sussex is the Guest Editor for the September issue of @BritishVogue. For the past seven months, The Duchess has curated the content with British Vogue&#8217;s Editor-in-Chief Edward Enninful to create an issue that highlights the power of the collective. They have named the issue: “Forces for Change” For the cover, The Duchess chose a diverse selection of women from all walks of life, each driving impact and raising the bar for equality, kindness, justice and open mindedness. The sixteenth space on the cover, a mirror, was included so that when you hold the issue in your hands, you see yourself as part of this collective. The women on the cover include: @AdwoaAboah @AdutAkech @SomaliBoxer @JacindaArdern @TheSineadBurke @Gemma_Chan @LaverneCox @JaneFonda @SalmaHayek @FrankieGoesToHayward @JameelaJamilOfficial @Chimamanda_Adichie @YaraShahidi @GretaThunberg @CTurlington We are excited to announce that within the issue you’ll find: an exclusive interview between The Duchess and former First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama, a candid conversation between The Duke of Sussex and Dr Jane Goodall, inspirational articles written by Brené Brown, Jameela Jamil and many others. Equally, you’ll find grassroots organisations and incredible trailblazers working tirelessly behind the scenes to change the world for the better. • “Guest Editing the September issue of British Vogue has been rewarding, educational and inspiring. To deep dive into this process, working quietly behind the scenes for so many months, I am happy to now be able to share what we have created. A huge thanks to all of the friends who supported me in this endeavour, lending their time and energy to help within these pages and on the cover. Thank you for saying “Yes!” &#8211; and to Edward, thank you for this wonderful opportunity.” &#8211; The Duchess of Sussex #ForcesForChange</a>
A post shared by <a href="https://www.instagram.com/sussexroyal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> The Duke and Duchess of Sussex</a> (@sussexroyal) on Jul 28, 2019 at 2:26pm PDT
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
In the same announcement, Meghan Markle said that her work on the British Vogue September issue has been deeply rewarding — a task she has allegedly been involved in for many months.
&#8220;Guest Editing the September issue of British Vogue has been rewarding, educational and inspiring,&#8221; she said. &#8220;To deep dive into this process, working quietly behind the scenes for so many months, I am happy to now be able to share what we have created. A huge thanks to all of the friends who supported me in this endeavour, lending their time and energy to help within these pages and on the cover.&#8221;
Aside from being a prominent promoter of transgender representation in Hollywood, Laverne Cox <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47624/watch-laverne-cox-commencement-speech-abortion-paul-bois">recently said </a>at a college commencement speech that the abortion rights argument should be inclusive of transgender men.
&#8220;As I continued to process, I thought, for the first time, &#8216;What if I were a transgender man?&#8217; What if I were a transgender man … and for whatever reason I became pregnant unintentionally? If I were that trans man, I would really want to have language that incorporated and included my experience,&#8221; Cox said. &#8220;When we use language that excludes groups of people on pertinent issues, it can jeopardize their health and well-being. Language that is appropriate and fully inclusive is a matter of life and death for so many people out there.&#8221;
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have gone to great lengths to strategically characterize themselves as the progressive wing of the royal family, either by way of subtle rumors about raising baby Archie as gender fluid or downright <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48243/prince-harry-meghan-markle-celebrate-pride-month-paul-bois">supporting a political cause like LGBT Pride Month</a> from their official Instagram account.
&#8220;Continuing with our tradition to rotate the accounts we follow based on causes and social issues that matter to us: For the month of June we &#8216;proudly&#8217; shine a light on PRIDE,&#8221; the couple said back in June. &#8220;This month we pay tribute to the accounts supporting the LGBTQ+ community — those young and old, their families and friends, accounts that reflect on the past and are hopeful for a deservedly more inclusive future. We stand with you and support you Because it&#8217;s very simple: love is love.&#8221;
Following Ireland&#8217;s vote to legalize abortion, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Markle+pleased+abortion+dailywire&amp;rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS837US837&amp;oq=Markle+pleased+abortion+dailywire&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.9639j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8">rumors quickly spread</a> that the former American actress expressed delight upon the result. Then, earlier this year, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44118/meghan-markle-says-shell-raise-baby-fluid-approach-amanda-prestigiacomo">reports surfaced</a> that both Meghan Markle and Prince Harry planned to raise their baby &#8220;gender fluid&#8221; by avoiding common gender stereotypes only to have Kensington Palace later <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/royals/the-palace-breaks-its-silence-on-false-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-gender-fluid-baby-story/ar-BBUhJNp">denounce the story</a> as false.

Meghan Markle Selects Trans Actor Laverne Cox As A ‘Woman Of Impact’

Transgender

There’s a growing trend in Great Britain: prisoners in jail deciding that they are transgender.
As <a href="https://www.christian.org.uk/news/male-prisoners-self-identifying-as-trans-for-perks/">christian.org.uk</a> reports, “One in 50 male offenders in prisons say they are transgender, according to a survey by the Inspectorate of Prisons.” The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Peter Clarke, said there could be as many as 1,500 prisoners claiming they are transgender in England and Wales, at least ten times the previous estimate. He commented, &#8220;Sometimes we find the numbers of people identifying as transgender are higher in our survey than the prison will think.” Chair of the Prison Officers Association Mark Fairhurst speculated there “would always be some trying to abuse the system.”
There are definite advantages to claiming you are transgender if you are in a British prison; separate showers, single cells, and the choice of whether you’d like to be incarcerated in a male or female prison.
<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/one-50-prisoners-identify-transsexual-first-figures-show-amid/">The Telegraph</a> noted, “The watchdog’s survey of 5,133 British prisoners found two per cent self identified as transgender or transexual, rising to 10 per cent of the 287 traveller offenders surveyed. Extrapolated across the prison service, this would mean about 1,500.”
In October 2018, a convicted pedophile who declared he was a woman once he was in prison, then was jailed with other women, was sentenced to life by a British judge after the pedophile had attacked two women at the women’s prison.
Stephen Terence Wood, 52, who called himself Karen White and had been called a “predatory and controlling” rapist, had already been convicted of indecent assault, indecent exposure and gross indecency involving children, animal cruelty and dishonesty, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life">The Guardian</a>.
The British Ministry of Justice apologized for transferring White to the female prison; the Ministry acknowledged it had not considered White’s previous history before moving him.
Judge Christopher Batty told White, “You are a predator and highly manipulative and in my view you are a danger. You represent a significant risk of serious harm to children, to women and to the general public.”
At a transgender event in Hyde Park, London, in September 2017, two people were suspected by police of punching a 60-year-old woman in the face. There was only one problem: police wouldn’t say what gender the suspects were because they were <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/26/three-sought-60-year-old-woman-beaten-transgender-row/">afraid they might get it wrong</a>. Scotland Yard said it was “a gray area” and dependent on which gender the suspects claimed to be. A spokeswoman for Scotland Yard, who acknowledged the suspects might be transgendered individuals, said, “We have to be very careful. We are not going to commit ourselves to something because I’m afraid it’s not black and white.”

Number Of British Prisoners Claiming They Are Transgender Explodes

Prison

On Tuesday, former mayor of London Boris Johnson became the incoming prime minister of Great Britain and President Trump was delighted, waxing effusively, “We have a really good man who’s going to be the prime minister of the UK now … He’s tough and he’s smart. They call him Britain’s Trump. And people are saying that’s a good thing. They like me over there. That’s what they wanted. That’s what they need. That’s what they need. He’ll get it done. Boris is good. He’s going to do a good job,” as <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7276555/Trump-predicts-Boris-Johnson-great-UK-prime-minister.html">The Daily Mail</a> reported.
Trump also praised Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage, a member of the audience where Trump spoke, saying, “I know he’s going to work well with Boris. They’re going to do some good things.”
Last Friday Trump said of Johnson, who was vying with Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt to become the leader of the Conservative Party and thus the next prime minister, “I like him. I think he’s going to do a great job. I think we’re going to have a great relationship.” He said of former prime minister Theresa May that she had “done a very bad job with Brexit. It’s a disaster and it shouldn’t be that way. I think Boris will straighten it out.”
Johnson, who was born in New York City to British parents and thus had dual citizenship, said, “We are going to energize the country. Like some slumbering giant we are going to arise and ping off the guy ropes of self-doubt.” Johnson was elected to parliament in 2001, then became mayor of London in 2008. He served as foreign secretary from 2016 to 2018. Johnson added, “No one party, no one person has a monopoly of wisdom but … it is we Conservatives who have had the best insights into human nature and the best insights into how to manage the jostling sets of instincts in the human heart. Time and again it is to us that the people of this country have turned to get that balance right.”
Johnson’s penchant for outrageous behavior has led some to question whether he is serious enough for the job. But National Review’s Jay Nordlinger had a different opinion, writing, “A few weeks ago, I asked a prominent British figure, ‘Will Boris rise to the occasion? Will the job sober him up? Will the office make the man?’ The answer: Yes, I think so. For one thing, he has wanted to be PM his entire life, and he does not want to fail.’ Rings true.”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">A few weeks ago, I asked a prominent British figure, &#8220;Will Boris rise to the occasion? Will the job sober him up? Will the office make the man?&#8221; The answer: &#8220;Yes, I think so. For one thing, he has wanted to be PM his entire life, and he does not want to fail.&#8221; Rings true.
— Jay Nordlinger (@jaynordlinger) <a href="https://twitter.com/jaynordlinger/status/1153628995428192256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/boris-johnson-profile-brexit-winston-churchill">Fox News</a> noted of Johnson, “While he once joked that him becoming Britain’s prime minister was as likely as finding Elvis on Mars, his somewhat controversial and colorful public life has made him one of the most popular and recognized politicians in the country, with many believing he’s capable of a successful premiership. He campaigned during the leadership election on getting Britain out of the EU on the scheduled date of Oct. 31 — with or without a deal, a promise that won over supporters of Brexit but created animosity with more moderate Conservatives who fear the consequences of a no-deal Brexit that experts say would plunge the country into recession.&#8221;

Boris Johnson Takes Over In Great Britain. Trump Is Delighted.

Iran — the world&#8217;s leading state sponsor of terrorism — has captured a British-flagged and a Liberian-flagged oil tanker on Friday in the Strait of Hormuz, according to U.S. officials.
&#8220;Iran has also seized a second tanker, the Liberian-flagged MV Mesdar, according to a US official,&#8221; CNN reported. &#8220;Iran&#8217;s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced earlier that its navy has captured a British-flagged tanker ‘Stena Impero’ in the Strait of Hormuz.&#8221;
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is <a href="https://www.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/">designated</a> by the U.S. State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and has &#8220;engaged in terrorist activity since its inception 40 years ago.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en">Iran has seized a second tanker, the Liberian-flagged MV Mesdar, according to a US official. The order of seizure of this one and the British-flagged tanker isn&#8217;t clear at this time. <a href="https://t.co/mtEJ4X9dlh">https://t.co/mtEJ4X9dlh</a> <a href="https://t.co/h7mXiIWTRN">pic.twitter.com/h7mXiIWTRN</a>
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) <a href="https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1152296502515195905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
President Donald Trump responded to the developments on the White House lawn before departing the White House.
&#8220;So, we&#8217;re going to be speaking with the U.K.,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;And this only goes to show what I am saying about Iran. Trouble. Nothing but trouble. And remember this, the ridiculous agreement made by President Obama expires in a very short period of time, it was a short term agreement.&#8221;
The owners of the Stena Impero <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/07/19/743556229/iran-says-it-has-seized-a-british-tanker-in-strait-of-hormuz">confirmed</a> the seizure, saying in a statement that the ship &#8220;was approached by unidentified small crafts and a helicopter during transit of the Strait of Hormuz while the vessel was in international waters.&#8221;
&#8220;We are presently unable to contact the vessel which is now heading north towards Iran,&#8221; the owners added.
Fox News reporter Lucas Tomlinson added: &#8220;British oil tanker seized by Iran today comes two weeks after British Royal Marines commandeered tanker off Gibraltar authorities said carried oil bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions. Last week, British warship blocked 3 Iranian vessels from seizing UK-flagged tanker.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">British oil tanker seized by Iran today comes two weeks after British Royal Marines commandeered tanker off Gibraltar authorities said carried oil bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions. Last week, British warship blocked 3 Iranian vessels from seizing UK-flagged tanker.
— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1152289963112849413?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

Iran Seizes Multiple Oil Tankers Near Persian Gulf

Middle East

Terrorism

Meghan Markle has taken heat from members of the British press, including some committed monarchists, for what some have described as an excessive demand for privacy.
According to <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/piers-morgan-tells-meghan-markle-go-back-to-america-104409470.html">Yahoo! Lifestyle</a>, the duchess of Windsor and Prince Harry first prompted backlash by deciding to host a &#8220;<a href="https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/inside-iconic-windsor-castle-room-141300048.html">media-free, private christening</a> for son <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/meghan-markle-prince-harry-baby-name-archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsor-154557102.html">Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor</a>.&#8221; Some critics have asserted that since both the duke and duchess of Windsor live extremely privileged lives on the taxpayer dime, they should be more open to the press on such public matters. However, even fiercer backlash erupted last Thursday when Meghan Markle attended a Wimbledon match and people were asked to avoid photos of her.
&#8220;The California-born duchess is facing backlash following <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/07/08/team-sussexs-demands-ever-privacy-alienating-even-committed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a report from Britain’s Telegraph newspaper</a>, in which columnist and media consultant Sally Jones claims a man she took to be a royal protection officer asked her to not take photos of Meghan in the stands at Wimbledon last Thursday &#8230;,&#8221; reports Yahoo. &#8220;The former Suits star attended the tennis tournament last week in support of friend <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tagged/serena-williams">Serena Williams</a>.&#8221;
Rebecca English, royal correspondent for the Daily Mail, said the situation &#8220;doesn&#8217;t play out terribly well&#8221; because her position as a taxpayer-funded public figure does not give her the freedom to make arbitrary rules about photographs at a public sporting event.
&#8220;So this is interesting. But a few points: Contrary to speculation she wasn’t there in a royal box, but as a guest of a player,&#8221; English said on Twitter. &#8220;That said, it’s ridiculous not to expect members of the public to take ‘some’ pictures at such a public event — as long as its not ‘too’ intrusive.&#8221;
&#8220;This not the fault of her P.R. team whatsoever,&#8221; English added. &#8220;But Meghan should be advised that this doesn’t play out terribly well. The Royal Family occupy a very privileged position. That doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to some privacy. But not at a global sporting event.&#8221;
Talkshow host Piers Morgan excoriated Meghan Markle on &#8220;Good Morning Britain&#8221; Tuesday for having an &#8220;obsession&#8221; with privacy, and advised her to go back to America if she doesn&#8217;t like the royal demands.
&#8220;This is so ridiculous, this obsession that her and Harry have about privacy,&#8221; Morgan said. &#8220;It&#8217;s rankly hypocritical and they&#8217;re not private people, they&#8217;re the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. We get to pay for their mansion, we get to do all of this &#8230; If you want to be private, go back to America and live privately, it’s pretty straightforward.&#8221;
Later, Piers Morgan doubled down on his attacks on Twitter. &#8220;It’s absurd for Ms. Markle to demand privacy as she sits in the royal box on a publicly-funded jolly with her mates,&#8221; he tweeted.
Some of Meghan Markle&#8217;s fans immediately accused Piers Morgan of harboring racial animus, considering her status as Britain&#8217;s first half-black princess.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Are you trying to incite the british public against the only black member of the royal family?
— Keniakiki (@keniakiki) <a href="https://twitter.com/keniakiki/status/1148500277751930880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Today we&#8217;re seeing the xenophobic and misogynoir anti-Meghan narrative play out on UK morning TV and twitter. The message by the professional <a href="https://twitter.com/GMB?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GMB</a> troll today: if Meghan wants privacy she should go back to America. I just wanted to underscore a couple things as this continues <a href="https://t.co/0jimCjciAp">pic.twitter.com/0jimCjciAp</a>
— Goldburn P. Maynard Jr. (@deathntaxesprof) <a href="https://twitter.com/deathntaxesprof/status/1148484592627855360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48848/meghan-markle-prince-harry-cost-taxpayers-3-paul-bois">Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Cost Taxpayers $3 Million In Home Renovations</a>

Meghan Markle Blasted For Excessive Privacy Demands. Piers Morgan Roasts Her.

Piers Morgan

Could Prince Charles soon be the royal head honcho? A royal expert claims that Queen Elizabeth II will &#8220;give up her powers&#8221; when she turns 95, relinquishing her duties to her son.
&#8220;Her Majesty turned 93 in April but could bring in the 1937 Regency Act in two years to relinquish the &#8216;majority of duties&#8217; to her son and heir to the throne,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/queen-elizabeth-to-hand-over-powers-to-prince-charles-in-two-years-royal-expert-says">Fox News</a>. &#8220;The Act allows a reigning monarch to hand over power if they feel they are unable to fully perform their duties.&#8221;
Speaking with <a href="https://uk.style.yahoo.com/kate-thornton-presents-yahoo-uks-new-video-series-royal-box-152715457.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yahoo’s The Royal Box</a>, Royal author Phil Dampler said that current talks within the royal family circles point to the Queen evoking the Regency Act in just two years time.
&#8220;There is talk that when she reaches 95 in a couple of years she may slow down and possibly the Regency Act will be brought in,&#8221; Dampler said. &#8220;She will still be Queen but Prince Charles will, in fact, take over most of the duties. He is starting to do that already, being at the state opening in Parliament and the Commonwealth conference. He is starting to take over a lot of the duties and doing the investitures.&#8221;
Though Queen Elizabeth would still maintain her royal title, the 70-year-old Prince Charles would essentially be a steward until she was to pass away, after which point he would be crowned King of England. The 98-year-old Prince Philip would become the Guardian of the Queen. For the Queen&#8217;s request to take effect, &#8220;Prince Philip along with a Houses of Parliament spokesperson and a third senior person&#8221; would have to provide evidence supporting it.
Indeed, as Fox News notes, Prince Charles has &#8220;gradually been filling in for his mother and represented the head of state on foreign trips during her Diamond Jubilee year to Australia and New Zealand.&#8221;
Should the day come that Prince Charles becomes the actual King of England, speculation is that he will abdicate the throne to his son, Prince William. In fact, a 2019 survey shows that half the British population would prefer William over Charles.
&#8220;A 2019 survey showed that almost half of the British public want Prince Charles to stand aside and let his eldest son William become the next King,&#8221; reports the U.K.&#8217;s <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1106643/prince-charles-abdicate-prince-william-king-royal-news-spt">Express</a>. &#8220;The survey by BMG Research on behalf of The Independent found that 46 percent of Britons want the first in line to the throne to abdicate immediately to allow the Duke of Cambridge to take over. A further 27 percent of those polled showed &#8216;strong support&#8217; for directly passing the crown to William.&#8221;
Will Charles actually abdicate? Royal experts say it depends. One problem for Charles is his divorce from Princess Diana and remarriage to Camilla Parker Bowles, who <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1106565/queen-camilla-Camilla-parker-bowles-popularity-royal-news">only a third</a> of Britons support as their future queen. On the other hand, Charles could indeed hold the throne for a few years as his son prepares for the title if experts believe he is still too young to take up to the mantle.

REPORT: Queen Elizabeth To Hand Over Powers To Prince Charles In Two Years

In what has been seen as a historic move, Britain&#8217;s Prince William said he would &#8220;<a data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="2" data-v9y="1" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:1;elm:context_link;itc:0" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/06/26/prince-william-would-absolutely-fine-george-charlotte-louis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fully support</a>&#8221; his children if they were to come out LGBT &#8212; and not just in a loving way, but also in an approving way.
According to <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/prince-william-children-gay_n_5d138670e4b09ad014f9327d">HuffPost</a>, Prince William made his comments while making a historic visit to <a data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="3" data-v9y="1" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:2;elm:context_link;itc:0" href="https://www.akt.org.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the Albert Kennedy Trust (AKT)</a>, a charity for homeless LGBT youths, the first time ever anyone in the royal family has done so.
&#8220;If your child one day in the future said, &#8216;Oh I&#8217;m gay, oh I&#8217;m lesbian,&#8217; whatever, how would you react,&#8221; a man asked Prince William, according to the <a data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="6" data-v9y="1" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:3;elm:context_link;itc:0" href="https://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail/status/1143856714577514497" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Daily Mail.</a>
&#8220;Absolutely fine by me,&#8221; said Prince William and only worried of the &#8220;backlash&#8221; that might ensue particularly regarding the roles they would fill in the royal family.
&#8220;I&#8217;d fully support whatever decisions they make,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It worries me how many barriers, persecution, and hate they&#8217;d face. But that&#8217;s for all of us to try and correct.&#8221;
&#8220;The one thing I&#8217;d be worried about is how they &#8212; particularly the roles my children fill &#8212; is how that is going to be interpreted and seen,&#8221; Prince William said. &#8220;It worries me, not because of them being gay, it worries me as to how everyone else will react and perceive it and then the pressure is then on them.&#8221;
According to <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/06/26/prince-william-would-absolutely-fine-george-charlotte-louis/">The Telegraph</a>, one of the young people expressed hope that the future king would support the LGBT community so strongly.
&#8220;To hear him say &#8216;I&#8217;d support my own children if they were in the LGBT community&#8217; was great, and to hear how much awareness he has of how difficult things are, and the awareness he has of the suicide issue, which is a massive, massive issue for the community,&#8221; the person said. &#8220;To know that someone that important has your back is huge.&#8221;
Following Prince William&#8217;s visit, the charity&#8217;s openly gay chief executive Tom Sigswort said the visit sends a message to the whole of society that &#8220;we need to empower LGBT people.&#8221;
&#8220;I was incredibly impressed. I was first impressed by his level of knowledge already but his empathy and appreciation of the struggles and challenges faced by LGBT people was incredible to me,&#8221; Sigswort said. &#8220;And just his willingness to learn from the young people, his willingness to challenge his own perceptions and his willingness to come out in support of LGBT people in such a personal way as to refer to his children &#8212; that will make a massive difference.&#8221;
&#8220;I was personally rejected by my mum, and the idea that the future monarch is saying they would support their children if they came out as LGBT is a message to the whole of society really, a message that we need to support and we need to empower LGBT people,&#8221; he continued.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle also recently<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48243/prince-harry-meghan-markle-celebrate-pride-month-paul-bois"> expressed support</a> for the LGBT community during Pride Month. &#8220;We stand with you and support you. Because it&#8217;s very simple: Love is love,&#8221; the couple said on their official Instagram account.

The Duke Of Cambridge Visits The Albert Kennedy Trust

Prince William: I Would ‘Fully Support’ My Children If They Came Out LGBT

LGBT

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the self-branded progressive duo of the royal family, spent $3 million in taxpayer dollars on home renovations.
According to <a href="https://pagesix.com/2019/06/25/meghan-markle-and-prince-harrys-home-renovations-cost-taxpayers-3m/">Page Six</a>, the public release of royal family accounts showed that British taxpayers spent $85.2 million on the monarchy in the previous year, $3.06 million of which went to sprucing up the home of the Duke and Duchess.
&#8220;Prince<a href="https://pagesix.com/tag/prince-harry/"> </a>Harry and his wife Meghan&#8217;s residence near Windsor Castle, called Frogmore Cottage, underwent<a href="https://pagesix.com/2019/03/25/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-dropping-over-65k-to-soundproof-new-home/"> </a>major work to turn five properties back into a single home for the couple and their baby son Archie,&#8221; reports the outlet. &#8220;Fixtures, fittings, and furnishings at the Victorian-era structure were paid for by the royal couple.&#8221;
&#8220;Overall, spending rose primarily because of higher levels of expenditure devoted to critical renovations for Buckingham Palace in London,&#8221; the report continues. &#8220;The iconic structure is in the second year of a 10-year project after a Treasury report concluded the building&#8217;s infrastructure was in danger of a catastrophic failure.&#8221;
Michael Stevens, keeper of Privy Purse (the Monarchy&#8217;s private account), said the property had been slated for renovation years prior and was in line with the royal standard.
&#8220;The property had not been the subject of work for some years and had already been earmarked for renovation in line with our responsibility to maintain the condition of the occupied royal palaces estate,&#8221; Stevens said. &#8220;The building was returned to a single residence and outdated infrastructure was replaced to guarantee the long-term future of the property. Substantially all fixtures and fittings were paid for by Their Royal Highnesses.&#8221;
Despite Stevens&#8217; explanation, anti-monarchy group Republic felt the expenses were in excess at this particular moment in time. &#8220;It is particularly galling that they&#8217;re allowed to get away [with] this whilst public services need money,&#8221; said group spokesman Graham Smith.
The royal couple has been presented by the media as embracing various progressive causes, including <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48243/prince-harry-meghan-markle-celebrate-pride-month-paul-bois">Pride Month</a>. &#8220;Continuing with our tradition to rotate the accounts we follow based on causes and social issues that matter to us: For the month of June we &#8216;proudly&#8217; shine a light on PRIDE,&#8221; said the couple&#8217;s official Instagram page. &#8220;This month we pay tribute to the accounts supporting the LGBTQ+ community &#8211; those young and old, their families and friends, accounts that reflect on the past and are hopeful for a deservedly more inclusive future. We stand with you and support you Because it&#8217;s very simple: love is love.&#8221;
Earlier this year, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44118/meghan-markle-says-shell-raise-baby-fluid-approach-amanda-prestigiacomo">reports also surfaced</a> that both Meghan Markle and Prince Harry planned to raise their baby &#8220;gender fluid&#8221; by avoiding common gender stereotypes. &#8220;Meghan has been talking to some of her friends about the birth and how she and Harry plan to raise their baby,&#8221; a source told Vanity Fair at the time. &#8220;Her exact word was fluid. She said they plan to raise their child with a fluid approach to gender and they won&#8217;t be imposing any stereotypes.&#8221; Kensington Palace later <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/royals/the-palace-breaks-its-silence-on-false-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-gender-fluid-baby-story/ar-BBUhJNp">denounced the story</a> as false.
When Ireland legalized abortion, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Markle+pleased+abortion+dailywire&amp;rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS837US837&amp;oq=Markle+pleased+abortion+dailywire&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.9639j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8">rumors also spread</a> that Markle expressed pleasure at the news in private. Royal family&#8217;s stated protocol <a href="https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government">expressly forbids</a> its members from endorsing political opinions or groups of any kind since they are accountable to no voting bloc whatsoever. Typically, the royals can only engage in &#8220;humanitarian issues.&#8221;

Trooping The Colour 2019

Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Cost Taxpayers $3 Million Dollars In Home Renovations

On Monday, after a public outcry ensued when a British judge ordered a young disabled woman to have an abortion, the English Court of Appeal reportedly overturned the decision.
As the <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/thousands-sign-petition-against-uk-forced-abortion-decision-91649">Catholic News Agency</a> reports, Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson overruled the June 21 decision by Justice Nathalie Lieven of the Court of Protection, who had ruled that a forced abortion was &#8220;in the best interests&#8221; of the pregnant woman.
The decision triggered over 75,000 people to sign a <a href="https://www.citizengo.org/en-gb/lf/171591-british-judge-orders-mother-have-abortion-against-her-will">petition that Right to Life UK posted</a> on June 22 that asked U.K. Health and Social Care Secretary Matthew Hancock to &#8220;intervene in this case, so far as possible, to prevent this gross injustice being inflicted by the State on this family and ensure this woman is not forced to have an abortion.&#8221;
Scottish Bishop John Keenan of the Diocese of Paisley encouraged people to sign the petition, asserting that Lieven&#8217;s ruling &#8220;introduces a dangerous new development in the overreach of the power of the state over its citizens,&#8221; and &#8220;has to be changed.&#8221; Bishop John Sherrington, an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Westminster, denounced Lieven&#8217;s decision, stating:
<blockquote>
Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes upon her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for the child. In a free society like ours there is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state. This is a sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers. This case, for which all information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of &#8220;best interests&#8221; when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court&#8217;s decision against her will.
</blockquote>
Press Association reports said that the triumvirate of judges that overruled Lieven&#8217;s decision stated that the case was &#8220;unique&#8221; and they would explain their decision later.
After Lieven&#8217;s decision was overruled, Clare McCarthy, spokesperson for Right To Life UK, stated:
<blockquote>
This is a very welcome decision that will save the life of the unborn child and the mother from a forced late-term abortion and much undue distress. However, the horrific original ruling should never have happened. Unfortunately, we fear that this is not a one-off case. We are calling on the Department of Health to urgently reveal how many women have been forced to have an abortion in the UK over the last 10 years and make it clear how they will ensure it will not happen again.
</blockquote>
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48716/british-female-judge-orders-young-woman-have-hank-berrien">The Daily Wire</a> reported last Friday:
The <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/uk-court-orders-forced-abortion-for-disabled-woman-34728">Catholic News Agency</a> (CNA) reports that the pregnant woman is 22 weeks pregnant and has been described as &#8220;in her twenties.&#8221; CAN also noted that the woman is reportedly Catholic, with a mother from Nigeria, and has the mental capacity of a grade school-age child. CNA added, &#8220;The woman&#8217;s mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter.&#8221;
The judge, Justice Nathalie Lieven, who serves in the Court of Protection, which deals with individuals deemed to lack the ability to make decisions for themselves, stated, &#8220;I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn&#8217;t want it is an immense intrusion. &#8230; I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society&#8217;s views of termination.&#8221; Lieven added of the pregnant woman, &#8220;I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.&#8221;

After Public Outcry, British Appeals Court Reportedly Overrules Decision To Force Disabled Woman To Abort Her Baby

Abortion

On Friday, a female British judge ordered a pregnant woman who reportedly has developmental disabilities and a mood disorder to have an abortion, even though the woman and her mother allegedly strenuously object.
The <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/uk-court-orders-forced-abortion-for-disabled-woman-34728">Catholic News Agency</a> (CNA) reports that the pregnant woman is 22 weeks pregnant and has been described as &#8220;in her twenties.&#8221; CAN also noted that the woman is reportedly Catholic, with a mother from Nigeria, and has the mental capacity of a grade school-age child. CNA added, &#8220;The woman&#8217;s mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter.&#8221;
The judge, Justice Nathalie Lieven, who serves in the Court of Protection, which deals with individuals deemed to lack the ability to make decisions for themselves, stated, &#8220;I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn&#8217;t want it is an immense intrusion. &#8230; I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society&#8217;s views of termination.&#8221; Lieven added of the pregnant woman, &#8220;I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.&#8221;
Doctors argued that the baby should be aborted because it would be less traumatic for the pregnant woman than seeing her child placed in foster care. Lieven agreed, saying, &#8220;I think [the woman] would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed [from her care].&#8221;
CNA delineated the kinds of actions Lieven has previously taken regarding abortion: &#8220;In 2011, while representing the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, an abortion provider, she argued that British women should be permitted to medically abort their pregnancies at their own homes instead of in a hospital. Five years later, Lieven argued in court that Northern Ireland&#8217;s abortion laws were a violation of the United Kingdom&#8217;s Human Rights Act. In 2017, she said that Northern Ireland&#8217;s abortion laws were akin to torture and were discriminatory.&#8221; <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nireland-abortion/uk-supreme-court-hears-attempt-to-change-northern-ireland-abortion-law-idUSKBN1CT158">Reuters</a> reported that Lieven said in 2017, &#8220;The impact of the criminal law in Northern Ireland does amount to inhuman and degrading treatment by the state.&#8221;
In 2015, when challenging Ireland&#8217;s abortion laws, Lieven <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-33122115">stated</a> that making decisions about abortion should be handled by courts, not the executive branch, stating, &#8220;The respondent and the attorney general argue this is a matter which should simply be left to the executive, and they do to some degree rely on the fact that there has been a consultation process on changing the law on abortion. That argument is completely misconceived for a whole host of reasons. It&#8217;s simply wrong in principle &#8212; there&#8217;s a duty on the court to consider the question of compatibility, and the court cannot defer that consideration in the hope or expectation that the executive might change the law at some unknown date in the future.&#8221;

Menu