Latest news with #Barrett
Irish Daily Mirror
8 hours ago
- Sport
- Irish Daily Mirror
Shelbourne's Paddy Barrett on why he loves the ugly side of the beautiful game
Paddy Barrett reckons there is something beautiful about the ugly side of the game. And if tapping into those values helps Shelbourne get back into the title race, and through their Champions League showdown with Linfield, he will gladly take it. The powerhouse centre-back has made a timely return to the champions' starting XI after missing 12 games in-a-row with a torn quad muscle. The true extent of the injury was kept under wraps by Shels, with Barrett now revealing that he expected to be out of action for at least four months. But he is back ahead of schedule having started the last two games, and made his presence felt with a no-nonsense defensive display against St Pat's on Monday. Shels dominated the first-half at Richmond Park and took the lead through Ali Coote but they were second best throughout the second-half, with St Pat's the dominant side. Yet the Saints ultimately failed to capitalise as the Barrett-led Shels rearguard defended manfully to protect their lead and secure just a third win in 12 games. Damien Duff's charges are 12-points behind leaders Shamrock Rovers and retaining the league title looks an extremely tall order, right now. But ahead of a hectic schedule of domestic and European games, Barrett feels a return to some old-fashioned values will stand to the reigning champions. Barrett said: 'In recent weeks and months we haven't had that side to us, that dirty side. Not the dirty side, I keep on saying the dirty side, but it's a beautiful side. I love it, but I feel like we lost that. We went away from it, so to show that side again was the most pleasing thing about Monday. Click this link or scan the QR code to receive the latest League of Ireland news and top stories from the Irish Mirror. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'I think that's why results haven't been going our way. We've been conceding sloppy goals, individual mistakes, collective mistakes. That's not us. We grind out results when we need to. And we did that on Monday, and hopefully going forward we can keep on showing that side when it's needed. It was about showing we have that doggedness about us and that we have each other's back.' Waterford man Barrett, 31, continued: 'That was a big part of us winning the league last year - that side of football. It's not pretty, but it's needed.' Barrett also won two league titles at Dundalk under Stephen Kenny, so he has a good handle on what's required from a team to go all the way. That 12-point gap to Shamrock Rovers is a gaping one and that's why last Friday's home defeat to the Hoops cut so deep. Barrett said: 'Look, Shamrock Rovers are obviously in flying form. But we can't look too deep into that because if we do, we'll just beat ourselves up every week. 'Last year we won the league on that nasty side. Well, not nasty but the ugly side of football where people are diving around, blocking balls, defending one-on-one. I can't really look at the table too much because there's over half the season to go. There's so much football to go and hopefully Monday's result gives us a kickstart.' Barrett is just happy to be back in the thick of it after such a long layoff where Shels had to deploy makeshift defences, with skipper Mark Coyle dropping in from midfield. Injured towards the end of March, Barrett knew that if the original timeframe had stood he would be sitting out a lot of Shels' Champions League adventures. 'I was given a 16-week mark,' he said. 'But I was back after 10 or 11 weeks. I had a bad injury. It happened in training, an 11v11 game during the international break (in March). I was just passing the ball and felt something. I knew it was bad but after scans and seeing specialists, they gave me the bad news. Our doctor is probably the best I've ever met and the best I've ever dealt with and I just had to listen to him.' But Barrett admits his philosophical-sounding approach to it all is born out of hindsight, as he didn't always think that way. 'I'm stubborn and was telling him he's wrong,' laughed the defender, who initially wanted to flout the advice and fast-track his return to the team. 'But scans, results and x-rays, they're the ones with the knowledge. I'm telling them I'm itching and trying to get back on the pitch way earlier than I should have. 'I'm arguing with them, they're arguing with me. But in the end we made a mutual agreement and I came back at the right time. It's tough mentally when you're out injured because you're worthless to a team. But I'm back now and hopefully I can stay fit and get this team back to where we want to be.' But if Shels are serious about getting back in the shake-up, Barrett knows it must start against Derry City tonight when the champions look to follow-up Monday's success. Winning away to St Pat's will be meaningless if tonight's game counts for nothing and Barrett added: 'That's the most important thing. I feel like we haven't been doing that. When we pick up a good result, we haven't backed it up. We haven't given the fans that full performance at home for a while. 'But the team should be full of confidence. We get the backing of the manager and the staff - who are elite level. They believe in us. There's no doubt in my mind that every single player we have can turn this around.' Get the latest sports headlines straight to your inbox by signing up for free email.
The Irish Sun
11 hours ago
- Sport
- The Irish Sun
‘I feel like we lost that' – Paddy Barrett urges Shels to embrace the dirty work again in League of Ireland
PADDY BARRETT is a firm believer that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And the Advertisement 2 Paddy Barrett has urged his team-mates to once again embrace their gritty style on the pitch 2 Barrett insists the champions are back to what they do best after their win over St Pat's on Monday Shels returned to their roots on Monday when they ground out a 1-0 win over Barrett's old club Given they are 12 points behind leaders But Barrett was chuffed to see the Reds get back to their traditional values and called on his team-mates to back it up against The 31-year-old defender said: 'We dominated the football in the first half. Advertisement read more on football 'We were very tidy on the ball and kept it nicely. We had to show a different side in the second half and I think it's a side that we are built on. 'It's a side that I personally love, where we're putting our bodies on the line. 'That side of football is not a pretty side but it's a beautiful side. We won the league on that nasty side last year. 'Not the nasty side but as in the ugly side of football where people are diving around, blocking balls, defending and one-on-one defending. I thought it was excellent. Advertisement Most read in Sport Exclusive 'We haven't had that side to us, that dirty side, in recent weeks and months. I keep saying the dirty side but it's a beautiful side. I love it. 'I feel like we lost that. We went away from that side and just to show that side again . . . I think that was the most pleasing thing. We have that doggedness about us and have each other's backs.' Club World Cup clash SUSPENDED as fans and commentators told to leave stands and 'get inside' Barrett's return to action — he came on at half-time in the last game before the break and started the first after the resumption — may have helped in that regard. The centre-half was out since the March international break. Advertisement And while Shels had divulged few details about the extent of his injury, he revealed he was back ahead of schedule. Barrett said: 'It was in an 11-v-11 in training. I was just passing the ball and I felt something. 'At the time I knew it was bad but obviously after scans and seeing specialists then they kind of gave me the bad news. 'I tore my quad, I tore my rectus femoris. I was out for 16 weeks. Advertisement 'I had to see specialists and it just wasn't healing for me. 'But, in the end, with the physio and the fitness coach, I got back in maybe ten-and-a-half or 11 weeks. 'It is a credit to them and a credit to myself.' But Barrett admitted that he initially struggled to accept the consultant's prognosis. Advertisement He added: 'I'm just stubborn and was telling him he's wrong. 'Look, results and scans, results and X-rays and all this. They're the ones with the knowledge. 'I'm telling them I'm itching and trying to get back on the pitch way earlier than I should have. 'It was frustrating. I'm arguing with them and they're arguing with me. Advertisement 'But in the end we made a mutual agreement. I came back at the right time.' Barrett is now determined to show Monday's game was not a one-off at Tolka Park this evening. He said: 'When we pick up a good result, we haven't backed it up. 'We probably haven't given the fans that full performance at home for a while now. Advertisement 'Hopefully we can back it up and put a run together.' But he is not fretting about retaining a league title, which he said meant more to him than the two he won with Dundalk earlier in his career. He said: 'Shamrock Rovers are in flying form and 12 points ahead of us. 'But I don't think we can look too deep into it as we'll beat ourselves up if we do.' Advertisement
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Amy Coney Barrett Makes Unexpected Move in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a major setback for the transgender community. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who fully joined the majority in its 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, wrote a separate concurring opinion suggesting the ruling does not go far enough. In the opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Barrett argued that laws classifying people based on transgender status do not trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Legal experts say that if a majority of the court adopts her reasoning for that argument, it could further erode transgender rights. Barrett's opinion may come as a surprise to those who have hailed her as a centrist. Appointed to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020, she has routinely voted with her conservative colleagues, including in the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The New York Times recently said Barrett "is showing signs of leftward drift," and noted that she is the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority of decisions that reach a liberal outcome. And her siding with liberal justices and ruling against the Trump administration in some recent cases has led to anger from Trump supporters, with some accusing her of being "a radical liberal." But some experts say it's a mistake to believe she is shifting to the left. The court's majority opinion upheld Tennessee's ban on the grounds that the law's restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex. But Chief Justice John Roberts' 24-page majority opinion did not decide whether transgender status is a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause. Barrett argued in her concurring opinion that transgender status does not constitute a "suspect class" entitled to stronger legal protections. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which he also said he does not believe transgender status qualifies as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Barrett argued that the test to determine whether members of a group is a suspect class is "strict," including considering whether members of the group exhibit "immutable or distinguishing characteristics," whether the group has historically been subject to discrimination and whether it is "a minority or politically powerless." "Transgender status is not marked by the same sort of "'obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics'" as race or sex," she wrote. "The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages—some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals 'detransition' later in life—in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex." She wrote that "a history of private discrimination" against transgender people is not enough because what is relevant is a history of "de jure" discrimination, that is, discrimination enforced by law or official policy. In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that transgender people "have long been subject to discrimination in health care, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence." She added that they have also "been subject to a lengthy history of de jure discrimination in the form of cross-dressing bans, police brutality, and anti-sodomy laws." Barrett also argued that recognizing transgender people as a suspect class "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion." It also implicates "several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains." Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal analyst and professor at George Washington University's law school, told Newsweek: "I honestly do not believe that Justice Barrett is influenced by public criticism. As a lawyer, academic, and jurist, she has always spoken clearly in her own voice. Her jurisprudential foundations run very deep after years of thinking and writing about the law. Most justices are far more concerned about their legacy than their popularity in rendering opinions." Turley also wrote on X: "The transgender community can scratch off Barrett on their possible allies in some of the pending cases in lower courts." MSNBC legal commentator Jordan Rubin wrote in a blog post: "While the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn't the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward." Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern said: "This is a really atrocious concurrence. It's totally gratuitous, and I struggle to understand why she wrote it except to further prevent transgender people in this country from ever winning in a court." Stern added that Barrett, along with Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito, "wanted to say, clearly, that the Constitution does not protect transgender people from overt, invidious discrimination. They didn't win today. But they may win in the next case." The decision in United States v. Skrmetti is one of the most significant rulings about transgender people to come from the Supreme Court. While the court did not rule on whether laws that classify on the basis of transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, that could be a question that the court addresses in the future—and Barrett has made clear in her concurring opinion how she would vote. Related Articles Will Donald Trump Get to Pick New Supreme Court Justices?Why Amy Coney Barrett May Have Sat Out Huge Supreme Court CaseFive Supreme Court Justices Sit Out Case in Rare MoveThe 1600: Are We Headed for the Worst of Tariff Worlds? 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
a day ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Amy Coney Barrett Makes Unexpected Move in Supreme Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a major setback for the transgender community. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who fully joined the majority in its 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, wrote a separate concurring opinion suggesting the ruling does not go far enough. In the opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Barrett argued that laws classifying people based on transgender status do not trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Legal experts say that if a majority of the court adopts her reasoning for that argument, it could further erode transgender rights. Amy Coney Barrett meets with U.S. Sen. James Lankford on October 21, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Amy Coney Barrett meets with U.S. Sen. James Lankford on October 21, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Sarah Silbiger/Pool-Getty Images Why It Matters Barrett's opinion may come as a surprise to those who have hailed her as a centrist. Appointed to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020, she has routinely voted with her conservative colleagues, including in the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The New York Times recently said Barrett "is showing signs of leftward drift," and noted that she is the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority of decisions that reach a liberal outcome. And her siding with liberal justices and ruling against the Trump administration in some recent cases has led to anger from Trump supporters, with some accusing her of being "a radical liberal." But some experts say it's a mistake to believe she is shifting to the left. What To Know The court's majority opinion upheld Tennessee's ban on the grounds that the law's restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex. But Chief Justice John Roberts' 24-page majority opinion did not decide whether transgender status is a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause. Barrett argued in her concurring opinion that transgender status does not constitute a "suspect class" entitled to stronger legal protections. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which he also said he does not believe transgender status qualifies as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Barrett argued that the test to determine whether members of a group is a suspect class is "strict," including considering whether members of the group exhibit "immutable or distinguishing characteristics," whether the group has historically been subject to discrimination and whether it is "a minority or politically powerless." "Transgender status is not marked by the same sort of "'obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics'" as race or sex," she wrote. "The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages—some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals 'detransition' later in life—in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex." She wrote that "a history of private discrimination" against transgender people is not enough because what is relevant is a history of "de jure" discrimination, that is, discrimination enforced by law or official policy. In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that transgender people "have long been subject to discrimination in health care, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence." She added that they have also "been subject to a lengthy history of de jure discrimination in the form of cross-dressing bans, police brutality, and anti-sodomy laws." Barrett also argued that recognizing transgender people as a suspect class "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion." It also implicates "several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains." What People Are Saying Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal analyst and professor at George Washington University's law school, told Newsweek: "I honestly do not believe that Justice Barrett is influenced by public criticism. As a lawyer, academic, and jurist, she has always spoken clearly in her own voice. Her jurisprudential foundations run very deep after years of thinking and writing about the law. Most justices are far more concerned about their legacy than their popularity in rendering opinions." Turley also wrote on X: "The transgender community can scratch off Barrett on their possible allies in some of the pending cases in lower courts." MSNBC legal commentator Jordan Rubin wrote in a blog post: "While the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn't the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward." Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern said: "This is a really atrocious concurrence. It's totally gratuitous, and I struggle to understand why she wrote it except to further prevent transgender people in this country from ever winning in a court." Stern added that Barrett, along with Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito, "wanted to say, clearly, that the Constitution does not protect transgender people from overt, invidious discrimination. They didn't win today. But they may win in the next case." What's Next The decision in United States v. Skrmetti is one of the most significant rulings about transgender people to come from the Supreme Court. While the court did not rule on whether laws that classify on the basis of transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, that could be a question that the court addresses in the future—and Barrett has made clear in her concurring opinion how she would vote.
Global News
2 days ago
- Global News
Anger after B.C. man acquitted in sex assault case because he was high on drugs
WARNING: This story may be triggering to some readers. Discretion is advised. Battered Women's Support Services (BWSS) is expressing deep concern over the recent acquittal of a man who attacked a woman in 2019 while under the influence of magic mushrooms and cannabis. Leon-Jamal Barrett was charged with break and enter to commit the indictable offence of sexual assault, sexual assault, resisting or wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of their duties, and public nudity, all concerning a bizarre series of events that occurred in the early morning hours of March 9, 2019, in Surrey. The public nudity charge was stayed before trial. In a ruling posted online in March, Judge Hinkson said this was an unusual case. 'There is no doubt as to whether or not Mr. Barrett did what he is accused of,' Hinkson wrote. Story continues below advertisement However, Barrett was acquitted on all charges as the judge ruled he was too high on mushrooms to know what he was doing when he violently attacked a stranger. Barrett described a complex hallucination from the mushrooms in which he concluded that humanity was corrupt and destined to be punished. 'He was fixated on a belief that all life had started from one cell splitting into two and that he was a descendant of half of that cell,' Hinkson wrote. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'He believed God was commanding him to find the other half, a woman chosen by God, and that God would sacrifice both of them during an act of sexual congress in order to save humanity.' 2:16 Violent assault prompts Vancouver police to issue warning to women When a woman did not come to his house, Barrett left his home and that's when he saw the victim getting out of her car and go around the back of her house. Story continues below advertisement The victim testified that Barrett pushed her down and assaulted her. She was able to get into her house and lock the door, eventually attracting the attention of neighbours who called the police. Barrett was found not criminally responsible with Hinkson accepting the defence of automatism, or actions performed without conscious thought or intention. 'This ruling is devastating. It tells survivors that their pain is real, but their pursuit of justice may be futile,' Angela Marie MacDougall, executive director of BWSS said in a statement. 'This woman fought for her life — biting, screaming, resisting — and yet the legal system sided with the man who harmed her, because he chose to get high. We cannot allow intoxication to become a shield from responsibility when it comes to sexual violence.' In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which had previously barred the use of extreme intoxication as a defence in cases involving sexual assault. Parliament later amended that decision, but it did not apply in Barrett's case. 2:10 Kelowna sex offender's release questioned 'Survivors are retraumatized by a system that finds ways to explain away violence rather than confront it,' said Johanne Lamoureux, Manager of Community-Based Response at BWSS. Story continues below advertisement 'Our front-line teams hear every day how deeply unsafe and re-traumatizing the criminal system is for those who come forward. When the courts uphold the 'moral innocence' of perpetrators, it reinforces why so many survivors never report in the first place.' BWSS is now calling for an immediate federal review of how amended Section 33.1 is being applied, and whether further reforms are needed to uphold survivor rights and public education that makes clear that intoxication is not an excuse for violence.
