Thousands of Moroccans denounce Trump in Rabat protest Algerian Policemen Protest to Demand Better Working Conditions A dead dolphin is seen on a boat as it is brought to the marine fish farm of Mahebourg, Mauritius August 28, 2020. REUTERS/Reuben Pillay NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVES A dead dolphin is seen on a boat as it is brought to the marine fish farm of Mahebourg, Mauritius August 28, 2020. REUTERS/Reuben Pilla Thousands of protesters demonstrated in the Mauritius capital Port Louis on Saturday to demand an investigation into an oil spill from a Japanese ship and the mysterious death of at least 40 dolphins that have been found near the site of the spill.Environmentalists have called for an investigation into whether the dolphins died as a result of the spill caused when the bulk carrier, the MV Wakashio, struck a coral reef last month.One protestor held a banner with a dolphin covered in oil reading “our lives matter” and another held one calling for the government to resign. Mauritian flags were waved across the packed square of St Louis Cathedral.“We do not trust the government and the diluted information they’ve been feeding us regarding the management and responses to the oil spill,” Fabiola Monty, 33 a Mauritian environmental scientist, told Reuters from the square.The government has said it will carry out autopsies on all the dead dolphins and has set up a commission to look into the oil spill. Two investigations are being carried out: one by the police on the crew’s responsibilities and one by a senior Shipping Ministry official on what happened to the ship.So far veterinarians have examined only two of the mammals’ carcasses, which bore signs of injury but no trace of oil in their bodies, according to preliminary autopsy results.The autopsy on the first two was conducted by the government-run Albion Fisheries Research Centre.Autopsy results on 25 dolphins that washed ashore Wednesday and Thursday are expected in the coming days, according to Jasvin Sok Appadu from the Fisheries Ministry.Local environmental group Eco-Sud, which took part in Saturday’s protest, said in a statement on Friday that representatives from civil society should be present during the autopsies and called for a second opinion from independent specialists.Related ‘Heartwrenching’: at least 40 dolphins dead near Mauritius oil spill
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendly分享Members of the Alaska Senate Majority offered a path to end cash tax payments to oil and gas companies. Senate President Pete Kelly, R-Fairbanks: “We believe it is urgent to pass legislation ending these cash payments. The state will bleed at least one million dollars per day between now and the end of the year – that could pay for seven troopers for an entire year – unless we act now.” With little more than two weeks remaining in the second special session called by Gov. Bill Walker, Senators are urging their colleagues in the Alaska House to come to the table and end a program both sides agree the state can no longer afford. Sen. Giessel: “The Senate is prepared with a proposal to move forward on, reach compromise, and end cash payments, today. We are calling on the House to join us and take action. We can and must do our job, now.” The provision would mean that 100 percent of losses incurred on a lease stay with that lease until it enters production. Then, the losses could be applied against the taxpayer’s overall segment (North Slope or Cook Inlet). As a result, the state will, essentially, require production before allowing loss deductions. Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, chair of the Senate Resources Committee: “Under this proposal, the state will stop offering cash payments for credits beginning July 1, 2017. We must stop this cash bleed. It will save us at least $200 million between now and Dec. 31 – possibly more.” The Senate passed a bill to end cash payments to oil and gas companies on May 15, but the House failed to concur. In an effort to strike compromise, the Senate adopted several changes, including a provision to enact “100 percent ring-fencing.”
…on the elections brouhahaToday, the CCJ has a “Case Management Conference” to indicate to the PPP and the Govt the timelines for their submissions in the appointment of the GECOM chair appeal. This comes in the midst of the latest political brouhaha which also landed into the CCJ’s lap. This emphasizes that we’ve chosen the CCJ as our final court of appeal on even our domestic legal problems.Of the 15 Caricom members, only Barbados, Belize and we’ve done this. The rest retained the British Privy Council for their final appeals! Our political leaders from both sides of the divide were more “West Indians” than Jamaica and Trinidad, and insisted that Judges from countries that weren’t even CCJ members judge us!! There are no Guyanese on the CCJ bench right now.The argument was that “local” legal minds would be more attuned to our local idiosyncrasies, and consequently be able to apply the law in a more nuanced fashion. Not everyone, including the eminent and recently departed distinguished legal scholar Fenton Ramsahoye, was so convinced. It’s been pointed out that in such small territories, where there are all sorts of local connections and intersecting interests, the Justices may have “skin in the game” and consequently give decisions based not on the law, but on their personal inclinations.“Textualists” hold that judges should just “apply the law as written”, while “originalists” insist they should also hark to the “intent” of the framers – the “spirit” of the law. “Realists”, on the other hand, accept that judges invariably have personal perspectives, and should therefore state “where they’re coming from”. For instance, they could be looking at the consequences of their decision in light of changed conditions. And your Eyewitness has barely scratched the surface of the tools – such as precedents – of judicial decision making!!So, dear reader, you can begin to understand that when judges give their rulings, it could go in any direction!!So, on the GECOM Chair ruling, which tool might best be used? Well, the insertion of Art 161 (2) was only done just before the 1992 elections. The text is pretty clear, and we know for sure the intent was to impose some sort of “give and take” in the appointment, between the President and the Opposition Leader. Was this achieved? When the President rejected all three lists, could he act unilaterally and still satisfy the text?What are the Judges “personal inclinations”??…on majorities (again!)With the above background on judicial thinking, maybe we can figure out what went down in our courts, and what might be ahead in the CCJ on the NCM vote?? Let’s start with Art 106 (6): “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.” Now you can’t get clearer text than this, can you??What was the intent of the framers when they inserted the Article in 2001?? Well, we’d inherited a similar one from the British in our Independence Constitution in 1966, but Burnham removed it in his 1980 Constitution. Introduced in 2000, the intent was that governments must show they’ve retained their democratic credentials after being elected.The word “majority” in and of itself always meant “the greater portion”, and an odd number of seats was chosen over the years (1961 to 1980, 53 seats; since 65 seats) to prevent a tie by having “1” as the tiebreaker to give “the greater portion than all others”. The formula is 65-1 divided by 2 = 32 +1 = 33!! No need for half bodies!!The redundant adjective “absolute” was introduced to muddy the waters and produce a “preconceived” result!…on these mega sentencesOK…your Eyewitness accepts that some crimes are beyond reprehensible. But what’s the point of these 100-year sentences being doled out nowadays?Especially when they’re now being routinely appealed and reduced?? Spinning wheels?