Latest news with #Conversation
Irish Independent
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Vision for a united Ireland cannot be ‘annexation of six more counties', Leo Varadkar says
Mr Varadkar also said he hopes the current Irish Government takes the decision to establish a forum to lead discussions on unity, and also appeared to dismiss concerns of potential loyalist violence in reaction to a united Ireland. Mr Varadkar, who stood down as taoiseach in April last year, said he believes he will see a united Ireland in his lifetime but warned it is not inevitable. He said that he has had no regrets so far since leaving elected politics, and is enjoying both 'a lot of personal and intellectual freedom to say what I think'. He was speaking at an In Conversation event with Rev Karen Sethuraman at St Mary's University college in west Belfast, hosted by Féile an Phobail and Ireland's Future. Former Sinn Féin president and West Belfast MP Gerry Adams was among those in the audience for the event. Mr Varadkar stressed that a united Ireland 'has to be a new Ireland that is better for everyone'. 'That includes a bill of rights, guarantees civil protections and liberties,' he said. 'Unification, in my view, is not the annexation of six more counties by the Republic of Ireland. It's a new state and one that can be better for all of us, an opportunity that only comes around every 100 years, which is to design your state and design your constitution.' In terms of what the current Irish Government is doing, Mr Varadkar described the Shared Island Unit, which was set up when he was taoiseach, as really positive. But he said he would like to see the Irish Government lead a forum ahead of unity. ADVERTISEMENT He said there was the New Ireland Forum in the 1980s, and the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the 1990s. 'I think there is a strong case now for us to convene the parties that are interested in talking about this – unions, business groups, civil society – in a forum to have that discussion, but I don't see how that can happen if that isn't led by the Irish Government, and I hope at some point during the course of this five-year government, a decision will be taken to do that,' he said. Meanwhile, asked how he felt potential violent opposition to a united Ireland could be handled, Mr Varadkar suggested he felt 'only a very small minority may turn to violence'. 'I know there are people south of the border who, when I talk to them about reunification, express to me concerns that there might be a very small minority within unionism who may turn to violence,' he said. 'I don't think we should dismiss that as a possibility. I don't think it will happen, to be honest. 'I n two referendums, both north and south, people would be very clearly giving their preference as to what should happen, it would be quite a different situation to when partition happened 100 years ago and it wasn't voted for.' Meanwhile, deputy first minister Emma Little-Pengelly suggested Mr Varadkar was 'wrong in terms of the trajectory' towards a united Ireland, insisting the number of people voting for nationalist parties, around 40pc, 'hasn't moved since 1998'.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Scientists issue warning after making troubling discovery in waters off Antarctica: 'Could be more unstable'
A recent discovery by a team of Australian scientists reveals that an ocean current, which acts as a safeguard by protecting Antarctica from warm water that would otherwise melt the region's ice, is at risk of failing. Relatively little is known about the Antarctic Slope Current (ASC), but scientists do understand its importance in acting as Antarctica's last line of defense from preventing warm water from invading the region. New research that was recently published in Geophysical Research Letters looks at how this current, which acts as a vital barrier, "will respond to changes in wind, heating, and meltwater under climate change." "We found meltwater from Antarctica is speeding up the current, known as the Antarctic Slope Current," the authors of the study wrote in an article for the Conversation, per "And it's set to become even faster by mid-century." "A faster current could be more unstable," added the researchers. "This means eddies of warm water could eat away at Antarctica's ice, posing a major concern for the stability of Earth's climate system." The team of scientists warned that "humanity must act now" to protect this natural buffer, which is helping to keep Antarctica's ice shelves from vanishing. The study's authors point out that in vulnerable low-lying coastal regions, even a minimal sea-level rise of just a few centimeters can double the likelihood of flooding events. Rising sea levels allow saltwater to encroach further inland, contaminating freshwater supplies and impacting crop yields. The Union of Concerned Scientists has linked human activity to rising global temperatures that are melting ice sheets and releasing vast volumes of freshwater into the North Atlantic. This invasion of freshwater is disturbing the delicate balance of ocean circulation patterns and contributing to rising sea levels as the relatively less salty and less dense water takes up more space. A study published in May showed that the Northeastern U.S. experienced up to eight days of flooding annually because of the disruption of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. The research concluded that up to 50% of the total flooding events at monitored sites in the Northeast might be tied directly to the weakening circulation. Rising sea levels in Charleston, South Carolina, are making what used to be an occasional nuisance for the coastal city into a more routine disruption for the community, as rising tides bring water into homes and businesses. "Humanity must act fast to preserve the current, by cutting carbon emissions," warned the authors of the study on the changes to the ASC. "When it comes to Antarctica, this action isn't optional—it's the only way to hold the line." Transitioning from dirty energy sources to clean, renewable options is the most effective way to cut carbon pollution that is overheating our planet. Even relatively small changes we can make in our homes can help. Washing clothes in cold water, upgrading to LED bulbs, and unplugging "energy vampires" can have an impact and make a difference. Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty? Definitely Only in some areas No way I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Scoop
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
Scoop
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
The Spinoff
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Press secretary case raises questions for police and officials
The disturbing allegations have sparked a review of vetting processes and questions about the adequacy of our laws, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Allegations prompt questions about police, Beehive processes The fallout from serious allegations against Michael Forbes, the prime minister's now-former deputy chief press secretary, continued on Thursday, following a damning Stuff investigation released the night before. Forbes resigned on Wednesday after journalist Paula Penfold put to him allegations that he had taken non-consensual recordings and photos of women, including sex workers, in various settings. His phone reportedly contained covert recordings of sexual encounters, images of women at the gym and supermarket, and photos taken through windows – including one of an unclothed, unconscious or asleep woman. Forbes apologised for his actions and said he had sought professional help last year. The allegations have sparked widespread concern, with questions raised about the adequacy of the law, the Beehive's vetting processes, and why no criminal charges were laid. Legal grey areas highlighted by lack of charges Despite the disturbing nature of the allegations, police concluded the behaviour did not meet the threshold for prosecution. On the allegation involving an image of an unclothed, unconscious woman, AUT law lecturer Paulette Benton-Greig told Checkpoint it 'certainly seems to me that [it] could have been chargeable' under existing laws about intimate visual recordings taken without the subject's consent. But as legal academic Cassandra Mudgway explained in the Conversation, republished on The Spinoff, current law does not cover covert audio recordings, nor most intrusive photographs taken in public spaces. This gap in legal protections has prompted calls for reform, including from the sex workers who brought Forbes' behaviour to public attention. Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said the discussion could be had, but he 'wouldn't underestimate that that's a big change' to what is settled law. Vetting processes under review The investigation into Forbes' behaviour began in July 2024, months after he had been vetted for his job with minister Louise Upston, and before he was later appointed to the PM's press team, report The Post's Thomas Manch and Kelly Dennett (paywalled). Despite having a security clearance that required disclosure of any subsequent police contact, Forbes did not tell his superiors about the investigation. 'That didn't happen,' Luxon said on Thursday, describing himself as 'incredibly concerned' about the revelations and acknowledging the 'distress' among Beehive staff. The Department of Internal Affairs has launched an urgent review into the vetting processes and whether inter-agency systems failed. Luxon, while emphasising the importance of police independence, called it a 'fair' question to ask how such a case could go unnoticed by senior officials and decision-makers. Why didn't police inform the Beehive? That question has taken on new urgency amid confusion over why the police never alerted the Beehive. Police seized Forbes' phones and interviewed him, but ultimately decided no offence had been committed, report Manch and Dennett in a separate story (paywalled). Commissioner Richard Chambers said under the 'no surprises' convention with ministers, it is up to the commissioner of the day to decide what to escalate. However Andrew Coster, who was commissioner at the time, said he was never informed of the case. Chambers first learned of the matter only this week when approached by Stuff, at which point he alerted the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. It seems that someone senior in the police may have dropped the ball, but Chambers wouldn't name names, only observing that 'it is important that police executive members alert their Commissioner to matters that may need consideration.'
