On Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly approved—for the thirty-fourth time—a resolution calling for an end to the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba. The resolution passed with 130 votes in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions.
RELATED:
UN General Assembly Approves Cuba’s Resolution Against U.S. Blockade
During the debate, Mexico, Nicaragua, Egypt, Vietnam, India, Ghana, and Mozambique reiterated their support for the Cuban people and condemned unilateral coercive measures, which they view as contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law.
Mexico’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Héctor Vasconcelos, reaffirmed his country’s solidarity with Cuba and its rejection of any unilateral measures directed against the Cuban population. He maintained that the blockade, which has been in place for more than six decades, violates international law and is incompatible with the principles of the United Nations.
Vasconcelos noted that the sanctions constitute a structural obstacle to the island’s economic and social development. “Ending the blockade against Cuba is an urgent necessity and a humanitarian imperative,” the Mexican diplomat stated.
Mexico argued that dialogue, cooperation, and respect for international law should take precedence over measures that exacerbate the hardships faced by a population. It also called for the removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and urged that priority be given to channels of dialogue.
Meanwhile, Nicaragua’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jaime Hermida Castillo, announced his country’s vote in favor of the resolution. He based this position on principles and values shared by the two nations and reaffirmed Managua’s support for Cuba in the face of pressure tactics employed by the United States.
Hermida Castillo condemned the 64-year-long economic, commercial, and financial blockade, describing these coercive measures as a systematic act of aggression and a violation of human rights. He asserted that such policies are intended to stifle Cuba’s scientific, cultural, and social development. The Nicaraguan delegation also questioned the inaction of the multilateral system in the face of the overwhelming opposition from governments to Washington’s unilateral actions.
¡VICTORIA DE CUBA!
— Bruno Rodríguez P (@BrunoRguezP) October 28, 2026
La Asamblea General de @ONU_es ha votado mayoritariamente contra el bloqueo de EEUU contra Cuba.
El gobierno de EEUU queda nuevamente aislado en su pretensión de continuar asfixiando al pueblo cubano y someterlo a un acto de castigo colectivo y de genocidio.… pic.twitter.com/MhnrjGnzSt
The text reads, “CUBA’S VICTORY! The General Assembly of @ONU_es has voted by a large majority against the US blockade against Cuba. The US government is once again isolated in its attempt to continue strangling the Cuban people and subjecting them to an act of collective punishment and genocide. Neither its most insane pretexts nor its pressures nor media circus will prevail over the force of facts and truth. #CubaNoEsUnaAmenaza The Blockade Is.
The delegations of Ghana and Mozambique concurred that the financial blockade violates the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. They denounced the fact that these extraterritorial measures hinder Cuba’s economic, social, and cultural development—particularly in the areas of healthcare, education, and energy supply.
Mozambique highlighted Cuba’s historic contributions to South-South cooperation and its assistance in the fields of health and education across Africa. The representative from the African nation noted that, for more than six decades, the Cuban people have endured the consequences of the blockade—a policy that the General Assembly has repeatedly condemned.
Ghana stated that its support is rooted in the principles of sovereign equality, mutual respect, and peaceful coexistence among states. It warned that the extraterritorial application of the blockade imposes burdens on third countries and runs counter to the principles of fair and equitable international economic relations.
Egypt, for its part, called for action from the UN. Ihab Awad, Egypt’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and demanded an end to the economic strangulation of Cuba.
“The negative repercussions of the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed on Cuba affect the Cuban people’s ability to meet their basic needs,” the Egyptian diplomat stated.
Meanwhile, Vietnam reiterated its support for the immediate lifting of the commercial and financial blockade. Its delegation expressed concern regarding restricted access to energy and fuel, as well as the adverse impact on hospitals, schools, water services, and trade relations with third countries.
The Vietnamese delegation called for respect for the right to self-determination—free from coercion—advocated for political dialogue in accordance with international law, and urged the removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It also requested international support to address the accumulated economic and social damage.
India endorsed the statements made by the G-77 and ASEAN against the blockade. Its representatives called for the immediate repeal of these measures in order to mitigate their impact on key sectors such as energy, health, food production, and education.
Furthermore, India highlighted the need to eliminate extraterritorial sanctions to create an environment that would allow for Cuba’s full participation in international trade.
France’s Senate has approved controversial legislation designed to recover the costs of damage caused during violent demonstrations, extending potential financial liability beyond those who personally committed acts of vandalism.
The bill, adopted in the early hours of 28 October by 229 votes to 105, would allow the authorities to pursue compensation from certain participants in gatherings where destruction or violence occurred.
Its provisions include a potential liability of up to €10,000 per person and mechanisms for recovering compensation through deductions from certain social benefits.
The legislation, widely described in France as the casseurs-payeurs bill, reflects growing political pressure to respond to property destruction accompanying demonstrations and public gatherings.
However, it also raises legal questions about the circumstances in which individuals may be held financially responsible for damage they did not personally cause.
The bill must still be considered by the National Assembly before it can become law.
Under existing arrangements, the French state can be required to compensate victims for certain damage resulting from gatherings or public disorder.
Authorities may subsequently seek reimbursement from individuals legally responsible for that damage.
The proposed legislation would expand the circumstances in which compensation could be recovered.
According to the French Senate’s official explanation, liability could extend to people who participated in a violent group or remained in a gathering despite police orders to disperse, when they could not reasonably have been unaware that violence or destruction was taking place.
An individual would not necessarily have to be identified as the person who broke a window, damaged a vehicle or destroyed public property.
Instead, participation in a gathering meeting the relevant legal conditions could provide a basis for civil liability.
The distinction is central to the controversy.
The proposed €10,000 ceiling concerns financial compensation rather than a new criminal fine imposed automatically on demonstrators.
Nevertheless, opponents argue that expanding civil responsibility beyond direct perpetrators could undermine the principle that liability should reflect an individual’s own conduct.
The government introduced the legislation in September against a background of public disorder associated with demonstrations and sporting celebrations.
Violence following Paris Saint-Germain’s Champions League victory in May contributed to demands for stronger mechanisms to recover the costs of destruction.
Subsequent disturbances during demonstrations on 17 October added urgency to the debate.
The Senate’s conservative and centrist majority supported the bill, while left-wing lawmakers opposed important elements of the proposed system.
Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez defended the principle that those involved in destruction should contribute to the cost of repairs.
Supporters maintain that criminal penalties alone do not adequately compensate shopkeepers, residents and public authorities faced with substantial financial losses.
They also argue that taxpayers should not automatically bear the costs of damage attributable to individuals involved in violent gatherings.
The disagreement therefore extends beyond criminal punishment to the distribution of financial responsibility after public disorder.
One of the most disputed provisions concerns the recovery of compensation from people with insufficient resources to pay.
As approved by the Senate, the legislation would permit deductions from certain social benefits, including housing assistance and family allowances.
Senators also extended the proposed mechanism to the revenu de solidarité active, or RSA, the minimum-income benefit available to eligible low-income individuals.
Supporters of the measure argue that financial responsibility should not disappear simply because an individual lacks conventional assets or income.
The proposed arrangements would nevertheless have to leave recipients with a minimum amount for living expenses.
Opposition lawmakers have questioned whether deductions from family-related benefits could impose financial consequences on relatives who had no involvement in the original incident.
This is particularly relevant where parents’ social payments could be affected by damage attributed to their children.
The debate therefore concerns both the enforceability of compensation claims and the possibility that recovery measures could affect entire households.
France’s legal framework recognises freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate, subject to restrictions established by law.
It also permits the authorities to impose obligations and penalties on individuals involved in unlawful conduct.
The issue raised by the proposed legislation is where the boundary between these principles should be drawn.
A system requiring direct evidence of property destruction presents different legal questions from one imposing liability based on participation in a wider gathering.
The latter arrangement would require careful assessment of the individual’s conduct, awareness of violence and opportunity to leave.
Opponents fear that demonstrators could face substantial financial exposure even without personally committing vandalism.
Supporters respond that the legislation is directed at participation in violent disorder, rather than peaceful protest itself.
Any final legislation could face scrutiny over proportionality, equality before the law and the protection of constitutional freedoms.
The Senate vote represents an important stage, but not the completion of the legislative process.
The National Assembly remains politically divided, making the final form of the proposal uncertain.
Deputies could amend the conditions for civil liability, the compensation ceiling or the provisions concerning social benefits.
The government’s ability to secure sufficient parliamentary support will determine whether the measures survive intact.
The legislation illustrates an increasingly difficult issue in French politics: how to ensure compensation for victims of public disorder without extending legal liability so broadly that participation in demonstrations becomes a substantial financial risk.
The answer will depend on the precise safeguards contained in the final text and how courts would be required to apply them.
With apparently nothing better to do this summer, the police charged Guy Carpenter with picking up roadkill – who even knew it was a crime? As they took him to court, that's when he knew English freedom had died.
The post When the Police Charged me for Picking up Roadkill I Knew English Freedom Had Died appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The $72.5m suit alleges Scott Jennings falsely told listeners Piker had a ‘plan of returning our country to lynchings’
The prominent socialist political commentator and influencer Hasan Piker is suing his conservative counterpart Scott Jennings for $72.5m over comments on a podcast that he said portrayed him as “a violent racist” who advocated the lynching of Black people.
Piker’s defamation lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in US district court for the District of Columbia, states that Jennings misrepresented his comments in a podcast and subsequent social media post in August.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Julius Constantine Motal/The Guardian
© Photograph: Julius Constantine Motal/The Guardian
© Photograph: Julius Constantine Motal/The Guardian
EHRC says we need transparency if workers suspect other staff are being paid more for similar work
Workers should have a legal right to know their colleagues’ pay to help prevent pay discrimination, particularly against women, the UK’s human rights watchdog has said.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) made the recommendation in response to government proposals to overhaul equal pay laws, saying workers deserve a right to transparency if they suspect other staff are being paid more for similar work.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
© Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
© Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
There is something peculiarly unsettling about a world in which the leaders of three nuclear powers might gather to discuss the future of smaller nations without troubling to invite the nations concerned. It is a diplomatic arrangement with considerable historical precedent, although not necessarily the sort that ought to inspire confidence.
For Askold S. Lozynskyj, a New York lawyer, former president of the Ukrainian World Congress and regular contributor to EU Today, the prospect of Donald Trump sitting down with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping raises precisely this concern.
His latest opinion piece, The Thug Summit, published on 23 October, presents an uncompromising interpretation of the proposed trilateral meeting in China. In a wide-ranging conversation with EU Today publisher Gary Cartwright, Lozynskyj expands upon that argument, moving from the peculiarities of Trump’s political personality to the constitutional foundations of American democracy, the future of Europe and the increasingly precarious standing of international law.
The resulting discussion is occasionally caustic, frequently humorous and consistently concerned with a question that extends well beyond the current occupant of the White House: how resilient are democratic institutions when confronted by leaders who regard constitutional constraints as inconveniences?
Watch the full interview with Askold S. Lozynskyj and Gary Cartwright below.
The conversation begins with Trump’s political ascent, which Lozynskyj regards as one of the more extraordinary developments in modern American history.
Buddy Ebsen as Jed Clampett in the American television comedy The Beverly Hillbillies. Credit: CBS Television / Wikimedia Commons (1969 publicity photograph; US public domain).
He recalls the incredulity surrounding Trump’s original presidential ambitions and questions how a politician whose personal conduct had attracted considerable controversy managed to secure such enthusiastic support among conservative Christian voters.
Cartwright introduces a lighter comparison, recalling a photograph of Trump surrounded by his senior advisers in the Oval Office.
The only person missing, he suggests, was Jed Clampett, the fictional patriarch of the American television comedy The Beverly Hillbillies.
Lozynskyj is not inclined to defend the administration’s sophistication. Yet behind the humour lies a more serious argument about the disappearance of independent-minded advisers and the consequences of political loyalty becoming the principal qualification for high office.
“Donald Trump is not a conservative. Donald Trump is a thug,” he declares.
It is an unequivocal assessment, characteristic of Lozynskyj’s commentary, although his criticism extends beyond Trump himself to the Republican Party’s willingness to accommodate his leadership.
Much of the interview centres on the American midterm elections scheduled for 3 November.
Lozynskyj predicts that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives and potentially transform the remainder of Trump’s presidency through congressional investigations, subpoenas and impeachment proceedings.
His prediction is emphatic, although the eventual balance of power remains uncertain.
Control of the House would give Democrats substantial investigative authority, although the president would retain his executive powers. Removing him from office following impeachment would still require a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
Nevertheless, Lozynskyj believes the elections could fundamentally alter Washington’s political atmosphere.
“They will tie up Trump like never before,” he argues.
Cartwright raises a more disturbing possibility: could Trump manufacture an emergency to postpone an election or otherwise attempt to prolong his presidency?
“I think he could try, but I don’t believe that he will prevail,” Lozynskyj responds, expressing confidence that America’s constitutional institutions would ultimately resist such an attempt.
The exchange moves naturally towards the events of 6 January 2021, presidential immunity and the effectiveness of the checks and balances upon which the American constitutional system depends.
For Lozynskyj, whose public career has been closely associated with Ukrainian interests, the implications of Trump’s foreign policy are particularly troubling.
His central concern is that negotiations among Washington, Moscow and Beijing could revive the notion that major powers possess an informal entitlement to determine the political and territorial futures of their neighbours.
In his opinion piece, he raises the possibility that Ukraine and Taiwan could become bargaining instruments in a wider geopolitical settlement. These are his warnings about potential outcomes, not established agreements between the three governments.
Yet his criticism of Washington is accompanied by considerable appreciation for Europe’s role in sustaining Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion.
“Without Europe, Ukraine could never have survived as long as it has survived,” he tells Cartwright.
He also ventures into the British debate over European integration, arguing that the United Kingdom should return to the European Union.
It is an intervention likely to provoke disagreement, but it reflects his broader conviction that collective institutions provide an essential counterweight to unilateral political power.
The discussion also examines political unrest in Europe, changing national identities and the relationship between elected governments and the populations they represent.
Cartwright points to social tensions in European cities and the growing importance of regional identity, including the independence debate in Flanders.
Lozynskyj approaches these developments through the history of democratic protest, citing Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, the Revolution of Dignity and more recent demonstrations over the independence of anti-corruption institutions.
For him, public opposition to governments is not necessarily evidence of democracy’s failure. It can also demonstrate that political authority remains subject to popular consent.
The conversation concludes with international law, the International Criminal Court and the difficulty of enforcing common rules when powerful states refuse to accept external constraints.
Lozynskyj’s observations are deliberately provocative, and his forecasts will be tested by events. But the interview offers something more substantial than another exchange of opinions about Donald Trump.
It is a discussion about the relationship between power and restraint, the responsibilities of democratic institutions and the uncomfortable possibility that the international order may be entering another period in which military and economic strength increasingly determine political outcomes.
As the United States approaches its midterm elections and speculation continues over a possible meeting between Trump, Putin and Xi, those questions are unlikely to disappear.
The full conversation with Askold S. Lozynskyj is available in the video above.
As artificial intelligence technologies grow ever more powerful, so do the risks they pose and with them the urgency of regulating AI. In July 2026, OpenAI’s advanced models hacked into AI company Hugging Face’s systems during internal cybersecurity evaluations by communicating through unauthorized channels and working around safeguards developers had imposed on the models. In […]
The post How to regulate AI? Follow the harm appeared first on Asia Times.
Dear readers,
We are back with a new issue of the Secrecy Tracker – your regular update on what the EU institutions prefer to keep under wraps.
I am Alexander Fanta, a journalist with Follow the Money, who has struggled for years to gain access to EU documents. I wrote this newsletter with the help of EUobserver’s Nikolaj Nielsen and Pascal Hansens from Investigate Europe.
This newsletter is a collaboration between EUobserver, Follow the Money and Investigate Europe.
Media outlets, journalist associations and press freedom organisations have penned an open letter to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to voice their frustration about the recent deterioration in the EU’s freedom of information.
The letter, which was co-signed by the publishers of this newsletter – Follow the Money, EUobserver and Investigate Europe – urges the commission to end the silent crisis that has hampered journalists finding the documents they need to scrutinise matters of public importance – such as how the member states (mis-)spent billions of euros in post-Covid recovery funds, or how the commission hides its arms research cooperation with Israel.
The signatories of the letter include press lobby groups such as the International Federation of Journalists, but also some of the weightiest voices in investigative journalism – the International Consortium of Investigative Journalism and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
The letter asks the commission to address the excessive redactions and long delays journalists face when asking for documents under the EU’s freedom of information law, Regulation 1049/2001, as well as the Commission’s failure to keep crucial documents – think von der Leyen’s texts with Pfizer chief Albert Bourla.
Moreover, the commission should reverse a controversial change to its internal rules of procedure in 2024 which made access requests more difficult by limiting the definition of what is considered “a document”, and putting entire areas of the commission’s work – such as enforcement of its Big Tech laws – out of bounds from access requests.
The leading figure behind the letter, the Committee to Protect Journalists’ Tom Gibson, has asked von der Leyen’s cabinet for a meeting to discuss these issues, and seek improvements.
“The European Commission purports to uphold press freedom in Europe as well as through its external policy”, Gibson said. “Yet, in Brussels, we see that the European Commission is seeking to actually put obstacles in the way of creating an enabling environment for journalists who report on the institutions – in order, seemingly, to maintain an ability to control the official narrative.”
“This has to change otherwise the European Commission can be accused of double standards”, according to Gibson.
Last week, the European Ombudswoman, an administrative watchdog, launched a probe into EUobserver’s complaint against the European Commission. The Brussels-executive had refused to release 17 documents it has on how the EU spent money on bricks-and-mortar projects in Gaza.
We had first asked in February as part of an investigation that sought to get an idea to what extent the Israelis destroyed EU-funded infrastructure in the Strip. We were stonewalled, amid arguments there is no overriding public interest even though tens of thousands of people have been killed, triggering massive Europe-wide protests and flotillas. Our appeal went unanswered.
Now EU ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho is demanding, as a first step, a commission response to our appeal by November 4 latest. If the commission still fails to deliver, she will review the documents herself.
The secrecy surrounding data centres’ environmental footprint is coming under increasing scrutiny. In April, Investigate Europe broke the news, and reported in this newsletter, that a provision in a delegated act to the energy efficiency directive, which keeps key information of data centres environmental impact secret, likely violates transparency obligations under the Aarhus convention.
Now, Lighthouse Reports has published a story that they are formally challenging the law. Frustrated by facing repeated refusals from more than a dozen EU member states and the European Commission to access data on energy consumption by data centres across Europe, collected under the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED).
Lighthouse Reports decided last September to turn to the Aarhus Convention – a binding treaty aims to protect access to environmental information and is often used as a last resort solution – and its compliance committee to seek disclosure. Lighthouse Reports may face a long wait for a ruling though, as the process can take years.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE) has challenged the European Ombudsman’s authority to investigate its refusal to disclose past financial declarations of interests of its judges and advocates general, according to a decision published today by the EU’s transparency watchdog.
The dispute began after Investigate Europe reporters, while investigating judges’ currently declared financial interests, discovered that older declarations were no longer publicly available. The Court initially refused, arguing that those documents were judicial and not administrative ones, and therefore fell outside the rules on public access to documents.
Following our complaint to the ombudswoman and its subsequent decision to open an inquiry, the court eventually agreed to release the requested former declarations, but only upon request. So Teresa Anjinho closed the case, as she considered that the court remedied the problematic situation.
The ombudswoman firmly rejected the court’s interpretation: handling public access requests is an administrative activity, regardless of the nature of the documents concerned. She also called for greater clarity on how the court distinguished between judicial and administrative documents.
So a small victory for transparency, but a broader question remains: should the EU’s top court have such discretion over which of its own internal documents face public scrutiny?
A new guide promises to give journalists (and anyone else) an easy introduction into making freedom of information requests in 39 European countries and with the EU.
The first-of-its-kind compendium, curated and co-written by yours truly with the help of 45 journalists, academics and FOI advocates from around the continent and published by Arena for Journalism, answers practical questions such as “how can I appeal” and provides contacts who can help in each country.
Find the guide – free to use and share – under this link.
Login