UK Called To Stop Arms Sales To Saudi Over Human Rights Violations

A House of Commons Business and International Development Committees report indicate that the sale of UK's arms to Saudi Arabia should halt following the latter's involvement in Yemen.

The Committee said it had received evidence of "clear violations" of international humanitarian law (IHL). About 47 civilians including 21 women and 15 children were killed in Saudi Arabian 

skirmishes using UK weaponry. The report also included injuries to 58 more individuals after a house hosting a wedding party was hit by Saudi Arabian aircraft ammunition.

MPs are split on the issue. According to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee's rival report, the government must block exports if the UK courts say the weapon sales are unlawful.

The Saudi Arabian Air Force including other allies of the US-led coalition have also struck other neutral parties in Syria.

Medicins Sans Frontieres accused the coalition of war crimes after attacking several of their volunteer hospitals in the area that killed 11 the previous month.

According to FAC Conservative Chairman Crispin Blunt the report was one-sided. He had walked 

out of a private meeting between the House of Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) to avoid a vote from being taken on the draft report.

The UK Defence Committee did not comment whether they will publish their own report on the matter.

Legal Challenge Against Brexit Involves Ulster Volunteer Force Victims

Raymond McCord did not receive the news of Brexit quite well, I believe.

Currently, Mr McCord is seeking a judicial review that would allow him to challenge the decision over Brexit as it would impact the benefits he receives from the European Union.

Mr McCord's son Raymond Jr was beaten to death by the Ulster Volunteer Force in 1997 while they lived in Belfast. The 'Troubles' had many human rights victims that the EU supports under a collective ruling.

The support from the EU could be altered once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union officially in a few years.

According to his lawyer:

"As a victim of the most recent conflict in Northern Ireland, Mr McCord is very concerned about the profoundly damaging effect that a unilateral withdrawal of the UK from the EU will have upon the ongoing relative stability in Northern Ireland."

His legal team claim it would be unlawful to begin the formal process of the UK leaving the EU without a parliamentary vote.

They also claim it could undermine the UK's treaty obligations under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the peace process.

It is also one of the first types of challenge to come out from Northern Ireland in light of Brexit. 

Theresa May On Environment, Surveillance and Drugs

As David Cameron steps down, a post-Brexit Prime Minister for the Tories accepts the torch.

To fulfil the last three years of Tories as big bosses, former Home Secretary Theresa May takes the keys to Number 10.

To clarify her controversial stances regarding the environment, surveillance and drugs, Wired's Matt Burgess analyses the possible future of Britain under her command.

On surveillance, Mrs May had under-success in changing surveillance methods available to police forces, the GCHQ, and the MI5.

She plans to publish the draft of the new Investigatory Powers Bill, which was published in November 2015. According to Mrs May, the draft published is different from the Communications Bill of 2012, which only added a few minor clauses without actually fixing the issue of surveillance.

This would mean that communication companies would store information about their consumers and have legal powers to hack mobile phones and other gadgets without user permission.

On the environment, Mr Burgess speculates that Mrs May might not be the best candidate to reduce the pollution and balding forestry in the country.

Mr Burgess' research with information from TheyWorkForYou, Mrs May had voted against measures that would have stopped climate changed. She in fact had voted to sell England's state-owned forests for better economic measure.

On drugs, the new Prime Minister had oversee the Psychoactive Substances Bill during her time as Home Secretary. This allows authorities to seize and destroy any psychoactive substances and obtain a warrant to search the homes of suspects possessing or creating them.

Canadian Government to Legalise Marijuana Under Two Conditions

Canadian President Justin Trudeau seeks to legalise marijuana however it takes. Obviously, he's using regulation versus banning and the procurement of marijuana in the black market. During an economic conference in Canada last Wednesday, he said:

"Look, our approach on legalising marijuana is not about creating a boutique industry or bringing in tax revenue. It's actually based on two very simple principles:

The first one is, young people have easier access to cannabis now in Canada more than they do in just about any other country in the world. Of 29 different countries studied by the UN, Canada was number one in terms of underage access to marijuana.

"And whatever you may think of studies about marijuana and cannabis being less harmful than alcohol or even cigarettes, it is still bad for the developing brain and we need to make sure it's harder for underage Canadians to access marijuana.

"The other piece of it is there are billions upon billions of dollars flowing into the pockets of organised crime, street-gangs and gun-runners due to the illicit marijuana trade. If we can get them to a more regulated fashion we can reduce the amount of criminal activity profiting from these and its offshoots into other criminal activities."

According to Trudeau, Canada "could be to Cannabis as France is to wine", encouraging the country's top entrepreneurs and innovators to think of ways to proliferate the about-to-boom Cannabis trade in the country.

Trudeau said his primary concern is the safety of children often dragged into the world of Cannabis and its darker areas.

Petition For Change In Women's Dress Code Receives 120,000 Signatures

A London PwC female employee who refused to wear heels going to work had started a petition that has so far earned 120,000 signatures from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Worldwide, the petition gained support after it had made headlines.

Nicola Thorpe, a PwC former clerk, had started the petition after she was "made fun of" of her superiors, who had her go home without pay until she changed her outfit.

"It's still legal in the UK for a company to require female members of staff to wear high heels at work against their will," the petition states. "Dress code laws should be changed so that women have the option to wear flat formal shoes at work, if they wish. Current formal work dress codes are outdated and sexist."

Thorpe said employers still have the right to impose different dress codes for men and women. However, this is only fair when the dress code doesn't favour one of the sexes," according to Thorp.

Studies have shown repeatedly the effects of wearing high-heels for more than eight hours, which are often required of these women. Some studies have highlighted that females who wear high heels more than one hour and 30 minutes start to experience excruciating pain.

Explaining The North Carolina LGBT Battle

On April 12, 2016, North Carolina's LGBT community had taken to the streets after North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R) announced Executive Order 93.

The state passed an anti-discriminatory law that excluded protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Now, this had left LGBTs the inability to use public restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate.

Even with the executive order, which was meant to explain the situation, everyone was still left confused.

This was what the original House Bill 2 would implement

• Created a mandatory statewide anti-discrimination policy with protections based on  “race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap.” Biological sex is defined as “the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate.” It excluded protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• 
  
• Required people to use bathrooms and changing facilities in government buildings and public schools that correspond with their biological sex. Agencies could provide other accommodations, such as single-occupancy bathrooms. This did not affect private businesses, companies or universities.
• 
  
• Banned local governments from requiring private contractors to have anti-discrimination employment policies that include sexual orientation or gender identity, or to impose restrictions such as minimum wage or paid sick leave.
• 
  
• Prohibited private individuals from suing the state over discriminatory firing, according to employment attorneys in the state. Residents can still file federal discrimination lawsuits.

The provisions had arcane definitions that rooted from discrimination.

McCrory received an open letter from 80 corporation CEOs who said:

“We are disappointed in your decision to sign this discriminatory legislation into law. The business community, by and large, has consistently communicated to lawmakers at every level that such laws are bad for our employees and bad for business.

 This is not a direction in which states move when they are seeking to provide successful, thriving hubs for business and economic development. We believe that HB 2 will make it far more challenging for businesses across the state to recruit and retain the nation’s best and brightest workers and attract the most talented students from across the country.”

Parliament Gives Investigatory Powers Bill A Passing Result

The end is nigh, my fellow Britons. This year might be the last time we'll ever set foot to our private lives ever again. If things get worse, it might just spread all over the world.

The proposed Investigatory Powers Bill will supply police and authorities powers that would allow the browsing of every Briton's Internet records for an inquiry of suspected criminal activity or terrorism.

According to Home Secretary Theresa May, the powers would be "safeguarded against abuse". This is to downplay fears that authorities may abuse the permissions and powers.

About 200 lawyers have signed an open letter opposing the IP Bill. The lawyers highlighted it was "not fit for purpose" and it required "no demonstration of terrorism or criminal act to access."

It's like digital martial law, in a manner of speaking.

Harvesting a massive amount of online bulk data from each and every one of our Internet connections would mean anybody in the UK has an eye watching them.

If you've ever read George Orwell's 1984, where we're going is his world. Yes, you might say the 

Chinese can live with the fact their social media sites are government-monitored and had led to many arrests, but it's different in Britain.

And soon enough, it'll be the same in Britain.