Monday, September 23, 2013

Over the past week, diplomatic actions have averted — or, at least delayed — military strikes on Syria by the United States. Wikinews sought input from a range of international experts on the situation; and, the tensions caused by Russia’s support for the al-Assad regime despite its apparent use of chemical weapons.

File:Ghouta chemical attack map.svg

Tensions in the country increased dramatically, late August when it was reported between 100 and 1,300 people were killed in an alleged chemical attack. Many of those killed appeared to be children, with some of the pictures and video coming out of the country showing — according to witnesses — those who died from apparent suffocation; some foaming at the mouth, others having convulsions.

Amongst Syria’s few remaining allies, Iran, China, and Russia continue to oppose calls for military intervention. In an effort to provide a better-understanding of the reasoning behind their ongoing support, the following people were posed a range of questions.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

An HIV-positive man was sentenced to 35 years in prison Wednesday, one day after being convicted of harassment of a public servant for spitting into the eye and open mouth of a Dallas, Texas police officer in May 2006. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that no one has ever contracted HIV from saliva, and a gay-rights and AIDS advocacy group called the sentence excessive.

A Dallas County jury concluded that Willie Campbell’s act of spitting on policeman Dan Waller in 2006 constituted the use of his saliva as a deadly weapon. The incident occurred while Campbell, 42, was resisting arrest while being taken into custody for public intoxication.

“He turns and spits. He hits me in the eye and mouth. Then he told me he has AIDS. I immediately began looking for something to flush my eyes with,” said Waller to The Dallas Morning News.

Officer Waller responded after a bystander reported seeing an unconscious male lying outside a building. Dallas County prosecutors stated that Campbell attempted to fight paramedics and kicked the police officer who arrested him for public intoxication.

Prosecutors said that Campbell yelled that he was innocent during the trial, and claimed a police officer was lying. Campbell’s lawyer Russell Heinrichs said that because he had a history of convictions including similarly attacking two other police officers, biting inmates, and other offenses, he was indicted under a habitual offender statute. The statute increased his minimum sentence to 25 years in prison. Because the jury ruled that Campbell’s saliva was used as a deadly weapon, he will not be eligible for parole until completing at least half his sentence.

The organization Lambda Legal (Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund), which advocates for individuals living with HIV, says that saliva should not be considered a deadly weapon. Bebe Anderson, the HIV projects director at Lambda Legal, spoke with The Dallas Morning News about the sentence. “It’s been 25 years since the virus was identified, but there are still lots of fears,” said Anderson.

The Dallas County prosecutor who handled the trial, Jenni Morse, said that the deadly weapon finding was justified. “No matter how minuscule, there is some risk. That means there is the possibility of causing serious bodily injury or death,” said Morse. Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins stated: “If you look at the facts of this case, it was clear that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury.”

A page at the CDC’s website, HIV and Its Transmission, states: “HIV has been found in saliva and tears in very low quantities from some AIDS patients.” The subsection “Saliva, Tears, and Sweat” concludes that: “Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV.” On Friday the Dallas County Health Department released a statement explaining that HIV is most commonly spread through sexual contact, sharing needles, or transfusion from an infected blood product.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Libertarianz party president, Craig Milmine, and the party leader, Bernard Darnton, spoke exclusively to Wikinews journalist Gabriel Pollard about the political philosophy, libertarianism in New Zealand. This article follows on from interviews with republican, Lewis Holden; and monarchist, Noel Cox.

The idea of libertarianism is where consent is required for all actions between people, and that these interactions are voluntary. Over four million people will be given freedom to run their own lives as Mr Milmine said. He says the Government doesn’t follow this generally accepted principle. “They take money without consent, order us around, and tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies.” Their party website states, “We will put paid to bloated government bureaucracy and its authoritarian inclinations.”

Mr Darnton said that one of the biggest jobs of Libertarianz is to show New Zealanders how their lives could be better. “Most parties complain when others steal their policies. We just smile and get on with the next thing.” Libertarianz is, as Mr Milmine says, “principled opposition to the idea of a large nanny-state government in New Zealand.

“A burglar stealing your TV is in the wrong because they are taking without permission. The government steals a proportion of your wealth every year, the fact that they allow a minor amount of input from you into how they are going to distribute the stolen loot does not change the fact that they stole it in the first place.”

Mr Darnton also describes the current system of governance as a game. “What’s right or wrong doesn’t really matter as long as the red team or the blue team or whoever is scoring more points. I think that’s a terrible way to approach government.”

The reason this political philosophy, underpinned by objectivism, isn’t well accepted in the New Zealand culture is because New Zealanders are generally wary of major change, vote for the party they always have, and vote for the party they think will win, not the one they want to win, Mr Darton believes. “These sorts of behaviour reinforce the big parties, even though neither have much to offer,” Mr Darton said, “What Libertarianz is proposing is something quite different to anything any other party is putting forward.” Mr Milmine sees New Zealanders accepting libertarianism because, “Slowly people see that the government doesn’t solve their problems, it caused them in the first place.” And when this is followed by a significant minority, Mr Milmine says, the change will happen very quickly.

Although Mr Milmine does say that he cannot predict what will happen to New Zealand if it were to change to a libertarianism state, “because it is asking me to predict the interactions of over four million people when they are given freedom to run their own lives.”

As well as changing the system of Government, Libertarianz also propose New Zealand becoming a republic and removing the constitutional monarchy. Mr Darnton said, “The monarchy is so distant in New Zealand that I don’t think becoming a republic would make a big difference in many people’s lives.” Mr Milmine says, “A head of state has a valid role to play as a check on the power on the government, but it cannot perform this role if it is toothless.”

Although Mr Darnton believes that New Zealand will eventually become a republic, he is wary of making a push to it too quickly. He cites anti-prosperity and the governmental interference as issues that could make it into a written constitution and making it harder to shift later. While Mr Milmine says they would run into problems with people disagreeing with the Treaty of Waitangi if it were placed into a written constitution. But says a written constitution is needed, “There are examples of where [a written constitution] has worked and there are plenty of examples of the government ignoring the rights in our Bill of Rights because of the lack of a written constitution.”

And the final question asked to both Craig Milmine and Bernard Darnton was whether they were a Holden or a Ford fan. Mr Milmine said he preferred “Subaru – I prefer the rallies – they allow more freedom” while Mr Darnton bluntly said, “No, I’m not.”

Thursday, October 18, 2007

It can be difficult to be John Reed.

Christopher Hitchens called him a “Bin Ladenist” and Cathy Young editorialized in The Boston Globe that he “blames the victims of terrorism” when he puts out a novel like Snowball’s Chance, a biting send-up of George Orwell‘s Animal Farm which he was inspired to write after the terrorist attacks on September 11. “The clear references to 9/11 in the apocalyptic ending can only bring Orwell’s name into disrepute in the U.S.,” wrote William Hamilton, the British literary executor of the Orwell estate. That process had already begun: it was revealed Orwell gave the British Foreign Office a list of people he suspected of being “crypto-Communists and fellow travelers,” labeling some of them as Jews and homosexuals. “I really wanted to explode that book,” Reed told The New York Times. “I wanted to completely undermine it.”

Is this man who wants to blow up the classic literary canon taught to children in schools a menace, or a messiah? David Shankbone went to interview him for Wikinews and found that, as often is the case, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Reed is electrified by the changes that surround him that channel through a lens of inspiration wrought by his children. “The kids have made me a better writer,” Reed said. In his new untitled work, which he calls a “new play by William Shakespeare,” he takes lines from The Bard‘s classics to form an original tragedy. He began it in 2003, but only with the birth of his children could he finish it. “I didn’t understand the characters who had children. I didn’t really understand them. And once I had had kids, I could approach them differently.”

Taking the old to make it new is a theme in his work and in his world view. Reed foresees new narrative forms being born, Biblical epics that will be played out across print and electronic mediums. He is pulled forward by revolutions of the past, a search for a spiritual sensibility, and a desire to locate himself in the process.

Below is David Shankbone’s conversation with novelist John Reed.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Legendary Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan has confirmed that his son Abhishek and former Miss World Aishwarya Rai were engaged last evening at a private ceremony at the Bachchans’ residence in Mumbai.

It is believed that the younger Bachchan proposed to his bride-to-be in New York, soon after the Toronto premiere of his new movie Guru. The media had been following the romance between the two closely for some time past, but this is the first time they have come out in the open about their relationship. Rumours that the couple were planning to spread the know began to spread in November last year, when they visited the Sankat Mochan Temple together, with some even saying that they had already been married even earlier at the Meenakshi temple in Madurai

According to one daily, the wedding will take place either on February 19 or March 7 at the Hyatt Mumbai. “The children have decided. We are very happy and thought we should go ahead with the ‘roka’ ceremony. It was held in the evening.”, Amitabh Bachchan said of the ceremony, which was attended by the family’s close friends, including Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh, Aishwarya’s parents, and industrialist Anil Ambani and the latter’s wife Tina Ambani. The couple have now flown to Ujjain to take a holy dip in the Ganga.