winph99 login
2025-01-11   

TikTok is inching closer to a potential ban in the US. So what's next?WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American. But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It's been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country. It's not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen. But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it's possible, it's a bad idea. Here's a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it: During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said. Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship. Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country. “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens. The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.” In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But the 14th Amendment didn't always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn't until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it's less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa. “That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.” Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected. Trump wasn't clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he'd use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action." He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website . In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.” Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.” This would almost certainly end up in litigation. Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts. “I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade," Nowrasteh said. "He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens." Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution. Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.Diamcor Announces Availability of Meeting MaterialsStock market today: Wall Street gains ground as it notches a winning week and another Dow recordwinph99 login 。

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. , Dec. 2, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN) will present at Citi's 2024 Global Healthcare Conference at 9:30 a.m. ET on Thursday , Dec. 5, 2024. Peter Griffith , executive vice president and chief financial officer at Amgen, Jay Bradner , executive vice president of Research and Development and chief scientific officer at Amgen, and Susan Sweeney , executive vice president of Obesity and Related Conditions at Amgen, will participate in a fireside chat at the conference. The webcast will be broadcast over the internet simultaneously and will be available to members of the news media, investors and the general public. The webcast, as with other selected presentations regarding developments in Amgen's business given by management at certain investor and medical conferences, can be found on Amgen's website, www.amgen.com , under Investors. Information regarding presentation times, webcast availability and webcast links are noted on Amgen's Investor Relations Events Calendar. The webcast will be archived and available for replay for at least 90 days after the event. About Amgen Amgen discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers innovative medicines to help millions of patients in their fight against some of the world's toughest diseases. More than 40 years ago, Amgen helped to establish the biotechnology industry and remains on the cutting-edge of innovation, using technology and human genetic data to push beyond what's known today. Amgen is advancing a broad and deep pipeline that builds on its existing portfolio of medicines to treat cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, inflammatory diseases and rare diseases. In 2024, Amgen was named one of the "World's Most Innovative Companies" by Fast Company and one of "America's Best Large Employers" by Forbes, among other external recognitions . Amgen is one of the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average ® , and it is also part of the Nasdaq-100 Index ® , which includes the largest and most innovative non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market based on market capitalization. Amgen is one of the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also part of the Nasdaq-100 index. In 2023, Amgen was named one of "America's Greatest Workplaces" by Newsweek, one of "America's Climate Leaders" by USA Today and one of the "World's Best Companies" by TIME. For more information, visit Amgen.com and follow us on X (formerly known as Twitter), LinkedIn , Instagram , TikTok , YouTube and Threads . Amgen Forward-Looking Statements This news release contains forward-looking statements that are based on the current expectations and beliefs of Amgen. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements, including any statements on the outcome, benefits and synergies of collaborations, or potential collaborations, with any other company (including BeiGene, Ltd. or Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd.), the performance of Otezla ® (apremilast) (including anticipated Otezla sales growth and the timing of non-GAAP EPS accretion), our acquisitions of Teneobio, Inc., ChemoCentryx, Inc., or Horizon Therapeutics plc (including the prospective performance and outlook of Horizon's business, performance and opportunities, any potential strategic benefits, synergies or opportunities expected as a result of such acquisition, and any projected impacts from the Horizon acquisition on our acquisition-related expenses going forward), as well as estimates of revenues, operating margins, capital expenditures, cash, other financial metrics, expected legal, arbitration, political, regulatory or clinical results or practices, customer and prescriber patterns or practices, reimbursement activities and outcomes, effects of pandemics or other widespread health problems on our business, outcomes, progress, and other such estimates and results. Forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, including those discussed below and more fully described in the Securities and Exchange Commission reports filed by Amgen, including our most recent annual report on Form 10-K and any subsequent periodic reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K. Unless otherwise noted, Amgen is providing this information as of the date of this news release and does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this document as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed and actual results may differ materially from those we project. Our results may be affected by our ability to successfully market both new and existing products domestically and internationally, clinical and regulatory developments involving current and future products, sales growth of recently launched products, competition from other products including biosimilars, difficulties or delays in manufacturing our products and global economic conditions. In addition, sales of our products are affected by pricing pressure, political and public scrutiny and reimbursement policies imposed by third-party payers, including governments, private insurance plans and managed care providers and may be affected by regulatory, clinical and guideline developments and domestic and international trends toward managed care and healthcare cost containment. Furthermore, our research, testing, pricing, marketing and other operations are subject to extensive regulation by domestic and foreign government regulatory authorities. We or others could identify safety, side effects or manufacturing problems with our products, including our devices, after they are on the market. Our business may be impacted by government investigations, litigation and product liability claims. In addition, our business may be impacted by the adoption of new tax legislation or exposure to additional tax liabilities. If we fail to meet the compliance obligations in the corporate integrity agreement between us and the U.S. government, we could become subject to significant sanctions. Further, while we routinely obtain patents for our products and technology, the protection offered by our patents and patent applications may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented by our competitors, or we may fail to prevail in present and future intellectual property litigation. We perform a substantial amount of our commercial manufacturing activities at a few key facilities, including in Puerto Rico , and also depend on third parties for a portion of our manufacturing activities, and limits on supply may constrain sales of certain of our current products and product candidate development. An outbreak of disease or similar public health threat, such as COVID-19, and the public and governmental effort to mitigate against the spread of such disease, could have a significant adverse effect on the supply of materials for our manufacturing activities, the distribution of our products, the commercialization of our product candidates, and our clinical trial operations, and any such events may have a material adverse effect on our product development, product sales, business and results of operations. We rely on collaborations with third parties for the development of some of our product candidates and for the commercialization and sales of some of our commercial products. In addition, we compete with other companies with respect to many of our marketed products as well as for the discovery and development of new products. Discovery or identification of new product candidates or development of new indications for existing products cannot be guaranteed and movement from concept to product is uncertain; consequently, there can be no guarantee that any particular product candidate or development of a new indication for an existing product will be successful and become a commercial product. Further, some raw materials, medical devices and component parts for our products are supplied by sole third-party suppliers. Certain of our distributors, customers and payers have substantial purchasing leverage in their dealings with us. The discovery of significant problems with a product similar to one of our products that implicate an entire class of products could have a material adverse effect on sales of the affected products and on our business and results of operations. Our efforts to collaborate with or acquire other companies, products or technology, and to integrate the operations of companies or to support the products or technology we have acquired, may not be successful. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to realize any of the strategic benefits, synergies or opportunities arising from the Horizon acquisition, and such benefits, synergies or opportunities may take longer to realize than expected. We may not be able to successfully integrate Horizon, and such integration may take longer, be more difficult or cost more than expected. A breakdown, cyberattack or information security breach of our information technology systems could compromise the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our systems and our data. Our stock price is volatile and may be affected by a number of events. Our business and operations may be negatively affected by the failure, or perceived failure, of achieving our environmental, social and governance objectives. The effects of global climate change and related natural disasters could negatively affect our business and operations. Global economic conditions may magnify certain risks that affect our business. Our business performance could affect or limit the ability of our Board of Directors to declare a dividend or our ability to pay a dividend or repurchase our common stock. We may not be able to access the capital and credit markets on terms that are favorable to us, or at all. CONTACT: Amgen, Thousand Oaks Elissa Snook , 609-251-1407 (media) Justin Claeys , 805-313-9775 (investors) View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/amgen-to-present-at-citis-2024-global-healthcare-conference-302319891.html SOURCE Amgen

A lawyer fighting to establish what it means to be a woman has argued in the UK’s highest court that sex is an “immutable biological state”. Aidan O’Neill KC, acting for campaigners in Scotland, made the arguments during the Supreme Court’s hearing of a legal challenge over the definition of what it means to be female . The landmark case - which began on Tuesday - follows an ongoing debate between the Scottish government and campaigners. The verdict will determine whether trans women should be considered female under the 2010 Equality Act as the case seeks to decide if sex amounts to the biological sex you are born with or your gender identity in the eyes of the law. It could have far-reaching ramifications across the UK on how single-sex spaces operate and human rights campaigners have raised fears the case may impact trans women’s rights and their ability to challenge discrimination. Mr O'Neill, representing For Women Scotland, said: “In the Equality Act, sex just means sex, as that word and the words woman and man are understood and used in ordinary, everyday language, used every day in everyday situations by ordinary people”. He urged the court to take account of “the facts of biological reality rather than the fantasies of legal fiction” and to uphold the appeal. He added: “Our position is your sex whether you are a man or a woman or a girl or a boy is determined from conception in utero, even before one's birth, by one's body. “It is an expression of one's bodily reality. It is an immutable biological state.” This case ultimately centres on the question of whether women with gender recognition certificates which state that they are female should be entitled to protections established under the 2010 Equality Act. The Scottish government has said anyone with a certificate stating they are female is a woman. The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 states that getting a gender recognition certificate constitutes a change of sex “for all purposes”. Meanwhile, the Equality Act of 2010 safeguards specific groups from being discriminated against at work and in society - with an individual’s sex and gender reassignment considered as protected characteristics. The legislation defines a woman as “a female of any age”. 2018: Legislation entitled Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act was passed in Scotland in an attempt to get more women on public sector boards. This law included females who were “living as a woman” and were wanting to or about to embark on changing their gender. The campaign group For Women Scotland issued a challenge against the legislation in court. 2022: After several appeals, For Women Scotland won. The campaign group persuaded judges that the Scottish government's attempt to broaden the definition of women to include trans women infringed equality law. Although the Scottish government was forced to change their legislation, they still released new statutory guidance alongside the bill saying they would see women as those with gender recognition certificates stating they are female. The guidance stated that under the 2018 Act the definition of a woman was the same as that set out in the Equality Act 2010. For Women Scotland disputed their guidelines but lost. December 2022: Judge Lady Haldane reached the verdict that the definition of sex was “not limited to biological or birth sex” and those who had a gender recognition certificate could be included. November 20024: For Women Scotland challenges this decision at the Supreme Court. Five judges - led by the court’s president Lord Reed - listen to the opposing arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday and then hand down a judgement at a later date. The ruling could have a far-reaching impact on how trans women should be treated in the eyes of the law and whether trans women can claim they are being discriminated against under the Equality Act. The landmark case could result in a range of places, including sports competitions, refuges for domestic abuse victims, sexual violence services, and hospital wards, being forced to change their policies towards trans women. For Women Scotland do not see those with a gender recognition certificate stating they are female as women - they solely see sex in biological terms. Campaigners on this side of the debate argue single-sex spaces are under threat in the UK. On the opposing side, human rights campaigners have raised fears trans rights will be eroded if For Women Scotland wins the case. Amnesty International UK, a leading human rights charity who has intervened in the Supreme Court case, has argued gender recognition is a matter of human rights. “Legal gender recognition as it works now is essential for trans people to enjoy the full spectrum of human rights each of us is entitled to, and live free from fear of discrimination,” a spokesperson said. “Regardless of what we look like, where we come from or how we express our gender identities, human rights apply to everyone, and we all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.” Additional reporting by agencies

Special teams bungles dominate NFL, with Commanders and Cowboys leading the way

CARSON, Calif. — The LA Galaxy and the New York Red Bulls have been Major League Soccer mainstays since the league's inaugural season in 1996, signing glamorous players and regularly competing for championships through years of success and setbacks in a league that's perpetually improving and expanding. Yet just a year ago, both of these clubs appeared to be a very long way from the stage they'll share Saturday in the MLS Cup Final. The Galaxy were one of MLS' worst teams after a season of internal turmoil and public fan dissent, while the Red Bulls were merely a steady mediocrity seeking yet another coach to chart a new direction. A year later, these MLS founders are meeting in the league's first Cup final between teams from North America's two biggest markets. "Two original clubs being able to put themselves in this situation, I think it's great," Galaxy coach Greg Vanney said. "To see two clubs that have been at it as long as this league has been around be here, I think it's a special moment. Couldn't be two more different and contrasting styles as well, which could make for an interesting game, and I would imagine a high-intensity game." Everything changed in 2024 after a dismal decade for the Galaxy, who are favored to cap their transformation by winning their team's record sixth MLS championship with a roster that's dramatically different from its past few groups — albeit with one massive injury absence in the final. The transformation of the Red Bulls happened only in the postseason, when a team that hadn't won a playoff game since 2017 suddenly turned into world-beaters under rookie coach Sandro Schwarz. New York struggled through the final three months of league play with only two wins before posting road playoff victories over defending champ Columbus, archrival New York City FC and conference finalist Orlando to storm into the Cup final. "We know about the history (of our club), and we know tomorrow will define what that could mean," Schwarz said Friday. "To feel the pressure for tomorrow, it's necessary, because it's a final, and without pressure it's not possible to bring the best quality on the field." The Red Bulls have never won an MLS Cup, only reaching the championship match once before. What's more, they've somehow never won a Cup in any tournament, although they've collected three Supporters' Shields for MLS' best regular-season record. The Galaxy's trophy case is large and loaded, and those five MLS Cups are on the top shelf. But not much of that team success happened in the past decade for the club that famously brought David Beckham, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Robbie Keane, Steven Gerrard and many other international stars to Hollywood. In fact, this season has ended a grim era for the Galaxy, who haven't lost all year at their frequently renamed home stadium — which was the site of protests and boycotts just a year ago. The club's fans were tired of LA's steady underachievement and ineptitude in the front office run by team president Chris Klein, who was fired in May 2023. One year ago Thursday, the Galaxy hired Will Kuntz, a longtime Los Angeles FC executive who engineered his new club's roster transformation, most dramatically by landing new designated players Gabriel Pec and Joseph Paintsil — two international talents that LAFC also had in its sights. "I give Will and the group up there a ton of credit," Vanney said. "It's one thing to have players you like, and it's a whole other thing to get them here and get them to connect with your group." Pec and Paintsil combined for 32 goals and 27 assists while boosting the incumbent talents of striker Dejan Joveljic and Riqui Puig, the gifted Barcelona product who runs the offense from the midfield. The Galaxy clicked in the postseason, scoring a jaw-dropping 16 goals in four matches. Puig has been the Galaxy's most important player all season, but he won't be in the MLS Cup Final after tearing a knee ligament late in last week's conference final victory over Seattle. The loss of Puig — who somehow kept playing on his injured knee, and even delivered the game-winning pass to Joveljic — makes the Galaxy even more difficult to anticipate. "He played a lot in the regular season, so it was not so easy to analyze all these games now without him," Schwarz said. "But the main focus is to analyze what we need to do, because it's not clear now how they're playing without him." The Galaxy could give some of Puig's responsibilities to Marco Reus, the longtime Dortmund standout who joined LA in August. Reus is nursing a hamstring injury, but Vanney expects him to play.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden faces a stark choice as he contemplates broad preemptive pardons to protect aides and allies from potential retribution by Donald Trump: Does he hew to the institutional norms he’s spent decades defending or flex the powers of the presidency in untested ways? The deliberations so far are largely at the level of White House lawyers. But the president has discussed the topic with senior aides, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject. No decisions have been made, the people said, and it is possible Biden opts to do nothing at all. Biden is taking the idea seriously and has been thinking about it for as much as six months — before the presidential election — but has been concerned about the precedent it would set, according to another person familiar with the president’s discussions who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Pardons are historically afforded to those accused of specific crimes –- and usually to those who have already been convicted of an offense — but Biden’s team is considering issuing them for some who have not even been investigated, let alone charged. The president could, if he chooses, issue blanket pardons to specific people whom Trump and his allies have threatened to punish. Or he could pardon a broad class of people — not unlike pardons issued to those convicted of federal marijuana offenses or those ensnared in the “don't ask, don't tell” military policies. Either way, he'd be using the powers of the presidency in a new way. Some worry that Trump and his allies, who have talked of enemies lists and exacting “retribution,” could launch investigations that would be reputationally and financially costly for targeted people even if they don’t result in prosecutions. The door has already been opened, given that Biden has extended a broad pardon to his son, Hunter , who was convicted and pleaded guilty in tax and gun cases. Biden explained that decision by saying he believed the prosecution of his son had been poisoned by politics. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Friday that Biden plans additional pardons before leaving office though she would not elaborate on the process. She repeatedly referenced “changing factors” that motivated the president to pardon his son despite promising he wouldn’t. She said Republicans have continued to try to see Hunter Biden investigated for an array of alleged offenses, a rationale that could support additional pardons for Biden aides and allies. It was two weeks ago that one of the president’s closest allies in Congress, Rep, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, encouraged Biden to pardon his son Hunter. The morning after that conversation, Clyburn told Biden’s staff that he believed the president should also pardon those being targeted by Trump. “I was very forceful in my discussions with him about what I thought he ought to do regarding his son,” Clyburn said Friday. “But I also told them that I thought he ought to go even further, because all the noise about Jack Smith and Liz Cheney and Doctor Fauci and all of that.” Special Counsel Jack Smith has been investigating Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and for accusations he hoarded classified documents at his home. Liz Cheney, a conservative Republican , was the vice chairwoman of the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and campaigned for Vice President Kamala Harris. Fauci, an infectious disease expert, was instrumental in the government's response to the coronavirus. All have raised the ire of Trump. Clyburn said he told Biden’s team, only half jokingly, that because the Supreme Court has already said that the president has certain immunities, “let’s give that same immunity to Jack Smith for carrying out his duties and to, Doctor Fauci, Liz Cheney, they were carrying out their duties.” Among those mentioned publicly for possible presidential pardons, there are different sentiments on whether pardons would even be wanted. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supported the president’s move to pardon his son, but has been silent on the speculation that Biden is considering additional pardons for her or others. A top Pelosi ally, Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic congressman who led Trump’s first impeachment, has panned the idea of pardoning Biden's allies. He says “the courts are strong enough to withstand” the worst of Trump’s threats. “I don’t think a preemptive pardon makes sense,” the incoming senator told NPR recently. “I would urge the president not to do that. I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary,” Schiff said. Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, who was the lead manager on Trump’s second impeachment, on the charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol, said members of Congress already are protected by the speech and debate clause in the Constitution, which protects them prosecution for participating in their legislative duties. Raskin said figures like Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and John Kelly , Trump's former White House chief of staff, would similarly be protected by the First Amendment. But Raskin said the question is, “Should they go through the criminal investigation and prosecution for not doing anything wrong? I think that’s why this whole issue has erupted.” Raksin added that with Trump promising to pardon hundreds of people who assaulted police officers on Jan. 6th, “I can hardly fault President Biden for exploring the use of the pardon to protect people from a fraudulent and unjust prosecution.” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said he’s had no conversations with the White House regarding any preemptive pardons for current or former members of Congress. Associated Press Writers Kevin Freking and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

While the jury is still out on the factors leading to the landslide victory for the MahaYuti coalition in the Maharashtra assembly elections, anger among Muslims is being directed against religious leaders, especially Maulana Sajjad Naumani, a Deobandi cleric whose appeal to Muslims to vote for Congress-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) is being blamed for the counter-mobilisation of Hindu votes, precipitating BJP-led MahaYuti's record-breaking victory. At a press conference in Mumbai on November 13, Naumani had released a list of candidates, mostly from MVA, asking Muslims to support them. He said that Muslims should vote for the candidates 'to defeat forces challenging the Constitution'. Naumani had, however, declined to answer questions from the media on whether he represented all Muslims, explaining that he had come up with the list of candidates after consulting scholars, social activists, and opinion makers. Naumani has since apologised for a statement made during the run-up to the elections where he said that Muslims who vote for MahaYuti should be socially boycotted. After MVA's drubbing in last week's elections, Muslims are asking the question raised at the press meet. Juned Shaikh, who runs a YouTube channel called F3 News with a wide viewership, represented the view of many Muslims when he asked, "Who did maulana consult before declaring support for the candidates? There are millions of Muslims in the state; did you have a meeting with them?" Shuiab Khateeb, trustee of Mumbai's Jama Masjid, who contested as a candidate in Mumbadevi for the Aazad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), said it was wrong for Naumani to endorse the entire list of MVA candidates. "On what ground did Naumani base his list of candidates? Did he consult the public?" asked Khateeb. "His statement created vote banks of Hindus and Muslims. Candidates should be endorsed on the basis of their work and potential, not because they belong to a particular political group. Naumani's statements created havoc in the minds of the voters," said Khateeb. Naumani, who was educated at a university in Madina, is based out of Uttar Pradesh though he has an establishment in Mumbai. Naumani probably did not know the ground realities in Maharashtra and was misled by other people, said senior Urdu journalist Saeed Hameed. "We talk about transparency by politicians and the government. However, the maulana did not have transparency about the machinery that he used to come up with the list of candidates Muslims should vote for in 288 seats," said Saeed. "Surveys that cover a big state require a lot of money. I am apprehensive of his research and his parameters." Saeed added that Naumani's endorsement of MVA candidates lent credence to accusations of 'vote jihad' hurled by BJP leaders like Kirit Somaiya. "It was a critical election; he should have been careful in choosing his words. He exceeded his limits as a maulana. He has to ultimately apologise for some of his statements. Also, a statement by a Tablighi maulana will not be accepted by Barelvis, Shias, and other sects." A statement similar to Naumani's was made by AIMIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi in 2014 during his first political rally in Mumbai, said Shaikh. "He said something about Muslims uniting for 15 minutes to finish off their opponents. While the statement did not unite Muslims, it did unite the majority. That was a turning point," said Shaikh. Dr Azimuddin, president of Movement for Human Welfare, who had accompanied Naumani at the press meet, said that the cleric's remarks could have had only a marginal effect on the election results. "There were other factors that led to the huge win for MahaYuti. Questions about manipulation of voting machines remain unanswered. There were reports that money meant for distribution among voters were seized. The Sangh Parivar used Naumani's statements to create an elaborate door-to-door campaign. They worked hard; the MVA was confident of winning and did not match the campaigning. The maulana is not such a powerful person to influence voters. He did not make any polarising statement," said Azimuddin Some Muslims felt that Naumani did not deserve the harsh criticism. Abdul Razak Maniar, a social worker, said, "During every election, local community leaders suggest names of candidates who they think people should vote for. Naumani made up his list after doing local surveys. However, endorsing an entire list of candidates was not a sensible thing. It could have caused counter-mobilisation of Hindu votes."

High Yields Over 6%? Top 2 REITs to Buy in December

Ruud van Nistelrooy ‘disappointed’ and ‘hurt’ after cutting ties with Man UtdPair of original MLS clubs to play for Cup titleCongress readies nearly $900 billion in defense spending

Related hot word search:

Previous: spinph99
Next: winph 99