Frozen and Convenience Food Market to grow by USD 468.9 Billion (2024-2028), driven by demand for vegan options; Report highlights AI-driven trends - Technavio
Alberta FOIP requests for review grow by one-third as contentious new legislation passes
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed likely Wednesday to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The justices' decision, not expected for several months, could affect similar laws enacted by another 25 states and a range of other efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which restrooms they can use. The case is being weighed by a conservative-dominated court after a presidential election in which Donald Trump and his allies promised to roll back protections for transgender people. The Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer warned a decision favorable to Tennessee also could be used to justify nationwide restrictions on transgender health care for minors. Supporters of transgender rights rally Wednesday outside the Supreme Court in Washington. In arguments that lasted more than two hours, five of the six conservative justices voiced varying degrees of skepticism over arguments made by the administration and Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer for Tennessee families challenging the ban. Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted in the majority in a 2020 case in favor of transgender rights, questioned whether judges, rather than lawmakers, should weigh in on a question of regulating medical procedures, an area usually left to the states. "The Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor," Roberts said in an exchange with Strangio. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in 2020, said nothing during the arguments. The court's three liberal justices seemed firmly on the side of the challengers, but it's not clear that any conservatives will go along. People attend a rally March 31, 2023, as part of a Transgender Day of Visibility, near the Capitol in Washington. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the assertion that the democratic process would be the best way to address objections to the law. She cited a history of laws discriminating against others, noting that transgender people make up less than 1% of the U.S. population, according to studies. There are an estimated 1.3 million adults and 300,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17 who identify as transgender, according the UCLA law school's Williams Institute. "Blacks were a much larger part of the population and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for whole centuries," Sotomayor said in an exchange with Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she saw some troubling parallels between arguments made by Tennessee and those advanced by Virginia and rejected by a unanimous court, in the 1967 Loving decision that legalized interracial marriage nationwide. Quoting from that decision, Jackson noted that Virginia argued then that "the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, the court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature." ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, left, and plaintiff Joaquin Carcano address reporters after a June 25, 2018, hearing in Winston-Salem, N.C., on their lawsuit challenging the law that replaced North Carolina's "bathroom bill." Justice Samuel Alito repeatedly pressed Strangio, the first openly transgender lawyer to argue at the nation's highest court, about whether transgender people should be legally designated as a group that's susceptible to discrimination. Strangio answered that being transgender does fit that legal definition, though he acknowledged under Alito's questioning there are a small number of people who de-transition. "So it's not an immutable characteristic, is it?" Alito said. Strangio did not retreat from his view, though he said the court did not have to decide the issue to resolve the case in his clients' favor. There were dueling rallies outside the court in the hours before the arguments. Speeches and music filled the air on the sidewalk below the court's marble steps. Advocates of the ban bore signs like "Champion God's Design" and "Kids Health Matters," while the other side proclaimed "Fight like a Mother for Trans Rights" and "Freedom to be Ourselves." Four years ago, the court ruled in favor of Aimee Stephens, who was fired by a Michigan funeral home after she informed its owner she was a transgender woman. The court held that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. The Biden administration and the families and health care providers who challenged the Tennessee law urged the justices to apply the same sort of analysis that the majority, made up of liberal and conservative justices, embraced in the case four years ago when it found that "sex plays an unmistakable role" in employers' decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate. Demonstrators against transgender rights protest Wednesday during a rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington. The issue in the Tennessee case is whether the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. Tennessee's law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, but allows the same drugs to be used for other purposes. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, called the law sex-based line drawing to ban the use of drugs that have been safely prescribed for decades and said the state "decided to completely override the views of the patients, the parents, the doctors." She contrasted the Tennessee law with one enacted by West Virginia, which set conditions for the health care for transgender minors, but stopped short of an outright ban. Gender-affirming care for youth is supported by every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association. For many trans and nonbinary people, bathrooms can be complicated places to navigate — a fact highlighted by the death of 16-year-old Nex Benedict in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is far from an outlier when it comes to failing to provide safe and equitable bathrooms for transgender people. According to the Movement Advancement Project, which tracks LGBTQ+ policy, 13 states have a policy that prevents transgender people from safely or legally using public bathrooms. But data shows that even in states with trans-friendly policies, transgender and nonbinary people report high rates of harassment in public bathrooms. Advocates say everyday people can have a big impact in interrupting discrimination in gendered restrooms. The 19th shows how anyone can help prevent abuse. Sex-segregated restrooms have historically been a hostile space for Tat Bellamy-Walker, a Seattle-based journalist and Black gender-fluid trans person. In graduate school and at journalism internships, they had to go far out of their way to find all-gender single-stall restrooms they could use safely. "You never forget being told you don't belong in a restroom, you never forget not having a place to dispose of sanitary products if you're on your period in the men's bathroom," Bellamy-Walker said. "It's just clear you do not belong in public spaces." Allies can help tremendously by locating and pointing out gender-neutral bathrooms to friends or family who might need them. This is especially important for people planning events or parties. Make sure your space has safe bathrooms. Carrie Soto, a South Dakota parent of a transgender child, said she lives by the mantra "see something, say something." That means speaking up when there is bullying and harassment and volunteering to accompany a trans/nonbinary friend or family member when they have to head into a public bathroom. "Validate a trans person's fears and anxiety about the situation," Soto said. " If [my daughter] uses a gendered restroom and feels anxious, I go with." It may seem obvious, but transgender health advocate Jamison Green notes this step can really help trans people feel safe. Consider first that according to 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey , 59 percent of trans people avoided using a public restroom due to fear of harassment. Data from 2022 found that 6 percent of trans people said they were physically or verbally attacked while trying to use a bathroom, while 4 percent were denied access to a bathroom. "If you see someone who you clock as trans or nonbinary, just smile or pay them a non-provocative compliment. ... Wish them good day or good evening, and move on," Green said. "Of course that only goes for the women's room! In the men's room, talking is extremely rare." Green recommends that cisgender people offer a kind, silent nod. Twenty-two states and Washington, D.C., allow residents to opt for "X" gender markers on their IDs in addition to selecting "M" or "F." Still, in every state, regardless of laws, most bathrooms in government buildings, schools, businesses, places of worship and cultural institutions are gendered. Advocates say people can help change this by simply asking businesses and building owners for more options to accommodate all genders. "Advocacy is the most important part of the fight for transgender rights," Lambda Legal notes in its guide to restrooms. "And if employers adopt pro-trans policies proactively, instead of waiting for a transgender person to pave the way, there's much less chance of having problems down the line." The internet is full of rants not appropriate for a news article about people using the only single-stall gender-neutral bathrooms available not for safety but for ... well, pooping. As a result, gender-neutral bathrooms, especially in airports, are almost always occupied. There are many reasons why a cisgender person might need a single-occupancy bathroom (accessibility, illness, child care and, yes, even a little more privacy). Just like accessible stalls, it's a kindness to leave gender-neutral restrooms unoccupied when you don't need them. Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.Axon, through its ISETEC fund, announces a strategic investment in Powercell AB, a European leader in fuel cell technologyBEST buses have caused 173 deaths in a decade
FIA cybercrime wing registers first case of fake news in Karachi The cybercrime Wing of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in Karachi has registered its first case related to spreading fake news. The case was filed under provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) for propagating false information during a PTI protest in November. The suspect nominated in the FIR has been identified as Said Ur Rehman, resident of Gulshan-e-Iqbal Block 1. However, no arrest has been made in connection with the case so far. The FIR stated that a report was received from a source regarding a Facebook account with the title, Saif Ur Rehman, that was involved in propoganda against the state and its institutes. The account owner was spreading fake news on real social media accounts and using derogatory language about the state. During the course of inquiry, the technical analysis of the alleged Twitter account of the same handler was done which revealed that the alleged account was active in propaganda against the state and its numerous posts were found to be anti-state. These posts included derogatory language and attempted to incite the public to harbour hatred against respectable institutions. From the facts and evidence collected, it was established that Said Ur Rehman was using the said Facebook account in the name of Saif ur Rehman and had tried to damage the image of Pakistan's respectable institutions by uploading fake news against them and such acts constituted the commission of offence punishable under the sections 9, 10 and 20 of Peca 2016 read with the Section 505 of the Pakistan Penal Code.First Nations leaders are split over next steps after a landmark $47.8-billion child welfare reform deal with Canada was struck down, prompting differing legal opinions from both sides. The Assembly of First Nations and a board member of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society have received competing legal opinions on potential ways forward. Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict says the chiefs he represents are still hoping the agreement that chiefs outside the province voted down two months ago is not moot. Chiefs in Ontario are interveners in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case that led to its realization. He added there are also concerns that some of the elements in the new negotiation mandate outlined by chiefs in an October assembly go beyond the current governance structure of the Assembly of First Nations. “There will have to be action by the Assembly of First Nations in the very near future to advance these positions, but you also need willing partners,” Benedict said. “We’re still considering what our options are.” Those options are also being debated in legal reviews commissioned by the Assembly of First Nations and a board member of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which are both parties to the human rights case, along with Nishnawbe Aski Nation. Khelsilem, a chairperson from the Squamish Nation who penned a resolution that defeated the deal in October, critiqued the stance of Ontario First Nations by saying they negotiated a “bad agreement” for First Nations outside the province and now that chiefs want to go back to the table for a better deal, they want to split from the process entirely. “It potentially undermines the collective unity of First Nations to achieve something that is going to benefit all of us,” he said. The $47.8-billion agreement was struck in July after decades of advocacy and litigation from First Nations and experts, seeking to redress discrimination against First Nations children who were torn from their families and placed in foster care. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said Canada’s underfunding was discriminatory because it meant kids living on reserve were given fewer services than those living off reserves, and tasked Canada with reaching an agreement with First Nations to reform the system. The agreement was meant to cover 10 years of funding for First Nations to take control of their own child welfare services from the federal government. Chiefs and service providers critiqued the deal for months, saying it didn’t go far enough to ensure an end to the discrimination. They have also blasted the federal government for what they say is its failure to consult with First Nations in negotiations, and for the exclusion of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which helped launched the initial human rights complaint. In October at a special chiefs assembly in Calgary, the deal was struck down through two resolutions. The Assembly of First Nations sought a legal review of those resolutions by Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP — a firm where the former national chief of the organization, Perry Bellegarde, works as a special adviser. In the legal review from Fasken, it appears as though the assembly asked for direction on how to get “rid” of two resolutions used to vote down the deal, with an employee of the firm saying they can review the resolutions together if they want them both gone, or they can “leave room for compromise” with one of the resolutions. In a statement, the Assembly of First Nations said the review was conducted to assess the legal, technical and operational aspects of the resolutions to ensure their “effective implementation.” “The opinions formed by external counsel are their own and do not reflect the views or positions of the AFN,” said Andrew Bisson, the chief executive officer, who added it’s not unusual for the organization to seek such reviews. Bisson did not address the language used by a Fasken employee to “get rid” of resolutions, but said “the legal and technical reviews were conducted in good faith, not to undermine the chiefs’ direction. The chiefs have provided clear direction, and the AFN is committed to following that direction.” The legal reviews from Fasken, dated Nov. 15, argue that the October resolutions on child welfare require a significant review of who voted for them, along with changes to the organization’s charter should they be implemented. Resolution 60 called for a rejection of the final settlement agreement, and for the establishment of a Children’s Chiefs Commission that will be representative of all regions and negotiate long-term reforms. It also called for the AFN’s executive committee to “unconditionally include” the Caring Society in negotiations. Fasken said that commission is contrary to the AFN’s charter, and the law, because the AFN’s executive committee doesn’t have the power to create one, and that the executive committee “alone” has the authority to execute mandates on behalf of the assembly. It adds there are no accountability measures for the new negotiation body, and that it will represent regions that are not participants in the AFN. Resolution 61, which built upon resolution 60, is similarly against the charter for the same reasons, the review says. As such, it says, the resolutions can’t be implemented. The firm also wrote that there were alleged conflicts of interest during the October vote, saying “numerous proxies were also employees, shareholders, directors, agents or otherwise had a vested interest” in the First Nations child and family service agencies whose interests were the subject of the resolutions. Chief Joe Miskokomon of Chippewas of the Thames First Nation in southwestern Ontario called that “political deception.” In response to that review, a board member of the Caring Society, which has been a vocal critic of the July deal, sought their own. The review penned by Aird Berlis for Mary Teegee and dated Dec. 2 stated it was “inappropriate for the AFN to seek, and not disclose, legal opinions which are then cited to attempt to second-guess decisions already made by the First Nations in Assembly.” It also states that while the AFN’s vice-president of strategic policy and integration, Amber Potts, raised concerns with the movers and seconders of the resolutions, the entirety of the legal opinion the assembly sought was not shared with them. Teegee’s review challenges that of the AFN’s by saying the resolutions are consistent with the AFN’s charter, and that nothing restricts First Nations in assembly from expressing their sovereign will by delegating authority to another entity. “AFN’s role and purpose at all times is to effect the sovereign will of First Nations, however it is expressed, on ‘any matter’ that they see fit,” the review from Aird Berlis reads. “It is too late to attempt to question the resolutions. They are now final.”
Star Australian golfer Cameron Smith introduced himself simply as “Cameron” as he shook hands with his playing partners Nick Voke and Ben Schmidt and their caddies on the first tee at Kingston Heath last Sunday morning at 7.22am. He was about to play the final round of the Australian Open, the last leg of a busy Australian tour in which he had played four tournaments in five weeks for three podium finishes – but no victory. Cam Smith finished runner-up in the Australian PGA and kept drawing big galleries despite being well off the pace in the Australian Open Credit: Getty Images He had played in Brisbane, Swan Hill and then Melbourne during a visit that brought the Australian summer of golf to life, giving it the necessary star factor to make the tour visible. A small crowd took photos of him as soon as he emerged from the Kingston Heath clubhouse in his LIV Golf team’s Ripper GC cap, customary final day maroon shirt and white pants. They watched him chat to his loyal caddy Sam Pinfold and hand the starstruck son of a security guard a golf glove from his bag as a memento. By the time Smith finished his round about four and a half hours later, the gallery watching his every move had swelled to at least a 1000 as he drew a huge roar when finishing the tournament with a birdie. All this was before the main contenders, Smith’s LIV teammate Lucas Herbert and unknown American Ryggs Johnston, had even teed off. With the mullet, a dynamite short game and a laid-back, polite Australian vibe that appeals to all generations, the 31-year-old attracted 20 times more spectators to his round than any other competitor every time he took to the fairways. “He’s a massive drawcard. He still had the biggest crowds out there,” former golf professional Ewan Porter said. Throw in a willingness to disrupt the old (and often older) order, which he showed when he joined LIV Golf just months after landing the 2022 British Open (to, it must be said, significant backlash) and you can see why recognition of his name has crossed over to non-golf fans. That box-office appeal has given him the potential to be the most influential voice in shaping the future of Australian golf. When Smith finally flew out of Melbourne that night, headed for Saudi Arabia after failing to land that elusive national title at his 10th consecutive attempt in what he described as “a long week”, he left golf administrators pondering a range of questions they are finding hard to answer. Working together (from left) Gavin Kirkman, CEO, PGA of Australia; Karen Lunn, CEO, WPGA Tour Australasia; and James Sutherland, CEO of Golf Australia. Credit: Courtesy WPGA Tour of Australasia Smith had spoken out against the way Kingston Heath had been prepared in a thinly veiled criticism of the dual format where men and women play in the tournament at the same time. He also wondered aloud to at least one source, who preferred to remain anonymous, at how difficult it had become for Australia’s best golfers to make their way to the world tour despite participation rates being high. Not only does his status, alongside Adam Scott, Jason Day and Min Woo Lee as one of the country’s best male golfers, give him credibility on such issues. But he has also supported the Australian tour with his presence in the past decade. His logic on the dual format was backed too by star Australian golfer Hannah Green who said in an ideal world the women’s event would be held in February. Smith had also just done hard yards to support the state titles, heading to Murray Downs to play in the NSW Open, a moment former professional Mike Clayton said was “like the Beatles going to Swan Hill”. Smith’s headline-grabbing comments resonated enough to eventually force a response from Golf Australia CEO James Sutherland, who said that it was “not that easy” to separate the men and women’s competition, as the women’s tournament lost money, and attempted to explain the professional golfing labyrinth and the issues facing Australian golf. Different directions According to two sources who preferred to remain anonymous, Smith has a view that Australian golf would be well-advised to leverage off LIV and develop an alliance with the International Series played on the Asian Tour to provide a lucrative pathway for young Australian golfers. Australia’s Ripper GC team of (left to right) Marc Leishman, Lucas Herbert, Cameron Smith and Matt Jones celebrate their teams win at LIV Golf Adelaide. Credit: Getty That’s impossible for Australian golf right now. The Australian PGA has a strategic alliance with the DP World Tour (the European tour) until 2026 that connects to the American circuit, which they put in place before LIV Golf emerged. They also have the “Australian Golfing Strategy”, which has a range of objectives including taking advantage of the participation increase that started during the COVID-19 pandemic – reversing a constant decline over the previous 20 years – increasing female participation and breaking down some of the perceptions around golf that made many Australians see it as pale, male and stale – and inaccessible. British Open champion, respected golf commentator and chair of the Australian PGA Ian Baker-Finch is a fan of Smith’s as well as being well aware of Australia’s golfing landscapes. He respects Smith’s support for Australian golf and its emerging golfers, which includes an academy for young Australian golfers at his home in Jacksonville, where they learn about what is required to make it in the extraordinarily competitive world of professional golf (a former recipient was this year’s Australian PGA winner Elvis Smylie). “I can’t say anything bad about him,” Baker-Finch said. “He is giving back. He offers opportunities to junior golfers through his charitable endeavours himself ... I like what Cam is doing. I am a big fan.” But there is a caveat that echoes Sutherland’s thoughts – “it’s not that easy” to execute a strategy that pleases everyone. “Golf Australia and our PGA are trying to create pathways, put money into junior golf, create more and more opportunities ... we have 300 or more Australian PGA Tour members, men and women. We have to look after pathways for 300, not just one or two to make their way on to LIV. The Australian PGA Tour’s [objective] is to get as many of our players as possible on to the other world tours to improve their play, improve their position, to get them to play for more money.” The LIV Golf Tournament is huge for spectators but it only includes four Australian golfers. Australian golf officials need to cater for the broader game. Credit: Getty Because the broadcast revenue some other sports command is not there for golf, the sport has to rely on commercial partners who rely, in turn, on broadcast for exposure. It means the PGA has to invest in getting coverage of tournaments through Foxtel, with many, including this week’s low-profile Victorian PGA event at Moonah Links, available on Kayo. But without any big drawcards playing in those tournaments, the broad interest in the results is minimal. The Smith impact Smith, on the other hand, is key to keeping the game on the front and back pages in summer. He knows it and so does Golf Australia. Sutherland was keen to emphasise last week that the players “are the stars of the show”. “The last time we saw anything like it was when Greg Norman was in his halcyon days when he was world No.1 and would come back and play,” Porter said. “People like Cam. Kids find him very relatable, there were real or fake mullets supporting him and I saw Ripper GC merch everywhere. His presence has been great for the grassroots.” Smith’s genuine desire to help Australian golf has been overshadowed for some because LIV Golf is funded by Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund. There has been ongoing controversy surrounding LIV Golf’s emergence and the challenge it laid down to the hegemony of America’s PGA Tour. Smith leads an All-Australian LIV Golf team called Ripper Golf Club that includes Marc Leishman, Lucas Herbert and Matt Jones, who won the team’s title in 2024. In some ways, the foursome is golf’s Kelly gang. “The notion they don’t care is garbage,” Porter said. The team now has a new managing director in Nick Adams and hopes to set up a high-performance centre in Brisbane. Smith’s presence ensures Australia will not be forgotten by the LIV hierarchy, which is about to announce a Scott O’Neil as Norman’s replacement as CEO. Possible paths for Australian golf “I think our tour needs to look to LIV,” Porter said. “It needs to look to Asia. When you do that you get the funding behind it to potentially do something more impactful than what we have now. But I think the tour has done a really good job since COVID to increase the playing opportunities for our players and increase the pathways, which we have seen David Micheluzzi [the 2022-23 Order of Merit winner] take advantage of in Europe. “It has all been beneficial, but it would grow exponentially if they were to align themselves with LIV and Ripper GC.” David Micheluzzi played in this week’s Victorian PGA after playing on the DP World Tour. Credit: Getty Images A pragmatic Baker-Finch says the two strands can co-exist in Australian golf for now as LIV and PGA of America merger talks (DP World Tour is a party to those discussions) continue at snail’s pace. He stands firm behind the need for Australian officials to take a broad view and would like to see LIV Golf “give back a bit more through junior golf” although he has no philosophical objection to the roadshow. “I actually am one to think there is a place for LIV. I am OK with LIV being a Formula 1 tour and travelling around the world 14 weeks a year,” Baker-Finch said. “If the Australian players want to go and try out for LIV or try our for the International Series, that is fine go have a game, but we can’t align with the tour that is against our principles of supplying opportunities to as many players as possible. “I love the fact they [Ripper Golf Club players] come home and play here if there is no tournament on or in the LIV tournament. We want to welcome them back.” Welcomed back they are by local fans. Smith felt the support of Australian crowds who don’t care for the debates. They just want to see players as quietly charismatic as Smith, who wows crowds when he fires golf balls off tees like Exocet missiles, as he did in the past five weeks. What became clear in the past month is that Smith is the most valuable asset in Australian golf right now. His second in the Saudi International on Saturday after a play-off confirmed his status among the world’s best. That he wants to strengthen Australian golf is clear, but his satisfaction with its direction can’t be taken for granted. Getting the decision right on the format and locations of the country’s biggest tournaments next summer is vital and will play a part in whether Smith and the equally supportive Scott return next year. Smith made his point but left the door open to be back as he has every year since 2012 – bar during COVID-19 when the tournament was cancelled – to play in the Australian Open. “It’s nice to be back to support those [tournaments] and give back ... hopefully I can keep doing it in the future,” Smith said. News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter .NEPSE declines by 45 points, life insurance sector takes biggest hit