A Russian ballistic missile fitted with a cluster warhead struck the historic Pecherskyi district of Kyiv overnight on 21–22 October 2026, damaging buildings near two of the Ukrainian capital’s principal religious complexes, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said.

The missile landed between the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, a UNESCO World Heritage site, and the Holy Presentation (Sviato-Vvedenskyi) Monastery. Monastery buildings, homes, shops, cafés and other civilian infrastructure sustained damage in the surrounding area.

Zelenskyy disclosed that Russian forces had used three cluster-equipped ballistic missiles during the assault. Ukrainian authorities described weapons designed to explode in the air as they approach their targets, distributing explosive submunitions over an area approximately 400 metres in diameter.

After receiving reports from officials overseeing emergency operations across Ukraine, the president accused Moscow of deliberately choosing a weapon capable of inflicting extensive civilian casualties in a densely populated district.

“This was a deliberate choice of weapon and area of deployment,” Zelenskyy said.

He maintained that there were no military installations in the vicinity and that the attack had been intended to inflict maximum damage on civilians and their property.

Religious Buildings and Civilian Properties Damaged

Pecherskyi is one of Kyiv’s oldest districts, containing religious institutions and architectural monuments associated with centuries of Ukrainian history.

Among them is the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, established in the 11th century and subsequently developed into an important centre of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

The complex includes historic churches, monasteries and an extensive system of underground caves. Together with Saint Sophia Cathedral and its related buildings, it forms part of a UNESCO World Heritage property that has appeared on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 2023.

Thursday’s explosion occurred in the area separating the Lavra from the Holy Presentation Monastery. Ukrainian authorities identified damage to buildings belonging to the latter, alongside neighbouring residential and commercial premises. Assessments of the destruction across the historic district were continuing.

This was not the first occasion in 2026 on which Russian weapons had damaged the area’s religious heritage.

On 15 June, a Russian drone struck the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra complex, causing severe damage to the Dormition Cathedral. Its roof and structural elements suffered extensive destruction, prompting UNESCO to undertake emergency stabilisation measures.

Ukraine’s Security Service subsequently published evidence identifying fragments of a Russian Geran-2 drone recovered from the site.

The October strike has again exposed the vulnerability of the capital’s historic religious buildings, as well as the civilian neighbourhoods surrounding them.

The Use of Cluster Weapons in Urban Areas

The reported choice of ammunition has particular implications for the investigation into the attack.

Whereas a conventional missile warhead delivers its explosive force around a principal impact point, cluster munitions release numerous smaller explosive devices capable of striking separate locations across a broad area.

In an urban environment, such weapons can cause casualties and destruction well beyond an intended target. Unexploded submunitions may remain dangerous after the initial attack, posing further risks to residents and emergency workers.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that deploying cluster munitions in populated areas creates a high likelihood of indiscriminate effects.

Under international humanitarian law, military operations must distinguish between civilian persons and objects and legitimate military targets. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.

The reported deployment of cluster warheads in central Kyiv therefore raises questions about whether those requirements were observed. Zelenskyy’s account of the three missiles had not, at the time of reporting, been independently established through publicly available forensic evidence.

Russian Barrage Follows Diplomatic Contact with Washington

The Pecherskyi explosion was one incident in a much larger attack on the Ukrainian capital.

According to Zelenskyy, Russia launched 21 ballistic missiles against Kyiv in three successive waves overnight. Ukrainian authorities reported at least two people killed and more than 30 wounded, with strikes damaging apartment buildings, commercial premises, transport infrastructure and energy facilities.

The bombardment took place shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin met US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg on Wednesday, 21 October.

During their discussions, Putin indicated that Russia was prepared in principle to resume negotiations with Ukraine and the United States, potentially in November. However, no confirmed timetable emerged.

Witkoff’s visit followed consultations in Norway between American, Ukrainian and European representatives over possible arrangements to end the war.

The renewed diplomatic activity has done little to resolve the underlying disagreements. As EU Today has previously examined, Moscow continues to advance territorial demands while the parties remain divided over Ukraine’s future security guarantees.

Meanwhile, Kyiv faces an immediate requirement for additional air-defence ammunition.

Zelenskyy has repeatedly appealed for more Patriot interceptor missiles capable of engaging ballistic targets. Difficulties surrounding American military assistance and intelligence cooperation have increased tensions between Washington and Kyiv at a time when Russia is intensifying attacks against Ukrainian cities.

The latest strike also presents Ukrainian investigators with the task of establishing whether the reported use of cluster munitions against a historic civilian district constituted an unlawful attack.

For Zelenskyy, the bombardment following Putin’s latest diplomatic discussions demonstrates that Moscow’s military conduct remains unchanged. He has argued that Russia’s actions provide no evidence of a genuine intention to bring the war to an end.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has received the EU’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.

Reacting to EU Parliament president Roberta Metsola’s announcement of the prize winner on Thursday (22 October), the Hague-based court said it is “thankful” for the recognition of the court and its officials.

“This award comes at a time when the court and its officials face unprecedented challenges, including sanctions aimed at disrupting the court’s judicial mandate,” ICC president judge Tomoko Akane told EUobserver in a statement.

The parliament’s recognition “underscores the importance of […] support to enable the Court to carry out its mandate independently and impartially, in the service of justice and the victims of the gravest crimes,” said the Japanese judge.

The court’s win comes after US president Donald Trump put his weight behind Israeli efforts to discredit the international judicial body by extending sanctions against it.

The ICC investigates and tries individuals charged with war and human-rights related crimes. When it issued an arrest warrant in 2024 for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes, the US responded by sanctioning its judges.

EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the win, saying:
“For victims of the world’s gravest crimes, justice means a voice. The ICC must be free to pursue its mission, independently, and without pressure or intimidation. Europe stands firmly behind president Tomoko Akane, the Court’s judges and officials, and their vital work for a world governed by rules.”

New sanctions against the court were announced by the Trump administration this month after the Nobel Peace Prize went to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge who concluded in a UN report that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Tomoka said: “While this prize recognises the work of the court in combating impunity and ensuring fair trials, it is also an important recognition of the role of international justice as a cornerstone of lasting peace. In a world marked by rising conflicts, there is no peace without justice and no security without law.”

Strasbourg stands for justice

French MEP Chloé Ridel initiated the ICC’s nomination for the Sakharov Prize on behalf of the Socialists & Democrats parliament group.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

England and Wales judges to be able to keep inmates in cells for longer or stop visits if they refuse to face victims’ families in court

Offenders who refuse to face their victims’ families in court for sentencing could be stripped of privileges or kept in cells for weeks under government changes granting wider powers to judges in England and Wales.

The imposition of new prison sanctions, coming into effect next year, builds on existing laws that order offenders to attend sentencing or face a fine or be jailed for a further two years for contempt of court.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images

© Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images

© Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images

CCTV footage shows the police officer buying fast food, attending hospital, and visiting three separate Bunnings stores in the days after the alleged murder

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

Beau Lamarre-Condon ordered food from a McDonald’s drive-thru in a van allegedly used to dispose of two bodies, footage released by the court has shown.

Lamarre-Condon, 31, is accused of fatally shooting Sydney couple, Jesse Baird and Luke Davies, with his police service weapon in Baird’s Paddington home on 19 February 2024.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: NSW police

© Photograph: NSW police

© Photograph: NSW police

A Dallas-area juvenile arrested by the FBI for planning a terrorist attack on behalf of ISIS may also have been planning to assassinate Rep. Keith Self (R-TX), the co-founder and co-chair of the Sharia-Free America Caucus, according to information reviewed by Breitbart News.

The post Exclusive — Juvenile Arrested by FBI for ISIS Terror Attack Plot May Have Also Planned to Assassinate Sharia-Free America Caucus Co-Founder Rep. Keith Self appeared first on Breitbart.

The European Commission has urged Malta to strengthen judicial independence, tackle corruption and improve protection for journalists, as a European Parliament debate exposes continuing disagreements over the country’s rule-of-law record.

The European Commission has called on Malta to accelerate judicial reforms and strengthen safeguards for journalists, nine years after the assassination of investigative reporter Daphne Caruana Galizia, as the European Parliament revisited concerns over corruption and institutional accountability on Wednesday, 21 October.

European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection Michael McGrath told MEPs in Strasbourg that Malta had made progress in certain areas but had yet to implement several outstanding recommendations concerning judicial independence, high-level corruption and media freedom.

The debate followed the controversial acquittal of businessman Yorgen Fenech, who had been accused of involvement in Caruana Galizia’s murder. Maltese prosecutors appealed the verdict in September, leaving the criminal proceedings subject to further judicial consideration.

Commission identifies continuing weaknesses

The European Commission’s 2026 Rule of Law Report, published in July, assessed Malta’s progress in reforming its justice system, anti-corruption institutions and protections for the media.

The report acknowledged certain improvements, including additional resources allocated to judicial and prosecutorial authorities.

However, it found that progress remained limited on several recommendations.

These include reducing delays in judicial proceedings, improving the investigation and prosecution of high-level corruption and ensuring greater judicial involvement in the appointment of the Chief Justice.

The Commission has also expressed concern about the effectiveness of existing anti-corruption arrangements.

Although investigations and prosecutions have increased in some areas, Brussels continues to seek a stronger record of final judgments in major corruption cases.

Court delays and pressure on judicial resources remain significant difficulties.

McGrath told Parliament that the Maltese authorities must continue implementing reforms to address these shortcomings.

Fenech acquittal intensifies accountability debate

Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb near her home in Bidnija on 16 October 2017.

The 53-year-old journalist had investigated corruption, money laundering and political connections involving prominent figures in Malta’s business and political establishment.

Her assassination prompted international condemnation, widespread demonstrations and investigations into the circumstances surrounding the killing.

Several men have subsequently been convicted for participating in the murder or supplying the explosives.

However, the criminal proceedings concerning the alleged commissioning of the assassination have remained contentious.

On 2 September 2026, a nine-member jury acquitted businessman Yorgen Fenech of complicity in the murder and criminal association. The verdict was reached by eight votes to one.

Fenech had denied ordering or financing the killing.

The acquittal prompted criticism from Caruana Galizia’s family and organisations campaigning for press freedom.

On 22 September, Malta’s Attorney General formally appealed the verdict, challenging legal decisions made during the trial.

The appeal does not overturn Fenech’s acquittal or establish criminal responsibility.

The Court of Criminal Appeal must determine whether the legal grounds presented justify further proceedings, potentially including a retrial.

The criminal case remains separate from the broader political debate over Malta’s institutional reforms.

Maltese MEPs clash in Strasbourg

Wednesday’s parliamentary debate exposed sharp disagreements between representatives of Malta’s opposition Nationalist Party and governing Labour Party.

Nationalist MEPs Peter Agius and David Casa criticised the authorities’ record on corruption and institutional accountability.

Agius argued that repeated European Commission assessments had failed to produce sufficient improvements and questioned whether Malta’s institutions were effectively addressing allegations of wrongdoing.

Casa referred to the findings of the independent public inquiry into Caruana Galizia’s assassination, which concluded in 2021 that the state had contributed to circumstances in which a climate of impunity enabled the killing.

He argued that significant recommendations arising from that inquiry remained outstanding.

Labour MEP Alex Agius Saliba rejected the criticism, maintaining that Malta had implemented reforms and that its judicial institutions should be allowed to perform their functions independently.

He pointed to the prosecution’s appeal against Fenech’s acquittal as evidence that the judicial process was continuing.

Labour MEP Thomas Bajada concentrated on the protection of journalists and the need to counter misinformation while preserving independent reporting.

The disagreements subsequently prompted a response from Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela, who accused opposition MEPs of damaging Malta’s reputation through their interventions.

Protection of journalists remains unfinished

Media freedom featured prominently in the Commission’s concerns.

Malta has introduced legislation addressing certain abusive legal proceedings against journalists, including transposing EU protections against strategic lawsuits intended to discourage public participation.

However, the existing measures principally concern civil proceedings with cross-border implications.

The Commission has urged Malta to extend comparable protections to domestic cases.

Other concerns include journalists’ access to official information, protection from intimidation and the need for more comprehensive legislative safeguards.

McGrath indicated that the Maltese government intended to present additional media legislation in the coming weeks.

The Commission has called for consultations with journalists, media organisations and civil society before the measures are adopted.

European institutions are also examining Malta’s implementation of wider EU requirements under the European Media Freedom Act.

Further pressure for reform

The European Parliament’s proceedings form part of the continued scrutiny of Malta’s institutional record following Caruana Galizia’s assassination.

The Commission’s annual rule-of-law assessments provide a mechanism for identifying outstanding problems and monitoring governments’ responses.

However, the implementation of many recommendations remains the responsibility of national authorities.

For Malta, the immediate issues concern the government’s promised media legislation, outstanding judicial reforms and the progression of the appeal in the Fenech case.

The Commission has made clear that further improvements are required, while the Maltese government maintains that substantial institutional changes have already been introduced.

The next assessment will depend on legislative measures actually adopted, their implementation and progress through the relevant judicial proceedings.

The International Criminal Court has so far turned a blind eye to the family of Shiri Bibas and her young sons, who were brutally murdered by Iran-backed Hamas terrorists after being forcefully taken from their homes during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

The Bibas boys — Ariel, four, Kfir, nine months, and their mother, Shiri — became the faces of the Israeli hostages held by terrorists in Gaza. All three were brutally murdered and now the mother's uncle, Maurice Shnaider, wants justice.

Before the court's Chief Prosecutor, Karim Khan, was removed for misconduct, Khan oversaw the issuance of controversial arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas terror commander Mohammad Deif, alleging they had committed a variety of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

ICC PROSECUTOR WHOSE NETANYAHU WARRANT FUELED MAMDANI ARREST THREAT IS FIRED OVER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

Khan’s ICC only sought to grant "selective justice" according to legal expert Elliot Malin, who told Fox News Digital that he filed two cases with the Office of the Prosecutor in 2025 requesting warrants against the leaders he accuses of truly practicing war crimes, including genocide, in Israel and Gaza. 

Malin, president of Stratos Council, filed his first case with the ICC in Sept. 2025. It requested that the court investigate and issue warrants for two Iranian officials for "crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide committed in Israel and Gaza on and after Oct. 7, 2023." Malin said that "It is very clear that the Islamic Republic is the principal to these proxies who are operating as agents of the regime… and we should hold the Islamic Republic directly accountable."

The request for investigation and warrants was filed on behalf of Shnaider, whose filings say he has lost five generations of his family "to acts committed with the intent to destroy Jews," including the Holocaust.

MIKE WALTZ FIGHTS BACK TEARS REVEALING WHAT HAMAS HOSTAGE REFUSED TO DO BEFORE RELEASE

On Oct. 7, Shnaider told Fox News Digital that he turned on the news to see his niece, Shiri Bibas, "being taken away" with her young children into captivity. Bibas and her children were later murdered as hostages. Shnaider says that he prays that Bibas "didn’t witness how they did what they did to a four-year-old and a nine-month-old."

Shnaider’s sister and brother-in-law were also murdered at Kibbutz Nir Oz on Oct. 7. He explained that they "were burned inside the house in a brutal way that you cannot imagine, you cannot explain, you cannot answer." By the time of his sister and brother-in-law’s burial, he explained that "there was hardly anything left" to put in the caskets.

Shnaider says that the grief from the horrific losses of his family on Oct. 7 "doesn’t compute in my body," leaving him "choking" with tears. Though Shnaider acknowledges that he will never understand the rationale behind hate, he said that "the most I can do is fight them in the way I can." He believes it is now up to the ICC "to put a stop to it." If the ICC fails to do so, Shnaider says the court "should be condemned" for its bias.

While the case against Iranian leaders was filed on behalf of just the Shnaider family, Malin advocates filing a case on behalf of each family who lost relatives during the attacks of Oct. 7.

In Dec. 2025, Malin filed a second case, requesting investigation and arrest warrants for over a dozen Hamas members for a myriad of "war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians in Gaza."

IDF PUSHES BACK ON CLAIM IT TARGETS JOURNALISTS IN GAZA, SAYS 170 WERE PART OF TERROR GROUPS, INCLUDING HAMAS

Malin says it is also important to hold Hamas leaders "directly accountable for the crime of genocide." He explained that Hamas attackers’ own words prove that there was no military goal during the Oct. 7 attacks, which largely killed civilians. 

Malin said Hamas attackers told Oct. 7 victims that they would continue attacks into Israel "until there are no Jews left in Palestine," and during phone calls to family, an attacker celebrated specifically having killed Jews.

"They’re not talking about soldiers. They’re not talking about people who, in the course of combat or conflict, would be allowed to be targeted. They’re talking about civilians," Malin said.

Malin added that the individuals now trying to justify Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 "are now justifying the actual crime of genocide."

The case against Hamas leaders also notes their particular role in the deaths of innocent Gazans during the conflict that followed Oct. 7. "The goal there is to raise light of Hamas’ criminal conduct against Palestinians in Gaza," Malin said. He pointed out Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields and their torture of civilians, which he says "we have years of evidence for."

Malin said that the ICC has not responded to either of the cases he has filed. "If we don’t shed light on that at the ICC and the ICC refuses to do anything about it, then the only question for me… is what is the purpose that you serve?"

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SANCTIONS SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR 'ABUSES OF POWER'

Malin argues that though the Iranian officials, one of whom was killed during the ongoing conflict with the U.S., were from a state that is not party to the statute, because the ICC has jurisdiction over Gaza, it is responsible for overseeing crimes committed there.

In response to questions about their response to Malin’s filings, the Office of the Prosecutor for the ICC told Fox News Digital, "On the Situation in the State of Palestine the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) is actively investigating all crimes committed within the Court’s jurisdiction since 13 June 2014. The investigation is ongoing, and the Office continues to collect evidence in that context."

The statement added, "The OTP carries out its mandate independently and impartially, in accordance with its founding treaty, the Rome Statute," it continued. "The Office does not disclose details of the investigation to ensure the integrity of its processes and proceedings and to maintain the safety and security of all concerned, including victims, witnesses, the Office's staff and all those who cooperate with the Office and support its activities."

Malin said that Khan sought warrants against senior Israeli and Hamas leaders for the crime against humanity of extermination, which he described as "genocide without the intent [to commit genocide.]"

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

That warrant was denied for Israeli leaders, but ultimately approved for Deif, though he had been previously killed in an Israeli air strike.

Earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio imposed sweeping financial sanctions against the court. In a recorded video, Rubio charged, "Our message is clear: The United States and the American people are not subject to the jurisdiction of this fake ICC."

Over the past 30 years, Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy has facilitated Israel’s destruction/destabilization of a 4,000-km swath of countries across North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, & Western Asia…

From Judge Stephanos Bibas, joined by Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, in Monday's Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church v. Township of Collier:

Holy Trinity is a Ukrainian Catholic parish outside Pittsburgh. It practices the Catholic faith, but with rituals and architecture that are distinctively Ukrainian. The parish owns two plots of land. On one of them, in Carnegie, sits a church, where it holds regular liturgies. The other plot, in nearby Collier Township, has been owned by the parish for more than seven decades. That 41-acre plot houses the parish's cemetery and mausoleum but is otherwise mostly wooded.

About three years ago, Holy Trinity's pastor felt called to turn the second plot into a shrine, a pilgrimage destination for faithful to gather from "near and far." The shrine would "honor Mary, the Mother of God, and would pay homage to the sanctity of life." With the help of lawyers, architects, and traffic consultants, Holy Trinity designed the shrine. It envisioned a 13,000-square-foot chapel with gold domes, a bell tower, a museum, a gift shop, and a retreat center.

But the plot is constrained by Collier Township's zoning code. The code divides the township into districts, each of which allows certain types of buildings. The northern, wooded half of the plot lies in a planned-economic-development district, allowing larger projects like business offices, amusement parks, or country clubs. The southern half is in a rural-residential district, allowing farms and single-family homes. Neither district contemplates shrines.

The zoning code is enforced by Collier's five-member Board of Commissioners. The Board has power not only to rezone land or amend the code, but also to approve or deny some building projects, because the code makes some land uses conditional. For instance, the code conditionally allows new churches in rural-residential districts, but only if the Board approves them. In any event, anything as big as Holy Trinity's shrine needs the Board's approval.

To fit the shrine project into the zoning code, Holy Trinity applied to do two things. First, it asked the Board to amend the zoning code to allow planned cultural centers, including the shrine, in economic-development districts. Second, it sought to rezone some of its rural-residential land into economic-development land, to make a larger plot for the shrine. As part of its application, Holy Trinity included sketches of its shrine plus a traffic study showing minimal impact on the surrounding community. After a live hearing with concerned residents, the Board denied Holy Trinity's application, expressing concern about traffic and Holy Trinity's fundraising projections. Some residents, and at least one Board member, were also troubled once they learned that the shrine's message would be pro-life.

So Holy Trinity tried again with a smaller project. It applied to build a modest chapel entirely on its rural-residential land. Though the Board approved the new application, it came with strings attached, limiting bell ringing, the height of the chapel, and who could be remembered at memorial services….

The majority held that Holy Trinity wasn't entitled to a preliminary injunction, because the harm could be repaired by damages (one of the elements of the preliminary injunction inquiry); on this matter, the majority and Judge Paul Matey's dissent had an interesting and complicated debate. But here's a passage as to the facts that struck me as worth noting, even apart from that controversy:

Finally, and most troubling, both community and Board members objected to the shrine's pro-life message. One resident worried that "Father Jason has been very involved in pro life. This is to be a pro life museum … [W]hen you think very political rights, either side, it brings a lot of danger, a lot of protests, as well as costs that could be incurred by the community." Another complained that "the intent of the shrine was a celebration for Roe vs. Wade being overturned … [and] reparation for sin of abortion and counseling, spiritual direction …. this will bring a bunch [of people] potentially for a rally and this could also bring the opposite as well for protest."

Privately, at least one of the Board's members agreed. The day after the hearing, that commissioner forwarded an email about the shrine's pro-life stance to the rest of the Board: "Looks like we might have dodged a bullet last night. The true inten[t] of the shrine" was pro-life and "This could have been a disaster." Another township officer, copied on the email, seemed to affirm those sentiments. Nothing in the record suggests that any other Board member responded and disagreed. And in her deposition, the Board member who wrote the email confirmed that "one of the reasons" that the Board had denied the application was Holy Trinity's pro-life purpose. She also defended denying land-use approval "based on the nature of the religious service to be held in the building."

These objections hint at unconstitutional religious hostility and content-based discrimination, concerns that would be better addressed on a more developed factual record. But at the very least, they strongly suggest that the Board resists ever approving the shrine project. If so, the rezoning denial is effectively absolute, and the "degree" of burden on Holy Trinity is substantial. Plus, the township does not show that denying approval altogether is the least-restrictive means to serve a compelling interest. That is enough to show that Holy Trinity is very likely to prevail on its RLUIPA [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act] substantial-burden claim….

The post Rezoning Request for Catholic Shrine May Have Been Denied Because of Shrine's "Pro-Life Message" appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Imagine if Sam and Dario and Elon and Mark, along with their boards of directors, bore individual liability for the damage their companies may inflict on society.

Imagine if Sam and Dario and Elon and Mark, along with their boards of directors, bore individual liability for the damage their companies may inflict on society.

Italy’s response to a weekend of street violence has moved from emergency policing to tougher criminal law, with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni seeking to reassert control after unrest in Milan and other northern cities

The government approved measures on Tuesday creating an offence of violent participation in demonstrations, extending preventive detention powers to teenagers aged 14–17 and making parents financially liable for damage caused by their children. The package also provides for 500 soldiers to support security operations in Milan through December.

The crackdown presents a defining challenge for a prime minister whose political identity rests heavily on law and order: demonstrating that stronger powers can prevent another eruption while addressing the conditions feeding public anger.

Milan’s damaged shopping streets have become the most visible symbol of that challenge. Weekend violence brought looting, fires and confrontations with police, exposing businesses and residents to disorder in Italy’s financial capital.

As EU Today reported in its earlier coverage of the unrest, police brought 271 people to headquarters following Sunday’s disturbances, including 220 minors. Thirty-two were formally arrested, a detail that matters when assessing the scale of alleged criminal involvement.

The prominence of teenagers has shaped the government’s response. According to the Associated Press, the decree makes prosecuting minors over 14 easier and includes plans to expand juvenile detention capacity and judicial resources. Parliament must convert the decree into law within 60 days.

For supporters, the argument is straightforward: shopkeepers should not have to absorb the cost of destruction, and officers need effective tools against groups exploiting demonstrations to commit offences.

Yet preventive detention raises a different question from punishment after conviction. Its credibility depends on clear evidence, consistent safeguards and meaningful scrutiny, particularly when those affected are children.

Making the distinction will help determine whether the package strengthens public confidence or deepens distrust among young people already alienated from political institutions.

The wider European debate offers a warning. In its earlier editorial, EU Global examined the tension between public-order legislation and the right to protest, arguing that governments risk restricting legitimate dissent when security powers expand too broadly. That commentary predates the Milan disturbances but addresses the central democratic question now confronting Italy.

Peaceful assembly and criminal violence require different responses. Protecting the former gives authorities greater legitimacy when confronting the latter; treating an entire demonstration as suspect risks weakening that distinction.

Meloni also faces a political vulnerability that additional arrests cannot automatically resolve. The Financial Times reported that the unrest involved teenagers mobilised through social media, many without political affiliations, against a background of economic stagnation and expensive living conditions.

Those circumstances complicate any attempt to explain the disorder through a single organisation, ideology or grievance. Online mobilisation can accelerate confrontation without producing leaders capable of negotiating an end to it.

For the government, this makes prevention as important as punishment. Better intelligence, timely deployment and coordination between national and municipal authorities will influence whether stronger legislation produces safer streets.

The same applies to the military presence. Soldiers can provide visible reassurance, but the political test will be whether residents and businesses experience sustained security once the immediate emergency passes.

Italy faces two connected tasks.

Establishing individual responsibility for destruction and restoring confidence that lawful political participation can deliver results will be the priorities if public respect for the law is to be maintained.

Meloni’s new measures offer a forceful immediate answer to the first. Their lasting success will depend on whether the government can make progress on the second, before another weekend of anger becomes another emergency requiring still tougher powers.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) on Oct. 21 searched the premises of Andriy Pyshnyi, head of the National Bank of Ukraine, a law enforcement source told the Kyiv Independent.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, commuted the sentence of a death row inmate on Tuesday after the current Jefferson County district attorney and several former judges and prosecutors raised concerns about his conviction.

The governor said she was commuting Toforest Johnson’s death sentence to life in prison without parole. Johnson, who has long maintained his innocence, was convicted in the 1995 murder of Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff William Hardy. He remains incarcerated at the Holman Correctional Facility.

"When presented with Mr. Johnson’s case, I had concerns there was not enough direct evidence to carry out the most serious punishment, death," Ivey said in a statement. "My decision is not a determination of innocence, but a recognition that the circumstances of this case justify commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment, without possibility of parole."

Ivey has commuted the death sentences of three death row inmates since she became governor in 2017. She has also overseen 27 executions during her tenure, which will end in January because she is term-limited and cannot run for re-election.

GOP GOV DEWINE URGES OHIO TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY, SAYS IT IS NO LONGER A DETERRENT

The governor spared his life despite Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall urging her last week to reject the clemency request and "respect the jury's decision" and the rulings of the courts reviewing Johnson's case.

On July 19, 1995, Hardy was shot twice in the head as he was working off-duty security outside a hotel in Birmingham. Johnson said he was on the other side of the city when the shooting happened.

One of Johnson’s attorneys, Ty Alper, said he and his client are grateful to Ivey for "diligently reviewing Toforest’s case and taking action to spare an innocent man from execution," but added that they will continue to fight to overturn the conviction.

"Toforest Johnson is innocent. Now it is up to the courts to overturn his conviction and grant him a new trial. We will keep fighting until he is home with his family," Alper said in a statement.

LAWYERS, EXPERTS URGE TENNESSEE GOVERNOR TO COMMUTE CHRISTA PIKE’S SENTENCE AFTER BOTCHED EXECUTION

Johnson's attorneys have waged a yearslong legal battle to secure a new trial. His push for a new trial has received national attention and attracted widespread support, including from prominent lawyers, such as the original prosecutor in his case, as well as celebrities such as Kim Kardashian.

Several former judges and prosecutors have joined supporters seeking a new trial for Johnson over questions about his conviction. Former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley, former Chief Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court Sonny Hornsby and Drayton Nabers and other former judges and prosecutors have submitted briefs or written editorials backing a new trial.

Jefferson County District Attorney Danny Carr, who was elected in 2018, is among those who have backed Johnson’s call for a new trial. In 2024, Carr wrote in a court filing that the "evidence in this case has unraveled over 20 years."

Carr said that credible alibi witnesses placed Johnson in another area at the time of the shooting. He also said there are multiple reasons to doubt the key prosecution witness, who "claimed she overheard Johnson confess to the murder on a three-way phone call on which she was eavesdropping."

LONGEST-SERVING US PRISONER DIES AT 101 AFTER ESCAPING DEATH PENALTY 8 TIMES

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The woman testified during Johnson's 1998 trial that she was eavesdropping on a phone call when she heard a man she believed was Johnson admitting to the shooting.

She received a $5,000 reward in 2001 for her assistance in the case.

Johnson’s lawyers said that the state withheld evidence of monetary incentive for her testimony.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Court of appeal decision prevents woman from suing police and CPS for disclosing her address to violent ex-partner

The Labour MP Jess Phillips has said she hopes the UK’s highest court “sees sense” and overturns a ruling preventing a domestic abuse survivor from suing Sussex police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for disclosing her address to her violent ex-partner.

Phillips said that if the supreme court upheld the court of appeal’s decision when it hears the case on Wednesday and Thursday, it would prevent police from being held accountable for failures in cases of violence against women and girls.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA

© Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA

© Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA

The Department of Justice is allowing business groups to exclude Americans in posts that advertise jobs to H-1B workers and other non-immigrant foreign workers.

The post Update: Justice Department Continues to Allow H-1B-Targeted Advertising Despite Pleas from Critics appeared first on Breitbart.

Morgan Carey sued his sister over claims in her 2020 memoir, The Meaning of Mariah Carey, which he said falsely portrayed him as a violent drug dealer

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit from Mariah Carey’s brother, five years after he accused her of defaming him in her 2020 memoir, The Meaning of Mariah Carey.

In the memoir, Carey described Morgan as a “sometimes drug dealing, been-in-the-system, drunk-ass brother” and called him her “ex-brother”.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Barry King/Alamy

© Photograph: Barry King/Alamy

© Photograph: Barry King/Alamy

Last July, President Donald Trump imposed 50 percent tariffs on various Canadian goods, a list he subsequently expanded to include additional imports, some of which he banned outright. His legal justification was Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which Congress approved in 1930. Section 338 authorized tariffs in response to discriminatory trade practices. But in the 96 years since it was enacted, no president had ever used it to impose tariffs.

Why is that? According to a lawsuit that the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) filed on Tuesday in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), the answer is clear: Section 338 was superseded by subsequent legislation that likewise targeted discriminatory trade barriers, beginning with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and culminating in Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 301, the current remedy, includes requirements that Trump apparently sought to dodge by invoking Section 338 instead.

That maneuver is illegal, the LJC argues. "Congress already gave the executive branch a tool for responding to unfair foreign trade practices: Section 301, which requires an investigation, public comment and other safeguards," says Jeffrey M. Schwab, the LJC's director of litigation. "The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff."

Why not? "Where provisions in two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act, to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one," the lawsuit says. "Where a later act covers the whole subject of an earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it operates similarly as a repeal. And a specific policy embodied in a later federal statute controls the construction of an earlier one even absent express amendment."

Even if Section 338 somehow survived congressional approval of contrary laws, the LJC adds, Trump's tariffs exceed the authority it grants. And if Trump's interpretation of Section 338 were correct, the lawsuit says, the provision would violate the nondelegation doctrine, which bars Congress from delegating its tariff power to the president without providing "an intelligible principle" to guide and constrain his exercise of it.

Trump's Section 338 tariffs, in short, are "the Administration's latest attempt to exercise, through a statute never designed for the purpose, the tariff power that the Constitution assigns to Congress." That pattern should be familiar by now.

Shortly after taking office in 2025, Trump claimed to have discovered a previously unnoticed delegation of extensive tariff authority in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that does not mention import taxes and had never been used to impose them. That claim was rejected by every court that considered it, and last February the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs at all.

Trump responded to that decision by immediately announcing similarly broad tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which addresses "fundamental international payments problems" caused by "serious United States balance-of-payments deficits." In May, the CIT ruled that the new tariffs were illegal because Trump had failed to "identify balance-of-payments deficits within the meaning of Section 122."

Trump then switched to Plan C, invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act, which authorizes tariffs in response to a foreign "act, policy, or practice" that is "unreasonable or discriminatory" and "burdens or restricts" U.S. commerce. He claimed that provision justified tariffs on 86 trading partners, accounting for nearly all U.S. imports, because they had failed to "impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor." The CIT is currently weighing challenges to those tariffs, including an LJC lawsuit.

Trump's Section 338 tariffs have now added to the CIT's caseload. The LJC represents Gellert Global Group, an importer that was hit hard by those taxes after Trump added cheese to the list of disfavored Canadian goods. The lawsuit asks the CIT to certify a class of importers, numbering in "the hundreds, if not the thousands," that likewise have been clobbered by Trump's 50 percent tariffs.

Since Trump obviously is aware of Section 301, why did he resort to a never-used, seemingly obsolete provision to justify the tariffs on imports from Canada? As the LJC notes, Section 301 requires an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "consultation with the foreign country concerned, notice, public comment, a hearing, and determinations within statutory deadlines." It also requires "that action be equivalent in value to the burden imposed, that duties be preferred over other import restrictions, and that actions terminate after four years absent a request for continuation and review."

Can Trump avoid those constraints by invoking Section 338 instead? The LJC thinks not: "Congress did not intend to leave in place a parallel authority that would allow the President to impose the same remedies, for the same conduct, free of every one of those safeguards."

Section 338 has been "impliedly repealed," the LJC argues. "At a minimum, Section 301 controls where, as here, the President seeks to respond to foreign practices within Section 301's scope, and the President may not impose duties in response to such practices while disregarding the procedures and limits Section 301 imposes. Because the President did not proceed under Section 301, the Section 338 Tariffs are unlawful whether or not Section 338 survives."

Even if you ignore subsequent legislation, the LJC argues, the Canadian policies that Trump cited when he announced the tariffs do not qualify as "discrimination" under Section 338. "Canada's motor vehicle surtax and its provinces' alcohol purchasing decisions are responses to tariffs that the United States imposed on Canada, not discrimination by Canada against the United States," it says. Trump also complained that Canada treats European cheese imports more favorably than U.S. cheese imports. But "when Congress enacted Section 338, a preference granted under a reciprocal agreement was not 'discrimination.'"

Section 338 "addresses discrimination: measures that single out United States commerce for worse treatment than the commerce of the world at large," the lawsuit says. "It is not a general authorization to impose tariffs whenever the President disagrees with a trading partner's policies, or whenever a trading partner responds to tariffs the United States has imposed on it."

Trump also was unfazed by Section 338's requirement that the president set duties to "offset" the costs imposed by discriminatory practices, which implies proportionality. Rather than attempt that, the LJC notes, Trump imposed "the statutory maximum rate of 50 percent without tying it to any measured burden."

As interpreted by Trump, the lawsuit warns, Section 338 authorizes the president to "impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on any products of any country that extends better treatment to any other country in any respect—including through any of the hundreds of preferential trade agreements to which the United States is not a party—or that responds to tariffs the United States has imposed on it." Yet Section 338 "contains no clear statement authorizing that power," contrary to the "major questions" doctrine, which applies to assertions of executive authority with "vast economic and political significance."

If Section 338 conferred the sort of unfettered authority that Trump is claiming, the LJC says, it "would supply no intelligible principle constraining the exercise of Congress's power to lay duties." His reading "would convert a narrow, fact-dependent provision into an effectively unrestricted delegation of Congress's tariff power," which would be "an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power."

This case "is not about the president," says LJC CEO Sara Albrecht. "It is about the presidency. No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required."

The post Trump's 50% Tariffs on Canadian Goods Illegally Rely on a Superseded Statute, a Lawsuit Argues appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Sea mines have resurfaced as a threat in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran claimed Oct.17 that two oil tankers caught fire after striking the explosives, raising fresh alarms over the safety of one of the world's most critical shipping lanes.

This came as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) warned that sea mines pose a serious threat to vessels navigating the strategic waterway and while Tehran continues to maintain its own unauthorized shipping corridor inside its territorial waters.

"The traffic separation scheme, the information that we have is that they still have mines. And of course, whilst the conflict is ongoing, it's very difficult for us to use third parties to verify that it is clear of these hazards," IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez told Fox News Digital.

INSIDE THE DANGEROUS US MISSION THAT CLEARED IRAN’S MINES FROM HORMUZ SHIPPING LANES

"So in the meantime, we cannot guarantee that a vessel that intends to transit that route will not be hit by a mine."

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy said Saturday that two oil tankers caught fire after striking naval mines while crossing the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported, citing Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

State media also said both tankers were carrying about 2 million barrels of crude oil, according to Reuters.

IRNA also reported that the vessels had switched off their positioning and radar systems and attempted to use a route through the strategic waterway that Iran had not authorized.

IRAN WARNS SHIPS OF 'FORCEFUL RESPONSE' AS US-BACKED HORMUZ ROUTE CHALLENGES TEHRAN'S GRIP

The second tanker was left immobilized after striking a mine, according to the Reuters report.

The alleged strikes came as Tehran continued to maintain its transit passageway inside Iranian territorial waters, imposing tolls and safety fees administered by the IRGC — a framework rejected by Washington and the IMO as inconsistent with international maritime law.

International shipping through the narrow chokepoint has historically relied on an IMO-approved traffic separation scheme adopted in 1968.

"Right now there's only one route that was adopted back in 1968 that is approved and recognized for IMO and that appears in all the charts for the vessels to operate," Dominguez explained.

IRAN FAILS TO STRIKE DEAL WITH US AS DEADLINE PASSES AND TRUMP CALLS FOR ‘WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER'

"There's only one route that should be used for transit, but it's not clear of mines right now, so it's not safe."

"We have received confirmation from Iran about the establishment of its temporary route in the waters," he added before stating that the route was not provided with "an official confirmation or a decision of the organization."

"Any other route needs to actually be sent to the organization to go through the processes, and we have not received that."

"We have received communication from Iran to use that route because of the conflict," Dominguez clarified.

"That's the way that it's been presented. But anything for us to approve needs to go through the mechanisms at the international maritime organizations and the member states need to review it."

The developments also came amid stalled negotiations between Washington and Tehran over ending the conflict and restoring maritime traffic.

DISTRESS CALL CAPTURES TANKER UNDER FIRE, IRAN SHUTS HORMUZ TRAPPING THOUSANDS OF SAILORS

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and a former Revolutionary Guard commander, said Tehran considered Washington's latest response to negotiations "insufficient," Reuters reported, according to IRNA.

Rezaei said the U.S. had accepted some of Iran's seven conditions but that other issues remained unresolved, adding that Tehran was no longer responding to Washington and that the U.S. needed to clarify the outstanding matters.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Tehran had submitted a proposal to Washington through Qatar, which is mediating the negotiations, outlining conditions under which the Strait of Hormuz could reopen and normal maritime traffic resume within seven days.

"Our situation is clear and based on ⁠the seven-day proposal presented to the US. They shared comments which ​we are reviewing, but our proposal is still on the table ​and if there is any honesty on the US part, which there isn't, the way to reopening the Strait of Hormuz is obvious," Araqchi said in ​Baghdad, Reuters reported

IRAN REQUESTS TALKS WITH US AS WHITE HOUSE WARNS 'VIOLENCE WILL BE MET WITH VIOLENCE'

Meanwhile, attacks on commercial vessels around the Strait of Hormuz have surged over the past two weeks.

Senior Iranian officials also told Reuters that Tehran has shifted its strategy for attacking commercial vessels during that period.

For commercial shipping operators, Dominguez warned that the continued threat of mines and attacks means the waterway has yet to return to normal operations.

The Strait of Hormuz is "not open for business in the way that it was before the conflict started," he said.

"Our role right now is to prepare for when we have the opportunity to go back, resume the operations, follow all the procedures at IMO, but not until the root causes are addressed and those are beyond IMO."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital reached out to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for comment.

“Every single village, we’re talking about 23,000 homes, is in ruins,” Katz boasted before a cheering studio audience, adding “there are no residents left, 200,000 people have been displaced,” using ‘Gaza model’