Latest news with #Legislation
Telegraph
18 hours ago
- Health
- Telegraph
The Lords must now revise this dreadful assisted dying Bill
Britain is a less civilised country today. Seldom has the House of Commons enacted legislation with such potentially calamitous consequences as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has passed its third reading by a majority of 314 to 291. The narrow margin of victory for the assisted dying Bill indicates that opinion had turned against the legalisation of euthanasia during the process of scrutiny, but not in sufficient numbers to defeat it. The only hope of mitigating its worst aspects now lies with the House of Lords. The Lords is a revising chamber and it should now do the job that the Commons failed to do: proper scrutiny. In this case, the revision required to make this legislation workable and safe will have to be radical. This Private Member's Bill was not in the Labour manifesto and so the Upper House is much less limited by convention in the scope of possible amendments. Peers are not generally eager to correct the follies of MPs, but this time their Lordships' duty is to make root and branch changes to the Bill, even if this risks confrontation with the Commons. In particular, the bishops of the Church of England have a responsibility to speak out much more clearly on a matter of such moral gravity. We know that in countries where euthanasia has been legalised, a large and growing proportion of all deaths are now assisted by doctors. In Canada, for example, some studies suggest up to 10 per cent of all lives will end in this way. Surely the Lords Spiritual should be leading the national conversation about what is likely to become reality here, too, in the very near future. Many people will rightly feel a sense of dread at the prospect of death on the NHS. When the new law takes effect in 2029, our health service will be obliged to offer assisted suicide as though it were just another form of care. Palliative care (already the Cinderella of the NHS) will now compete for resources with the new 'service'. As we report, assisted death is likely to overwhelm the NHS and finally break its budgets. Doctors will have to offer lethal drugs to any and all patients who are deemed to be terminally ill, as long as they have mental capacity. Those who meet the criteria could include patients with all kinds of disabilities, people with Down's Syndrome and those with eating disorders. The panels that will decide whether to authorise assisted dying do not need to have personal knowledge of the patient, nor to inform families or friends. They need only decide on the balance of probabilities that the patient is not being coerced. How did Britain find itself saddled with such a 'bad Bill', as the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called it, on a matter of such cardinal importance? The Prime Minister must carry much of the blame. Unwilling to shoulder responsibility, he chose to pass the buck to Kim Leadbeater, a backbench MP with more zeal than sagacity. A Government Bill would have allowed much more time to examine the practical costs and benefits of shoehorning the provision of medicalised death into a service designed to preserve life. One of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessors, Gordon Brown, rightly observed that in the name of autonomy the Bill sets up a false choice. Patients who request assisted dying will in future have a legal right to receive it, 'without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death', he said. The refusal of the Commons to acknowledge this glaring injustice now places the onus on the Lords to enable physicians to offer terminal patients a genuine choice. Whatever one's views about the principle of assisted dying, this Bill is a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. Posterity will have to live with its lasting impact on the relationship between the public and the medical profession. But it is not too late for peers to remedy some of the Bill's flaws.
The Hindu
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Minister H.K. Patil reviews progress of various tourism projects in Kalaburagi
H.K. Patil, Minister for Law, Justice, Human Rights, Parliamentary Affairs, Legislation, and Tourism, conducted his department's progress review meeting on Saturday regarding various tourism projects identified under the 2020-25 Karnataka Tourism Policy. During the meeting held at the old Aiwan-e-Shahi guest house, Mr. Patil engaged with officials to assess the status of ongoing projects and sought updates on pending works. Anusuyya M. Huggar, deputy director of the Tourism Department, said that the concept report for ₹83.5 crore has been prepared for the development of Ganagapura in Afzalpur taluk and submitted to the government for approval. She stated that once funds are released, all essential infrastructure for tourism development would be provided. Additionally, a ₹100 lakh pilgrim accommodation project at Gattargi village is progressing. Officials also briefed the Minister on proposals submitted for the development of tourist destinations. Mr. Patil promised that he would work closely with relevant authorities to expedite the release of funds for tourism projects. He also highlighted that the 2024-25 Budget included plans for water adventure sports and tourism activities at Chandramapalli reservoir, which have recently commenced. The Minister added that several key tourist sites in Kalaburagi district were included under the 'Tourism Mitra' scheme, with 48 personnel appointed to assist visitors. Mr. Patil added that unemployed individuals would receive four to five months of skill development training, and ₹5 lakh financial assistance for mobile canteen operations under the Scheduled Caste Sub Plan (SCSP) for Scheduled Castes and Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) to Scheduled Tribes. Three new proposals have been submitted, including land allocations for tourism activities in Atanur in Afzalpur taluk (2 acres, 30 guntas) and Kesartagi in Kalaburagi taluk (3.5 acres). Officials informed the Minister that ₹1,359 crore has been sanctioned for tourism projects across six implementing agencies. Rajaram, assistant director of Department of Archaeology, Museums and Heritage, said that the discussions were on in his department for heritage conservation efforts at Nagavi's 60 Pillar temple, Nandeshwara temple, Kari mosque, Sanjeevini Anjaneya temple, and archaeological exploration at Madhusudana temple. He added that a detailed project report was submitted for Kanaganahalli Information Centre in Chittapur taluk, with site inspections conducted by Dwijaa Associates and IDIC Bengaluru.
National Post
10-06-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Who's responsible for online harms? Responsibility for troubled file floats between ministers
OTTAWA — As ministers settle into their new roles, discussions are underway about who is best suited to steer the government's efforts to legislate against online harms, cabinet minister Steven Guilbeault said on Tuesday. Article content Questions have arisen about which minister and department would be best suited to handle the complicated issue after the Liberals' proposed Online Harms Act died in Parliament when Prime Minister Mark Carney triggered a federal election in March. Article content Article content 'It's a good question,' said Guilbeault, who oversees the Canadian Heritage department, told reporters on his way into the Liberals' weekly cabinet meeting. Article content Article content Canadian Heritage had been the first department to develop and later introduce the Liberals' initial plan to combat the harms Canadian users experience online. Article content That proposal, which was released in 2021, was met with widespread backlash over concerns about the requirement for social media companies to remove content within 24 hours after receiving a complaint. Experts had warned the provision was overly broad and risked infringing on free expression, given that companies could remove legal content. Article content The Liberals then struck an advisory group and got to work on figuring out a Plan B. Article content Responsibility for the bill also shifted from Canadian Heritage to the Justice Department. Article content In early 2024, former justice minister Arif Vriani introduced Bill C-63, which proposed to create a new digital safety regulator that would be tasked with ensuring social media giants took steps to reduce users' access to content, such as child sex abuse images and incite extremism and violence. Article content That bill was also met with backlash over its proposal to introduce stiffer sentences for hate-related offences and reintroduce a controversial section to the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow people to bring forward complaints of hate speech, which civil liberties advocates and Parliamentarians said risked violating free speech. Article content Virani spent months defending the need for the tougher Criminal Code measures to be included in the online safety bill, but last December announced the government was prepared to split the bill to help get it passed. Article content In January, former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation and that Parliament would be suspended until March. Article content Emily Laidlaw, a Canada Research Chair in cybersecurity law at the University of Calgary, who sat on the government's expert advisory group, said it was a mistake for the government to have combined different provisions into the same legislation and that by the time it announced the legislation would be split, 'it was too late.'
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill limiting protests at public universities awaits Gov. Abbott's approval
The Brief A new bill, SB 2972, limiting protests on Texas public university campuses has passed both the Senate and House. The bill prohibits activities like using amplified sound during class, protesting in the last two weeks of the semester, and wearing masks to conceal identity. Critics, including the ACLU of Texas, argue the bill violates First Amendment rights. AUSTIN - A bill that passed through the Texas legislature last weekend would prohibit certain times and locations of protests on public university campuses. Critics worry the bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, as well as the Texas Constitution. Senate Bill 2972 defines "expressive activities" in the same manner as the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution, directly citing those documents to include assemblies, protests, speeches, the distribution of written materials, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of petitions. Under the new bill, the following would be prohibited at Texas universities: Using devices to amplify sound during class hours while engaging in expressive activities. Engaging in expressive activities during the last two weeks of the semester. Camping or setting up tents on campus. Wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in expressive activities. Lowering the U.S. flag with the intent to raise another flag. Engaging in expressive activities between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Note that these are limited and expanded upon individually within the bill's text. The Senate passed the bill 21-10 on May 14. The House passed it 97-39 on May 28. What they're saying The bill's text says it may not be construed to limit freedom of speech or expression as protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution. Critics wonder how this is possible, saying the bill in its entirety is an imposition of prohibitions on rights defined in those texts. Caro Achar, the engagement coordinator for free speech at the ACLU of Texas, released the following statement to that point. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs. This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public." Dig deeper The new bill comes on the heels of recent major protests on Texas university campuses, largely related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as well as developments with mass deportations. At one UT Austin protest in April 2024, 79 pro-Palestine protesters were taken into custody. The university was later found to have violated several institutional rules when handling the incident. Feds to screen social media of migrants, foreign students for antisemitic activity Columbia must notify students before handing records to Congress amid antisemitism probe ICE detains U of M student at Twin Cities campus, officials say What's next SB 2972 now awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. According to the ACLU, he is expected to sign it into law. If he neither signs nor vetoes the bill, it will become law without his action. The Source Information in this article comes from Texas Legislature Online, the ACLU of Texas and previous coverage by FOX 7.
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Don't give Dan Patrick his THC ban. Here's a better way for Texas on cannabis
Sometimes, the Texas Legislature creates a mess that only it can fix. And unfortunately, the clean-up is often a mess of its own. So it is with a bill that would ban products that contain THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. It's an attempt to right a loophole in the 2019 state law that allowed a Texas hemp industry to develop. But the medicine is simply too strong. Gov. Greg Abbott should veto the bill and give the Legislature the chance to try again with precise, thoughtful regulation. How did we get here, with lawmakers wanting to dismantle something they essentially created a few years ago? In 2019, Texas needed a law to comply with new federal statutes on hemp, the non-intoxicating version of the cannabis plant. Legislators charged ahead, missing the distinctions among the chemicals that can provide a high. They also failed to ask enough questions about testing, including whether police labs had the capacity to determine the level of THC in a product and thus the difference between hemp (legal) and marijuana (still illegal). Still, a business opportunity was born, and Texas, as our leaders like to say, is open for business. Responsible retail shops boomed, but so did unscrupulous producers who offered wares that enticed children and didn't distinguish between a professional who would demand ID or a convenience store where somnolent clerks wouldn't even notice who was buying gummies and the like. Enter Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Before some lawmakers could even settle in their offices, he declared that a complete ban on products containing THC was the only option. He suggested that he would not negotiate and that if he didn't get his way, he would melt down the whole legislative session. He never said exactly how, but Patrick, who controls all the levers in the Texas Senate, could have held back one of Abbott's priorities, such as school vouchers, or even prevent passage of the state budget, which would leave no option but a special session. Patrick was never willing to entertain the obvious solution: more precise regulation with more robust enforcement. Texas could allow for the sale of low-level THC products without embracing a full-blown marijuana culture. The experience of legalization in other states has been fraught with problems. There's increasing concern that today's much stronger, much more available marijuana is incapacitating too many people — as well as creating alarm about possible unknown long-term health consequences. Licensed dealers can sell well-tested products in packaging that's unappealing to children. The state could bar corner gas stations or other generalized stores and businesses within walking distance of schools from dealing in THC products. It could create an agency to regulate them, funded through a tax on the products, or create such a function within an existing state entity. In other words, it could treat the substance similar to the way it treats alcohol. We all know that even with a regime of rules and enforcement, teenagers sometimes drink. A few, tragically, even die as a result. Few people would say that's sufficient reason to ban beer and wine. Heck, they are venerated Texas industries. Patrick gave away the game when, late in the session, he declared that cannabis producers and retailers 'want to kill your kids, and they don't give a damn.' It's the kind of pompous, self-righteous rhetoric that Patrick frequently uses to substitute for actual debate. And if someone else made similar remarks about, say, the gun industry, Patrick would be the first to get in front of a Fox News camera and decry it. The lieutenant governor declared it 'stupid' to even raise the comparison to alcohol — though, to be fair, few are more familiar with stupid rhetoric than Patrick. Patrick did eventually agree to expanding the availability of medical marijuana under the state's Compassionate Use Program. If Abbott signs that bill — and he should — conditions such as traumatic brain injuries and chronic pain would be among those added to the list that qualifies a Texan to purchase THC products. The state would add more dispensaries, too. In other words, through specific, careful regulation, Texas is steadily finding ways to get needed relief to those who can find it nowhere else. Someone alert Patrick: It can be done! We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section. • Letters should be no more than 150 words. • Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days. • Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions. You can submit a letter to the editor two ways: • Email letters@ (preferred). • Fill out this online form. Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.
