Illustrative: A butcher in Jerusalem, April 26, 2010. (Abir Sultan/Flash90)

The European Court of Justice ruled Thursday that authorities can order that animals be stunned before slaughter in a move decried by Israel and religious groups as attacking their traditions.

The court backed a regulation imposed in the Flemish region of Belgium banning the slaughter of livestock that have not been stunned on animal rights grounds.

The measure was seen as effectively outlawing the Jewish kosher and Muslim halal traditions, which require livestock to be conscious when their throats are slit.

“The court concludes that the measures contained in the decree allow a fair balance to be struck between the importance attached to animal welfare and the freedom of Jewish and Muslim believers to manifest their religion,” the ruling said.

Israel’s foreign ministry lashed out at the verdict as “sending a harsh message to all European Jewry.”

“Beyond the fact that this decision harms the freedom of worship and religion in Europe, a core value of the EU, it also signals to Jewish communities that the Jewish way of life is unwanted in Europe,” the ministry said in a statement.

“It is important that a way is found to change the decision and enable Jewish EU citizens to hold Jewish practices,” the ministry said.

An umbrella organization for Jewish groups in Belgium called the decision a “denial of democracy” that did not respect the rights of minority groups.

“The fight continues, and we will not admit defeat until we have exhausted all our legal remedies, which is not yet the case,” Yohan Benizri, head of the Belgian Federation of Jewish Organisations, said.

The head of the European Jewish Congress said the ruling “severely undermined” the right to perform Jewish religious practices.

“This ruling is a heavy blow to Jewish life in Europe and in essence tells Jews that our practices are no longer welcome. Telling Jews that their ways are not welcome is just a short step from telling Jews that we are no longer welcome,” Moshe Kantor said in a statement.

He said the EJC would fight the court decision.

“Europe’s Jewish communities will not rest until our fundamental rights are asserted and protected under the full weight of European law,” Kantor said.

The ruling was also denounced by the Belgian Federation of Jewish Organizations and the European Jewish Association.

“This is a sad day for European Jewry. For decades now, as animal rights have come into vogue, Kosher slaughter has come under relentless attack, and subject to repeated attempts to ban it,” EJA chairman Rabbi Menachem Margolin said in a statement.

Margolin dismissed “the entirely bogus premise” that kosher slaughter is more cruel to animals.

“What today’s ruling does is put animal welfare above the fundamental right of freedom of religion. Simply put, the beast takes preference over man,” he said. “What a terrible message to send to European Jewry, that you and your practices are not welcome here. This is a basic denial of our rights as European citizens.”

The Conference of European Rabbis said the ruling “flies in the face” of recent statements from European authorities on protecting Jewish life.

“The bans have already had a devastating impact on the Belgian Jewish community, causing supply shortages during the pandemic, and we are all very aware of the precedent this sets which challenges our rights to practice our religion,” it said in a statement.

The group also noted previous bans on ritual slaughter were pushed by the far-right.

“We now face a situation where, with no consultation of the local Jewish community, a ban has been implemented and the implications on the Jewish community will be long lasting,” it said. “Europe needs to reflect on the type of continent it wants to be. If values like freedom of religion and true diversity are integral, than the current system of law does not reflect that and needs to be urgently reviewed.”

A butcher shop selling halal meat in Paris, France, March 9, 2012. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

The Muslim community in Belgium also reacted with dismay to the verdict.

The Belgian Coordination Committee of Islamic Institutions said the decision had been a “big disappointment” and argued that the court was pandering to populist sentiments.

“The Court of Justice seems to have given in to the growing political and societal pressure from populist movements which are waging a symbolic struggle against vulnerable minorities throughout Europe,” the group said in a statement.

But the ruling was welcomed by the authorities and animal rights activists who had demanded the ban, arguing that stunning animals so that they are unconscious when they are killed is more humane.

“Today is a great day… for the hundreds of thousands of animals who, thanks to this decision, will be spared the hellish pains of slaughter without stunning for religious purposes,” said Michel Vandenbosch, the head of animal rights group GAIA.  “For me, after more than 25 years of relentless struggle… this is one of the happiest days of my life.”

Belgium’s Flanders regional government issued the order in 2017, which took effect in 2019, that slaughterhouses must stun livestock before slaughtering them.

The argument was made that this would “reduce their suffering,” and animal rights activists had pushed for the ban.

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-jewish-groups-blast-eu-court-ruling-against-kosher-and-halal-slaughter/

The post Israel, Jewish groups blast EU court ruling against kosher and halal slaughter first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

LUXEMBOURG (CN) — Lack of space in a refugee center is not a good enough reason to hold asylum seekers in jail, the European Union’s highest court ruled Thursday.

The European Court of Justice found that Spain violated EU law covering refugees last year when it housed a number of immigrants seeking asylum in a detention center and judges refused to address complaints about the accommodations on the grounds that they weren’t immigration authorities. Thursday’s ruling is not available in English.

A Malian man, identified in court documents as VL, was intercepted at sea by the Spanish Maritime Rescue Agency, along with 25 other people from sub-Saharan Africa. Some 30,000 people arrive in Spain illegally every year, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency. Most of them are from Africa and nearly 80% arrive by sea.

VL was taken to Gran Canaria, one of the Canary Islands, a semi-autonomous group of Spanish islands located off the coast of Morocco known for being a major European holiday destination. The immigrants were handed over to Canarian authorities, who ordered them deported.

The entire group, including VL, indicated they wanted to apply for asylum in Spain. VL said that he would likely be tortured or killed if sent back to Mali, where an armed conflict has been ongoing for nearly a decade.

VL and 14 others were held in a detention facility because, according to the authorities, there wasn’t enough space in the refugee center. VL, aided by a lawyer, contested this decision but a Spanish court found that because it wasn’t an immigration court, it couldn’t deal with the request. VL appealed and the national court referred the matter to the Court of Justice, the EU’s top court.

The Luxembourg-based on Thursday rejected Spain’s argument that only specific authorities can address the type of claims brought by VL.

“The EU legislature intended to adopt a broad definition of those authorities which, without being competent to register applications for international protection, may nevertheless receive such applications,” the court said in an English press release, adding that the phrase “other authorities” can “encompass both administrative and judicial authorities”

Moreover, the court ruled that asylum-seekers “cannot be held in detention on the ground that there is not sufficient accommodation available in humanitarian reception centers” and EU member states “cannot hold a person in detention on the sole ground that he or she is an applicant for international protection.”

Spain had argued that it had insufficient resources to properly house the number of refugees arriving every year.

“Humanitarianism is clearly essential to the protection of refugee rights,” is how Advocate General Maciej Szpunar opened his nonbinding advisory opinion for the Court of Justice in April.

EU regulations afford asylum-seekers wide projections and the court has routinely upheld the obligations on member states to provide refugees with proper accommodations, medical services, and access to courts. The legal reasoning of magistrates is followed by the court about 80% of the time and it did so in this case.

The case now returns to the referring Spanish court for a final decision in VL’s case.

Source: https://www.courthousenews.com/top-eu-court-rules-against-holding-asylum-seekers-in-jail/

The post Top EU Court Rules Against Holding Asylum Seekers in Jail first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The German Chancellor has a record of defying orthodoxies and the Covid-19 crisis cries out for extraordinary steps

The post Why Angela Merkel is coming to the rescue in Europe first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

More than 38,000 people were caught entering Germany illegally between January and November 2018, German Federal Police have told DW.

Over 28,000 people entered Germany by land, with most — some 10,300 — entering from Austria.

By comparison, some 9,270 people arrived illegally at airports and more than 1,120 people at sea ports.

Read more: How do refugees in Germany view Seehofer’s tougher migration plan?

Most of the migrants were from Afghanistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

Figures likely too low

The true number of illegal entries was likely higher because the figures did not include the number of people who were not caught after entering the country, police said.

The figures were also higher for Austria because temporary border checks were most comprehensive along the German-Austria border, they added.

The next highest number of illegal crossings was registered at Germany’s border with the Czech Republic (3,931), followed by Switzerland (3,724) and France (3,406).

Read more: Bavaria demands random police checks across Germany

Fall since 2015

Some 14,000 people who entered Germany by land illegally in 2018 traveled on buses or trains, according to figures seen by the Rheinische Post newspaper.

The total number of registered illegal arrivals has been falling since the height of the European migration crisis in 2015, when Federal Police caught more than 217,000 people entering the country illegally.

That figure fell to nearly 112,000 in 2016 and again in 2017 to just over 50,000.

Focus on Austria

German lawmakers have squabbled repeatedly over the country’s migration policy since German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow nearly a million refugees from North Africa and the Middle East enter the country in mid-2015.

Read more: Refugees in Germany: Are they still welcome today?

Most refugees entered the country from Austria, prompting the government to re-impose border checks along the German-Austrian border in late 2015. The government stepped up those checks again in June 2018.

Controls along Germany’s land border with other countries are less extensive. All of its neighbors are members of the 26-country visa-free Schengen zone.

Police checks of passengers’ identity documents on buses and trains may end soon. The European Court of Justice has ruled that Germany’s Schengen membership prohibits such controls.

Germany’s Federal Administrative Court still needs to review the decision.

DW editors send out a selection of the day’s hard news and quality feature journalism every evening. You can sign up to receive it here.

Source: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-38000-illegal-immigrants-caught-by-federal-police/a-47282792

The post Germany: 38,000 illegal immigrants caught by Federal Police first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Last week, the UK’s official opposition Labour Party formally backed a policy that could lead to a second EU referendum.

So, finally, all those people who want to scrap Brexit altogether have something to hang on to, right?

Not exactly.

Let’s start from the beginning. The governing Conservative Party is bitterly divided on exactly what Brexit should look like.

Prime Minister Theresa May has put to Brussels her so-called Chequers plan for what she thinks the future relationship between the UK and the EU should be.

It uses lots of suspiciously Remain-friendly language like a “common rulebook for all goods including agri-foods” and describes a “facilitated customs agreement” that treats the UK and the EU “as if a combined customs territory”.

This means there would be no need for customs checks at the border — thus removing the need for a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

But it also leaves room for regulatory flexibility, allowing Britain to be competitive in certain areas once free from the EU and crucially, Chequers would see an end to legal oversight from the European Court of Justice in the UK.

Cabinet departures

May’s deal was an attempt to paper over the cracks in her party between those who want to remain very closely tied to the EU, those who want to storm off and go it alone and every position in between. She also has to make sure she doesn’t lose the 10 votes of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, who prop up May’s Conservatives in Parliament.

It didn’t work. Her plan led to two high-profile resignations. First, her Brexit Secretary David Davis. Then, her Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson.

These two men — who since resigning have described Chequers as effectively wrapping “a suicide vest around the British constitution” and handing the “detonator” to Brussels (Johnson) and as a deal that “falls far short” of delivering “what the British people were promised during the referendum” (Davis) — have thrown their weight behind a different plan, which would see a far looser trading arrangement between the UK and the EU, but allowing for greater trading opportunities elsewhere.

If you can bear to read it, Johnson has outlined his plan for a “SuperCanada” free trade deal in no fewer than 4,500 words in the Daily Telegraph newspaper. The timing of this pitch for his version of Brexit is significant, as it comes days before the Conservative’s annual party conference after months of speculation about May’s leadership.

A divided party is a major problem for May. Had she not lost her parliamentary majority in last year’s disastrous snap election, it’s possible that she could have forced her disgruntled MPs to swallow whatever Brexit deal she wanted.

But now, with two high-profile former ministers whipping up her rebellious backbenchers and the nightmare of her reliance on the DUP in parliament, it’s hard to see a way through for her.

Second vote?

This is where the Labour Party comes in.

Labour’s call for a second public vote would only happen in the event that May is unable to get her Brexit deal through Parliament, then fails to hold a general election. Of course, the unspoken reality here is that without a general election and taking power from the Conservatives, Labour lacks the authority to hold such a vote. And even then, Labour has been a little fudgy on the issue of whether Remain would even be an option on the ballot paper.

What is possible, however, is this: May’s Brexit plan could fail to make it through Parliament which, after some boring constitutional nonsense, could lead to her government falling, forcing a general election.

Presumably, both parties would then offer detailed outlines of their Brexit plans in their election manifestos, offering the public a clear choice. Should either party win an outright majority, then there may be no need for a second public vote.

For what it’s worth, the Labour Party is not tremendously clear on Brexit, either. Loosely speaking, Labour wants to remain in the Customs Union to avoid a hard border in Ireland and keep all the benefits of single market access (for those who really care, you can read the Labour Party’s Six Key Tests for a final Brexit deal, which Jeremy Corbyn somewhat amusingly forgot in a broadcast interview last week).

Even more confusingly, Corbyn also said last week that he would vote with the government to push through May’s Brexit plan if she committed to remaining in the Customs Union, which would mean the Conservative plan being dictated and voted through by Labour. That would lead to even more chaos for both parties.

It’s hard to predict exactly how MPs will vote when the Brexit deal arrives. The majority of the House of Commons was opposed to Brexit, yet still voted to trigger Article 50. With the threat of a no-deal crash exit hanging over them, will they vote against May and risk a calamity?

Or will the unhappy Remainers hold their nerve and hope that events will play in their favor? And it’s worth remembering that all of this is still Britain negotiating with itself — Brussels has not agreed with May’s Chequers proposal, the only plan formally on the table, soon after it was published.

So, what does the next six months look like for Britain? From the madness described above, goodness knows. But given the divisions in British politics and May’s habit of clinging onto power, business as usual and months more of zombie governance is as likely an outcome as any.

Source: http://www.actionnewsnow.com/content/national/494649771.html

The post With six months to go, Brexit is still baffling first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Highlights

• The United Kingdom and the European Union probably will reach an agreement on a post-Brexit transition period in 2018.
• A free trade agreement will be more difficult to negotiate, considering the conflicting strategic interests of Britain and the European Union.
• A trade agreement between London and Brussels would have to be ratified by the European Union and the United Kingdom, which could create further complications and delay its enforcement.

The new year will be one of intense negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union. On Dec. 15, the European Council decided that the first phase of Brexit talks, which focused on the terms of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, had progressed enough to move to the next phase, which will focus on Britain’s future relationship with the bloc.  The EU-U.K. divorce talks were complex; the negotiations about their future ties will be even more difficult. Britain’s desire to regain sovereignty in areas such as trade and immigration will clash with the European Union’s goal of protecting the unity of the single market, the area where goods, people, services and capital move freely.

In the coming months, the negotiations between them will focus on two main topics: a transition period and a trade agreement. During the transition period, which would last about two years beyond Britain’s departure from the European Union in March 2019, the United Kingdom would no longer be a member of the European Union but probably would still be a part of the single market. It would not have a say on EU policies but would still contribute to the EU budget and be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Some hard-line members of the British government oppose a transition period, because to some extent it would continue the status quo for two more years. However, the European Union and the United Kingdom will likely reach an agreement on a transition period in 2018, because it would give companies and households in both Britain and the European Union time to adapt to the post-Brexit economic environment. Moreover, it would buy the governments in London and Brussels extra time to discuss the truly difficult problem: their future trade agreement. Trade is where the two parties have conflicting priorities and where negotiations will have to deal with several complex issues.

The EU-U.K. divorce talks were complex; the negotiations about their future ties will be even more difficult. Britain’s desire to regain sovereignty in areas such as trade and immigration will clash with the European Union’s goal of protecting the unity of the single market, the area where goods, people, services and capital move freely.  (Stratfor 2018)

Conflicting Views on a Trade Agreement

The European Union wants the future trade agreement with the United Kingdom to respect the unity of the single market. The European Union opposes a deal that would allow goods, capital and services to move freely between Britain and the bloc but deny the free movement of people. This opposition is connected to a basic EU concern: Brussels wants to make sure the EU-U.K. agreement is less comprehensive than EU membership, out of fear that other countries will try to imitate Britain in the future and leave the bloc.

From the European Union’s perspective, Britain could remain a member of the single market, and accept its four freedoms regarding goods, capital, services and people, or it could leave the single market and sign a trade agreement that covers most goods but not many services. The first option is known as the “Norway model,” as the Scandinavian country is a member of the single market without being a member of the European Union. The latter option is the “Canada model”: Canada and the European Union recently signed an agreement that covers 98 percent of the goods they trade but only a short list of services.

But the United Kingdom wants a comprehensive trade agreement that allows the free movement of goods, services and capital but leaves London free to have an independent immigration policy and sign trade agreements with non-EU countries. During the Brexit campaign, the “leave” camp promised that Britain would no longer accept EU workers, and that the country would sign trade agreements with allies such as the United States. The United Kingdom also wants a deal that allows its massive financial sector to continue trading freely with Europe. As a result, London has proposed a “creative” agreement that goes beyond the Norway and Canada models.

Switzerland offers another model the parties could try to emulate. The Alpine nation uses a hundred or so ad hoc bilateral agreements to manage its relationship with the European Union. Through these deals, Switzerland follows EU norms and regulations on issues ranging from agricultural standards to public procurement in exchange for access to EU markets. But that model presents a problem for the United Kingdom in that Switzerland is required to accept EU workers, and Swiss financial institutions face restrictions to access the EU market (which forces Swiss firms to have offices in the European Union). This likely would make a similar arrangement not an acceptable solution for the British economy, which is heavily dependent on financial services.

Beyond the Existing Models

Because of the conflicting strategic goals between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the negotiations probably will be long and complex. The United Kingdom will push to include services in the free trade agreement, but the European Union will refuse to agree unless the United Kingdom accepts EU workers. Should the negotiations linger, the United Kingdom could soften its position and offer to pay the European Union to access its services sector, to mention one possibility, or accept an annual quota of EU workers. Brussels, however, would still be skeptical of signing an agreement that could inspire other countries to leave the bloc. Moreover, some member states like France and Germany hope to attract companies in Britain’s financial sector to relocate parts of their operations to the Continent because of Brexit.

---

The post A Year of Tough Talks Awaits the EU and U.K. first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The EU could scrap a divisive scheme that compels member states to accept quotas of refugees, one of the bloc’s most senior leaders will say this week.

The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, will tell EU leaders at a summit on Thursday that mandatory quotas have been divisive and ineffective, in a clear sign that he is ready to abandon the policy that has created bitter splits across the continent.

Tusk will set a six-month deadline for EU leaders to reach unanimous agreement on reforms to the European asylum system, but will propose alternatives if there is no consensus.

“If there is no solution … including on the issue of mandatory quotas, the president of the European council will present a way forward,” states a draft letter from Tusk to national capitals, seen by the Guardian.

In effect this means scrapping mandatory quotas, because Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic are fiercely opposed to the idea of dispersing refugees around the bloc based on a formula drawn up in Brussels. Tusk is likely to face opposition, however, from other EU bodies, including the European commission.

EU leaders introduced compulsory quotas in 2015 at the height of the migration crisis, as thousands of people arrived daily on Europe’s shores, many of whom were refugees from Syria, Iraq and Eritrea. Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech Republic voted against the move, but the policy was forced through by a majority vote.

Hungary and Poland have defied the rest of the EU by not taking a single refugee under the scheme, which aimed to relocate about 120,000 refugees, mainly Syrians. The Czech republic has taken in only 12. All three countries were referred to the European court of justice last week for failing to implement the policy, the usual procedure for flouting EU rules.

Despite the backlash against the emergency scheme, the European commission proposed making quotas a permanent feature of EU law in 2016. Under its proposal, countries that refuse to take part in a “corrective allocation mechanism” to take the pressure off member states bearing the brunt would have to pay a “solidarity contribution” of €250,000 (£220,000) per asylum seeker.

The idea has been stalled for months, as home affairs ministers who make the law have been unable to agree on it. Any move to drop the plan is likely to upset Italy and Greece, countries that have urged the rest of the EU to help them cope with large numbers of refugees and migrants in recent years. Germany and Sweden, backed by the European commission, are also likely to contest any plan deemed to reduce the help offered by other member states.

One EU diplomat said some member states were surprised by Tusk’s letter “because it doesn’t seem to be in sync” with work undertaken by home affairs ministers working on the file.

Tusk, a former prime minister of Poland, thinks mandatory quotas have been a gift to hardliners, such as the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who has seized on migration as part of his wider Stop Brussels campaign. Eurosceptics in Poland, such as the Law and Justice leader Jarosław Kaczyński, whose party won an election victory over Tusk’s centre-right group in October 2015, have also criticised the policy.

Tusk’s scepticism about the prospect of consensus has been evident for months. He said in October that mandatory quotas had put members states in almost permanent conflict.

Tusk will call on EU governments to take charge, rather than leaving Brussels to set the pace in managing refugee policy.

“Only member states are able to tackle the migration crisis effectively,” Tusk’s letter says. “The EU’s role is to offer its full support in all possible ways to help member states handle the migration crisis. But the EU has neither the capacity nor legal possibilities to replace member states.”

He will also urge EU leaders to spend more on schemes aimed at keeping refugees and would-be migrants outside Europe, such as €3bn for Syrian refugees in Turkey and the €1.9bn EU Africa trust fund.

The EU will confront an earlier promise to give Turkey’s government a further €3bn to help Syrian refugees in early 2018, which could lead to a repeat of EU institutions asking governments to find more cash.

The EU has improvised such schemes in response to crises, but Tusk wants more funds available from the new seven-year budget covering the period from 2021, which will come up for discussion next year.

He is calling for “stable and long-term financing mechanisms, in place of the existing ad hoc pledging on a much larger scale”, but has stopped short of putting a price tag on future migration policy.

---

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/11/eu-may-scrap-refugee-quota-scheme-donald-tusk

[Disclaimer]

The post EU could ‘scrap refugee quota scheme’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.