Independent candidates Kennedy and Stein challenge exclusion from US presidential debates

Third-party candidates in past elections have been included in presidential debates under the guidelines of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Above, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at the Libertarian National Convention at the Washington Hilton in Washington, DC on May 24, 2024. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 24 June 2024
Follow

Independent candidates Kennedy and Stein challenge exclusion from US presidential debates

  • CNN and ABC News will circumvent the Commission on Presidential Debates to host their own one-on-one debates

CHICAGO: Third-party candidates for president, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Jill Stein, filed federal complaints this week alleging that they were being unfairly excluded from media debates hosted by CNN and ABC News between US President Joe Biden and former president, Donald Trump.

CNN and ABC News will circumvent the Commission on Presidential Debates, which imposes ground rules to ensure debates are conducted fairly for all qualifying candidates, to host their own one-on-one debates. The CNN debate is scheduled for Thursday, June 27, and the ABC debate is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 10.

The presidential election is on Nov. 5, and although Kennedy and Stein are excluded from the media debates, they have filed enough signatures to be accepted on a majority of state ballots and expect to meet upcoming deadlines to file to appear on all 50 state ballots.

Stein filed a formal complaint with the US Federal Election Commission on June 19, while Kennedy filed an FEC complaint on May 28; both arguing no candidates had been certified to be included on any state ballots yet, and that they were victims of partisan political bias.

“The media’s job is to impartially inform the voters about all the choices on their ballot, but what CNN is doing is a coordinated communication and prohibited corporate contribution to benefit two candidates to the exclusion of all others,” Stein said in a statement sent to Arab News.

“The (CNN) debate is far from independent, having been actively negotiated by the Biden Committee, the Trump Committee, and representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties for the purpose of ensuring that all independent and third-party candidates are excluded and denied an opportunity for consideration by the voting public.”

Both Biden and Trump believe Kennedy and other independent candidates could play spoilers in what many believe will be a close contest between the two major party contenders.

The FEC complaint argues CNN, Biden and Trump “flagrantly violated a federal law” that requires media broadcasters to use “pre-established” and “objective” criteria to determine candidate participation in debates. Failure to use objective criteria makes the CNN and ABC debates “campaign contributions,” which are subject to strict financial and cost donation limits, Kennedy said in a statement sent to Arab News.

“Presidents Biden and Trump do not want me on the debate stage and CNN illegally agreed to their demand,” Kennedy said.

“My exclusion by Presidents Biden and Trump from the debate is undemocratic, un-American, and cowardly. Americans want an independent leader who will break apart the two-party duopoly. They want a President who will heal the divide, restore the middle class, unwind the war machine, and end the chronic disease epidemic.”

Kennedy received support from former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, who said: “If the American people could hear what all three candidates had to say about the critical issues facing our country, the choice between these three men would be clear.”

Third-party candidates in past elections have been included in presidential debates under the guidelines of the Commission on Presidential Debates, formed in 1987 “to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates between or among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States are a permanent part of the electoral process.”

Third-party candidates could siphon off votes and prevent one or both major party candidates from winning enough votes in many states to become president. A candidate must win a majority of votes in each of the 50 states to take the Electoral College votes in each state, which vary by state population size. A candidate must receive 270 EC votes to win the presidency.

Kennedy argues in his statement that CNN’s published debate criteria requires that “a candidate’s name must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 Electoral (Electoral College) Vote threshold. CNN is holding Kennedy to this requirement but is not requiring Presidents Biden and Trump to meet this requirement by claiming they are each the ‘presumptive nominee’ of a political party.”

Kennedy’s campaign claimed that they had satisfied the requirements to appear on the ballot in 22 states, with a combined 310 electoral votes, although it is months away from states confirming any of the candidate’s ballot placement. California, for example, which has 54 EC Votes, will not certify any candidates until Aug. 29, raising questions about the media’s EC Vote rule.

Technically, although Biden and Trump are the presumptive nominees for their political parties, they will not become official candidates on state ballots until after their nominations are confirmed at the conventions. The Republican Convention begins July 18 in Milwaukee and the Democratic Convention begins August 19 in Chicago.

Stein also accused CNN of “collusion” with the Trump and Biden campaigns, arguing the media outlet used biased polling that “intentionally marginalize candidates other than Biden and Trump” by framing the election as an exclusive two-candidate affair and marginalizing her, and others, to prevent them from receiving a minimum 15 percent polling favorability.

“The poll cited by CNN as its standard mentions Trump 169 times and Biden 146 times, but mentions Jill Stein, Kennedy, and Cornel West only once, suppressing support for candidates outside the two-party system by design,” Stein said.

Neither CNN nor ABC News officials organizing the debates responded to requests for comment, but CNN officials were quoted by Associated Press arguing that the Kennedy FEC complaint lacks merit.

Biden and Trump will not have a live audience during their debate on Thursday, and their microphones will be muted when the other speaks to prevent interruptions. Journalists and campaign supporters will be seated in alternative halls.


New bill seeks to amend law on Muslim land management in India 

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

New bill seeks to amend law on Muslim land management in India 

  • India has one of the largest number of waqf assets in the world, valued at around $14.2bn
  • Waqf tradition in India can be traced back to the Delhi Sultanate period in the 13th century 

NEW DELHI: The Indian government tabled on Wednesday a bill in parliament aimed at making sweeping changes to the decades-old Waqf Act, which governs vast tracts of properties run and managed by Muslims in the country. 

With over 200 million Indians professing Islam, Hindu-majority India has the world’s largest Muslim-minority population.

The country has one of the largest numbers of waqf assets in the world, including over 870,000 properties spanning more than 900,000 hectares, with an estimated value of about $14.2 billion. Domestically, only the military and railways control more land. 

In Islamic tradition, a waqf is a charitable or religious donation made by Muslims for the benefit of the community. Properties categorized as waqf, which typically involve mosques, schools, orphanages or hospitals, cannot be sold or used for other purposes.

In India, where the tradition of waqf can be traced back to the Delhi Sultanate period in the early 13th century, such properties are currently managed by about 30 government-established waqf boards, whose members are all Muslims. 

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, proposes more than 40 changes to the 1995 Waqf Act aimed at shifting the management of waqf properties from the boards to state governments, including the inclusion of non-Muslim members. 

“The government is not interfering in any religious practice or institution. There is no provision in this to interfere in the management of any mosque. This is simply an issue of management of a property,” Minister of Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju, who tabled the bill, said during a parliament session on Wednesday. 

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which works to safeguard Islamic law in the country, said the bill could weaken waqf properties and their management. 

“I think this bill has been brought with an intention to destroy the waqf board, not to improve it. The new law is very weak and aimed at attacking waqf properties,” board member Malik Mohtasim Khan told Arab News. 

“They want to make a waqf law which is free from the influence of Muslims. I feel that their main aim is to make Muslims a second-class citizen.” 

Indian Muslims have faced increasing discrimination and challenges in the past decade, accompanied by tensions and riots ignited by majoritarian policies of the Hindu right-wing BJP since it rose to power in 2014.

“They want to weaken Muslims’ rights in India,” Khan said. “The existing government has created such an atmosphere that there is no respect for parliamentary values and judicial values are also getting diluted. Today the Muslim community is being pushed to the margins. This is a lived reality.” 

 The bill’s fate will be decided with a vote by the ruling alliance and opposition lawmakers in the lower house, before it moves to the upper house for another debate and voting. If approved by both houses of parliament, it will be sent to President Droupadi Murmu for her assent before becoming law. 

 Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, a New Delhi-based author and political analyst who has focused on Hindu nationalist politics, described the bill as an “unfortunate development,” referring to the way it was prepared without proper consultations with Indian Muslims. 

 “I’m deeply disturbed by the manner in which this government is going about enacting the waqf bill in complete disregard of the sentiment of the Muslim community and their representatives,” he told Arab News. 

 “The only message which this government is repeatedly making — because that is the only thing which is going to continue to keep its electoral support — is that ‘we are tightening the screws on the Muslims; we are forcing them to act as the majority community wants.’”
 


Hungary must arrest Netanyahu during visit, HRW says

Updated 47 min 4 sec ago
Follow

Hungary must arrest Netanyahu during visit, HRW says

  • Israeli leader expected to travel to country today at invitation of PM Viktor Orban
  • Netanyahu is subject of an ICC arrest warrant relating to war crimes in Gaza

LONDON: Hungary must deny entry to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or arrest him during his planned visit to the country today, Human Rights Watch has said.

The appeal came a day after Amnesty International urged Hungary to arrest the Israeli leader, the subject of an International Criminal Court warrant.

Netanyahu is traveling to the EU country at the invitation of Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister.

The ICC’s warrant for his arrest, which was issued on Nov. 21 last year, relates to allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip, including starving civilians, murder and persecution.

HRW has documented a litany of abuses and war crimes carried out by the Israeli military in Gaza.

Liz Evenson, the organization’s international justice director, said: “Orban’s invitation to Netanyahu is an affront to victims of serious crimes.

“Hungary should comply with its legal obligations as a party to the ICC and arrest Netanyahu if he sets foot in the country.”

The EU state is a member country of the ICC, and therefore obligated to secure the arrest of any suspects on its territory.

The ICC lacks a police force or enforcement protocol, and relies on member states to enact its mandate.

Several EU member states have said they will refuse to enforce the arrest warrant against Netanyahu, in what HRW described as “regrettable” decisions.

These include France, Poland, Italy and Germany.

All ICC members must uphold their obligations to the court’s treaty, the Rome Statute, HRW said, urging the EU’s leadership to call on Hungary to arrest Netanyahu.

When the Israeli leader’s arrest warrant was issued, Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto described the decision as “shameful, absurd and unacceptable.”

The country also announced a “review” of its relations with the ICC following US President Donald Trump’s decision to authorize the use of sanctions against the court’s officials in the wake of the Netanyahu warrant.

Evenson said: “Allowing Netanyahu’s visit in breach of Hungary’s ICC obligations would be Orban’s latest assault on the rule of law, adding to the country’s dismal record on rights.

“All ICC member countries need to make clear they expect Hungary to abide by its obligations to the court, and that they will do the same.”


New Indian bill seeks to amend law on Muslim land management

Updated 02 April 2025
Follow

New Indian bill seeks to amend law on Muslim land management

  • India has one of the largest numbers of waqf assets in the world, valued at around $14.2bn
  • Waqf tradition in India can be traced back to the Delhi Sultanate period in the 13th century  

NEW DELHI: The Indian government tabled on Wednesday a bill in parliament aimed at making sweeping changes to the decades-old Waqf Act, which governs vast tracts of properties run and managed by Muslims in the country. 
With over 200 million Indians professing Islam, Hindu-majority India has the world’s largest Muslim-minority population.
The country has one of the largest numbers of waqf assets in the world, including over 870,000 properties spanning more than 900,000 hectares, with an estimated value of about $14.2 billion. Domestically, only the military and railways control more land.  
In Islamic tradition, a waqf is a charitable or religious donation made by Muslims for the benefit of the community. Properties categorized as waqf, which typically involve mosques, schools, orphanages or hospitals, cannot be sold or used for other purposes.
In India, where the tradition of waqf can be traced back to the Delhi Sultanate period in the early 13th century, such properties are currently managed by about 30 government-established waqf boards, whose members are all Muslims.  
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, proposes more than 40 changes to the 1995 Waqf Act aimed at shifting the management of waqf properties from the boards to state governments, including the inclusion of non-Muslim members. 
“The government is not interfering in any religious practice or institution. There is no provision in this to interfere in the management of any mosque. This is simply an issue of management of a property,” Minister of Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju, who tabled the bill, said during a parliament session on Wednesday. 
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which works to safeguard Islamic law in the country, said the bill could weaken waqf properties and their management. 
“I think this bill has been brought with an intention to destroy the waqf board, not to improve it. The new law is very weak and aimed at attacking waqf properties,” board member Malik Mohtasim Khan told Arab News. 
“They want to make a waqf law which is free from the influence of Muslims. I feel that their main aim is to make Muslims a second-class citizen.” 
Indian Muslims have faced increasing discrimination and challenges in the past decade, accompanied by tensions and riots ignited by majoritarian policies of the Hindu right-wing BJP since it rose to power in 2014.
“They want to weaken Muslims’ rights in India,” Khan said. “The existing government has created such an atmosphere that there is no respect for parliamentary values and judicial values are also getting diluted. Today the Muslim community is being pushed to the margins. This is a lived reality.” 
 The bill’s fate will be decided with a vote by the ruling alliance and opposition lawmakers in the lower house, before it moves to the upper house for another debate and voting. If approved by both houses of parliament, it will be sent to President Droupadi Murmu for her assent before becoming law. 
 Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, a New Delhi-based author and political analyst who has focused on Hindu nationalist politics, described the bill as an “unfortunate development,” referring to the way it was prepared without proper consultations with Indian Muslims.   
 “I’m deeply disturbed by the manner in which this government is going about enacting the waqf bill in complete disregard of the sentiment of the Muslim community and their representatives,” he told Arab News. 
 “The only message which this government is repeatedly making — because that is the only thing which is going to continue to keep its electoral support — is that ‘we are tightening the screws on the Muslims; we are forcing them to act as the majority community wants.’”


India’s parliament set to debate controversial law on Muslim endowments

Updated 02 April 2025
Follow

India’s parliament set to debate controversial law on Muslim endowments

  • The bill would add non-Muslims to boards that manage waqf land endowments and give the government a larger role in validating their land holdings
  • The government says the changes will help to fight corruption and mismanagement while promoting diversity

SRINAGAR, India: India‘s parliament on Wednesday began discussing a controversial proposal by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government to amend laws governing Muslim land endowments in the country.
The bill would add non-Muslims to boards that manage waqf land endowments and give the government a larger role in validating their land holdings.
The government says the changes will help to fight corruption and mismanagement while promoting diversity, but critics fear that it will further undermine the rights of the country’s Muslim minority and could be used to confiscate historic mosques and other property from them.
Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju introduced the Waqf Amendment Bill on Wednesday, which would reform a 1995 law that set rules for the foundations and set up state-level boards to administer them.
Debate in the parliament’s Lower House is expected to be heated as the Congress-led opposition is firmly against the proposal. Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party does not have a majority but may be able to depends on allies to pass the bill. Both BJP and the Congress have asked their lawmakers to be present in the House.
If passed, the bill will need to clear the Upper House before it is sent to President Droupadi Murmu for her assent to become a law.
Many Muslim groups as well as the opposition parties say the proposal is discriminatory, politically motivated and an attempt by Modi’s ruling party to weaken the minority rights.
The controversial bill was first introduced in parliament last year, but was later sent to a committee of lawmakers for discussion after opposition parties raised concerns. The committee’s report was tabled in both houses of parliament on Feb. 13 amid protests by opposition leaders who said that their inputs were ignored. The government claims that opposition parties are using rumors to discredit them and block transparency in managing the endowments.
What’s a waqf?
Waqfs are a traditional type of Islamic charitable foundation in which a donor permanently sets aside property — often but not always real estate — for religious or charitable purposes.
Waqfs in India control 872,000 properties that cover 405,000 hectares (1 million acres) of land, worth an estimated $14.22 billion. Some of these endowments date back centuries, and many are used for mosques, seminaries, graveyards and orphanages.
Law would change who runs waqfs
In India, waqf property is managed by semi-official boards, one for each of the country’s states and federally-run union territories. The law would require non-Muslims to be appointed to the boards.
Currently, waqf boards are staffed by Muslims, like similar bodies that help administer other religious charities.
One of the most controversial amendments is the change to ownership rules, which potentially could impact historical mosques, shrines and graveyards under the waqf. It could change the ownership rules of many of these properties which lack formal documentation as they were donated without legal records decades, and sometimes, even centuries ago.
Questions about title
Other changes could impact historic mosques, whose land is often held in centuries-old waqfs.
Hindu radical groups have targeted mosques across the country and laid claim to several of them, arguing they are built on the ruins of important Hindu temples. Many such cases are pending in courts.
The law would require waqf boards to seek approval from a district level officer to confirm waqfs’ claims to property.
Critics say that would undermine the board and could lead to Muslims being stripped of their land. It’s not clear how often the boards would be asked to confirm such claims to land.
Fears among Muslims
While many Muslims agree that waqfs suffer from corruption, encroachments and poor management, they also fear that the new law could give India’s Hindu nationalist government far greater control over Muslim properties, particularly at a time when attacks against the minority communities have become more aggressive under Modi, with Muslims often targeted for everything from their food and clothing styles to inter-religious marriages.
Last month, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom said in its annual report that religious freedom conditions in India continued to deteriorate while Modi and his party “propagated hateful rhetoric and disinformation against Muslims and other religious minorities” during last year’s election campaign.
Modi’s government says India is run on democratic principles of equality and no discrimination exists in the country.
Muslims, which make 14 percent of India’s 1.4 billion population, are the largest minority group in the Hindu-majority nation but they are also the poorest, a 2013 government survey found.


UK baby killer Letby’s lawyer to present new evidence in bid to clear her name

Updated 02 April 2025
Follow

UK baby killer Letby’s lawyer to present new evidence in bid to clear her name

  • “The fresh evidence I will hand in to the CCRC tomorrow totally undermines the prosecution case at trial,” McDonald said
  • The CCRC has said it is assessing Letby’s application but has not given a timeframe for any decision

LONDON: A lawyer for nurse Lucy Letby said he would present new evidence on Thursday to the commission which considers miscarriages of justice, saying it undermined the case against the British nurse convicted of murdering seven babies in her care.
Letby was jailed in 2023 for the remainder of her life after being found guilty of murdering the newborns and attempting to murder eight more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital in northern England.
Letby, 35, Britain’s worst serial child killer of modern times, has maintained her innocence throughout but has been refused permission to appeal against her convictions.
However her case has become a cause celebre after medical experts, media and other supporters challenged the prosecution case used to convict her, and said that evidence suggested no babies were murdered.
Her lawyer Mark McDonald said on Wednesday he would hand over an 86-page report by leading medical specialists to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), saying it cast serious doubt on the trial’s key findings about two of the children, known as Babies F and L.
The court’s conclusion that the babies were poisoned using insulin was key to the prosecution proving she had committed murder.
“The fresh evidence I will hand in to the CCRC tomorrow totally undermines the prosecution case at trial,” McDonald said. “This is the largest international review of neonatal medicine ever undertaken, the results of which show Lucy Letby’s convictions are no longer safe.”
The CCRC has said it is assessing Letby’s application but has not given a timeframe for any decision.
Meanwhile police are still investigating Letby and hospital managers, saying her previous appeals about flawed evidence have been rejected. The head of a public inquiry into the deaths has also rejected calls for her investigation to be paused.