- Queen Elizabeth II granted British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s request to suspend British Parliament ahead of Brexit, with critics saying Johnson’s action is an attempt to keep parliament from barring a no-deal Brexit.
- While some like U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Johnson, others took to the street and social media in protest, including actor Hugh Grant who tweeted at the PM saying, “Fuck off you over-promoted rubber bath toy. Britain is revolted by you and you little gang of masturbatory prefects.“
- Shortly after the announced prorogue, two members of Johnson’s Conservative Party resigned.
Outrage after Parliament Suspended
After Queen Elizabeth II agreed to suspend — or “prorogue” — British Parliament per Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s request, some lawmakers responded by resigning and others vowed to challenge the move in court.
In a letter, Johnson said he ordered the prorogue to give his government time to lay out a “new bold and ambitious domestic agenda” after Brexit; however, many critics say it is an attempt by Johnson to prevent parliament from blocking a “no-deal” Brexit. Johnson has touted that he will remove the United Kingdom from the European Union by October 31 with or without a deal.
On Wednesday, Johnson announced the suspension following the Queen’s approval. Because the Queen must remain politically neutral, it would have been seen as an unusual move for her to deny his request, but it is also a formality for the prime minister to ask the Queen before proroguing parliament.
Though parliament was already scheduled to enter a three-and-a-half week recess on September 16, the prorogue will add another week to the recess.
The move now further limits the time members of parliament have to negotiate a deal or to block Johnson’s no-deal, but some are expected to still make an attempt to introduce legislation blocking a no-deal.
The move also comes after some had speculated that parliament might have tried to cancel the initial recess to allow more time to talk about Brexit. Historically, parliament usually convenes in times of national crisis.
Additionally, Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would try to block the prorogue with legislation. So far, there’s already been an attempt in the Scottish courts to reverse the suspension, a move predicted by some in Johnson’s own Conservative Party.
Others in the opposition Labour Party have described the move as unconstitutional.
Corbyn has also said he plans to hold a vote of no confidence against Johnson, a move condemned by President Donald Trump.
“Would be very hard for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, to seek a no-confidence vote against New Prime Minister Boris Johnson,” Trump said, “especially in light of the fact that Boris is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for, & will prove to be “a great one!” Love U.K.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the House of Commons, also defended Johnson, saying, “I don’t think there is any attempt to railroad,” and calling the backlash the “candyfloss of outrage.”
Johnson’s move resulted in a variety of other consequences, including the resignation of two lawmakers within Johnson’s party.
Thursday, Scotland’s Conservative Party Leader Ruth Davidson resigned, pointing to the birth of her son as one of her main reasons. Notably, however, she did mention feeling conflicted over Brexit. Thus, many news outlets in the U.K. interpreted her timing as a nod to the prorogue.
George Young, Baron of Cookham and junior whip, likewise resigned. Unlike Davidson, he pegged his resignation directly at the prorogue.
In a letter, he said Johnson “risks undermining the fundamental role of Parliament at a critical time in our history, and reinforces the view that the government may not have the confidence of the House for its Brexit policy.”
Protests to the Suspension
Many citizens have also protested the move, both in the streets and online. In front of Johnson’s home at 10 Downing Street, protesters hurled chants such as “No one voted for Boris” and “Stop the coup.”
Online, the hashtag #stopthecoup circulated, with people pointing to a past statement by Johnson saying he wouldn’t suspend parliament. In that statement, he described such an action as “arcane.”
“This isn’t about left, right, centre, leave or remain,” one Twitter user said. “This is about ensuring that democracy can never be put on pause when an unelected politician finds it inconvenient.”
While people chanted “No one voted for Boris,” Johnson did assume the prime minister role after beating Jeremy Hunt in elections in July. Those elections, however, consisted only of votes from Conservative Party members, with Johnson gathering about 92,000 of 139,000 votes.
Actor Hugh Grant also leveled insults against Johnson, blasting him in a Twitter post.
“You will not fuck with my children’s future,” Grant said. “You will not destroy the freedoms my grandfather fought two world wars to defend. Fuck off you over-promoted rubber bath toy. Britain is revolted by you and you little gang of masturbatory prefects.”
The U.K. laid the groundwork for Brexit following a referendum in June 2016, where 52% of voters chose to leave the E.U. In total, 72% of registered voters participated in the referendum.
The following day, then-Prime Minister David Cameron announced he would resign. Theresa May then assumed the role.
May planned to take the U.K. out of the E.U. by March 2019, but she failed three times in parliament. The first vote easily failed in January, with the other two occurring in March.
Largely, those votes failed because of a dispute over the border between the independent Republic of Ireland and the UK-controlled Northern Ireland. Many conservative MP’s feared the current agreement with the U.K. — known as a backstop, where Northern Ireland’s seamless border would largely be maintained — would allow the E.U. to hold too much power over the U.K.
May later asked for an extension to the E.U. exit agreement. The E.U. then extended that agreement until October 31.
In June, May resigned as prime minister, citing her failure to launch a Brexit deal. Johnson then took on the role in July, vowing the country would leave by the intended October 31 date.
Johnson ran his election on a platform that he would argue a new deal with the E.U. The E.U. then said it would not change the deal. Though Johnson has said he would prefer to leave with a deal, he contends he will leave with a no-deal if one is not reached.
Experts warn that a no-deal could lead to shortages of food, gas, and medicine. Economists also fear a no-deal could tank the economy.
See what others are saying: (Axios) (New York Times) (The Guardian)
Mukbangs and Ordering Too Much Food Banned in China
- China recently passed a law that bans ordering too much food and sharing content online that portrays overeating.
- Though food scarcity is not an issue in the country, the law is meant to combat food waste, with authorities pointing out that China tosses 35 million tons of food annually.
- The law doesn’t penalize consumers at restaurants. Instead, it fines restaurants $1550 for allowing diners to order “more than they need.”
- TV stations, media companies, or people who post overeating content, such as Mukbangs, can face a $16,000 fine.
The End of Mukbangs
Some of the most popular content across Chinese social media has effectively been banned under an anti-food waste law that authorities passed late last week.
The law bans diners from ordering more than they need, which could hurt an entire class of eating videos, including ones where people enter all-you-can-eat restaurants to consume thousands of dollars worth of food. While it could be argued that if the creators eat all that food, they’ve satisfied the “more than they need” clause, the law also bans binge eating and posting such content online, meaning no more mukbangs for Chinese fans.
Censors have already begun removing overeating content, and much of it went missing overnight from Douyin, TikTok’s Chinese sister app.
The law also affects far more than a fringe group of people making food content. It’s so vague and open to interpretation that it could disrupt everyday restaurant-goers.
President Xi Jinping called food waste a “distressing” problem that threatens China’s food security, despite the fact that China is not facing any imminent food shortages.
Nearly 35 million tons of food go to waste every year in China, though that’s a relatively small amount for its population size. The U.S., for comparison, manages to throw away 66 million tons of food yearly.
Still, the legislation does not come as a complete surprise since Xi launched a food-saving campaign back in August claiming that COVID-19 was threatening the food supply chain.
Across China, restaurants have already begun to comply with the new rules. Some have set up scales at their entrance to give recommended food portion sizes to customers based on their weight. Meanwhile, others have promised to offer smaller-sized plates as an option.
One standard that many are seeking to enact is the “N-1” rule, which states that the number of dishes should be one less than the number of guests. The rule could be an attempt to curb a cultural practice that sees hosts ordering far more food than could be eaten in an effort to show off wealth.
Under the law, much of the blame towards a consumer wasting food is placed on restaurants, as there’s no clear cut fine for diners violating the law. Any establishment found allowing customers or misleading customers into ordering excessive amounts of food facing a $1550 fine. Showing content related to binge-eating could result in TV stations, online media companies, or even content creators facing a $16,000 fine.
Tuesday seems to have been the first time regulators went after a particular business, warning a Nanjing bakery to stop throwing away pastries that the business didn’t believe would sell because of visual defects. It has promised to donate them instead.
See what others are saying: (SCMP) (The Guardian) (Vice)
Zimbabwe Considers Controversial Mass Elephant Killing
- Zimbabwe is considering culling its 100,000 elephant population over concerns of how they destroy other habitats and interact with farmland.
- The plan isn’t unheard of, as Zimbabwe has done similar culls in the past, while other countries have done their own more recently.
- However, the large-scale killing of elephants has faced pushback, with some suggesting the animals should instead be transported to areas with falling elephant populations.
- For the time being, the plan is still just a proposal, and the government of Zimbabwe has promised to make a decision based on “scientific advice.”
Killing Elephants Is What’s Best for Them?
For the first time since 1988, Zimbabwe is considering a mass killing of elephants.
In a local radio interview on Wednesday, Minister of Environment, Climate, Tourism, and Hospitality Mangaliso Ndlovu said, “We are trying to see ways in which we can reduce the numbers. We have to discuss it at policy level as government. Options are on the table…”
“It’s an option but not a decision yet,” Ndlovu later added by text message to the station. “We will obviously rely on scientific advice.”
The country is home to about 100,000 elephants, the second largest population in the world after neighboring Botswana. The mass killings are better known as culls, and the concept isn’t completely unknown in areas with large animal populations. They can happen for a variety of reasons, such as removing sterile males from the mating population that prevent fertile ones from accessing mates.
In Zimbabwe, authorities are worried that the elephant population has outgrown the resources available, causing the animals to destroy habitats that other species need to survive by eating the bark off trees and killing them. Additionally, the large population increases the chances of violent human-elephant interactions as elephants encroach on farmlands.
Elephants are known for their great intelligence and advanced emotional states compared to other animals, and therefore authorities are concerned about how a cull could affect populations. Notably, elephants can experience Post-traumatic stress disorder. In an effort to minimize those effects, other countries that have initiated culls, such as Uganda, have targeted entire herds for eradication while leaving others completely untouched.
Any discussion of a cull causes alarm bells among animal conservationists, particularly as total elephant populations in Africa have been on the decline over the last decade. However, in both Botswana and Zimbabwe the populations have actually risen considerably. Despite this, the possible plan has received considerable pushback online.
Many people have pointed out that there are other viable solutions to control the population and protect both the animals, other habitats, and farmland. As journalist Yashar Ali pointed out, “The only reasonable solution for Zimbabwe and other countries with large elephant populations is to work on human-wildlife conflict mitigation measures, contraception for elephants, and translocation.”
In particular, translocation has been touted as a viable alternative to not only help reduce the elephant population in Zimbabwe but also bolster the falling populations in other countries. Now, some have wondered why there has been any pushback against a cull, pointing out that animals such as deer are regularly culled across the world.
But it’s not quite apples and oranges. Take the U.S., which often hosts deer culls. The country has over 30 million deer, compared to Zimbabwe’s 100,000 elephants. On top of that, deer can give birth to over 20 fawns in their roughly 10-year lifespan, compared to less than 10 for an elephant during its more than 60 years alive.
For the time being, the plan is still just a proposal. It remains to be seen if Zimbabwe’s government will take such a large-scale cull seriously.
Cash-in-Transit Truck Driver Praised After Foiling Robbery Attempt in South Africa
- Viral video captured the moment a rookie security guard and the driver of an armored cash-in-transit truck were ambushed in South Africa by robbers firing bullets at them last month.
- The footage shows the driver, 48-year-old Leo Prinsloo, keeping his cool as he sped off and maneuvered through traffic to get away from the two groups chasing them.
- When the truck eventually jerked to a halt, he grabbed a gun from his partner and exited the vehicle to confront the attackers, who had fled empty-handed.
- While Prinsloo has faced widespread praise, he has also been placed under protective guard because of death threats he’s received since foiling the heist.
The Viral Video
Millions of people all over the world have watched dash-cam footage of a rookie security guard and the driver of an armored cash-in-transit truck as they were ambushed in South Africa by robbers firing bullets at them.
The incident happened on April 22, though the footage, which looks like it was pulled straight from an action movie, has recently gone massively viral.
It shows the driver, 48-year-old Leo Prinsloo keeping his cool as he sped off and maneuvered through traffic to get away from the two groups chasing them. When the truck eventually jerked to a halt, he grabbed a gun from his partner and exited the vehicle to confront the attackers, who had fled empty-handed.
It turns out Prinsloo, who served with the South African Police Services special forces unit for 12 years, actually teaches the nation’s military special forces how to shoot. People who watched the insane footage are now calling him the real-life Jason Bourne, with many impressed by his incredible instincts.
“I cannot say much as an investigation is underway but I and my fellow guard did what was expected of us. They needed to take us out so they could take out the cargo vehicle,” Prinsloo said when speaking to the Daily Mail.
“But there was no way I was going to let that happen and unfortunately I did not have a chance to return fire,” he added.
Prinsloo Defends Partner
Prinsloo’s partner, Lloyd Mtombeni, has been facing a bit of criticism for what some perceived as a lack of action. However, it’s worth noting that Mtombeni told local reporters this was only his fourth day on the job and the first time he had ever experienced gunfire from inside the vehicle.
Because of the backlash against him, Prinsloo defending Mtombeni, saying, “I think those people should keep their opinions to themselves until they’re in the same situation and see if they can do better in the same circumstances.”
Others also spoke out in support of the guard online, commended him for staying composed and taking direction from Prinsloo. Still, it doesn’t appear like the threat is over.
According to News24, Prinsloo has been placed under protective guard because he’s been receiving death threats since foiling the heist. So far, no arrests have been made in this case but police are still investigating.