الكاتب: kafej

South Korea says it will ban eating dog meat, with plans to introduce a law by the end of this year. 

The law to end the traditional but controversial practice would have a three-year grace period, with dog meat banned entirely from 2027.

The Korean practice of eating dog meat has drawn criticism from animal rights activists overseas, but there has also been increasing opposition at home, particularly from younger people.

“It is time to put an end to social conflicts and controversies around dog meat consumption through the enactment of a special act to end it,” Yu Eui-dong, policy chief of the ruling People Power Party, said at a meeting on Friday.

The government and ruling party would introduce a bill this year to enforce a ban, he said, adding he was confident it would pass with bipartisan support.

Anti-dog meat bills have failed in the past because of protests by those in the industry, and concern for the livelihoods of farmers and restaurant owners.

The proposed ban will include a three-year grace period and financial support for businesses to transition out of the trade.

Read more:
South Korea’s first ‘dog is not food’ campaign launches
Suggestion of dog meat ban welcomed by animal activists

Eating dog meat is much less common than it used to be in South Korea, but it is still eaten by some older people and served in certain restaurants.

A Gallup Korea poll last year showed 64% opposed dog meat consumption. The survey found only 8% of respondents had eaten dog within the past year, down from 27% in 2015.

First lady Kim Keon Hee has been a vocal critic of dog meat consumption and, along with her husband, President Yoon Suk Yeol, has adopted stray dogs.

There are about 1,150 dog breeding farms, 34 slaughterhouses, 219 distribution companies, and 1,600 restaurants serving dog meat, according to government data.

Animal rights groups welcomed the prospect of a ban.

“A dream come true for all of us who have campaigned so hard to end this cruelty,” Humane Society International said in a statement.

The league referred Everton to an independent commission in March over an alleged breach of profitability and sustainability rules.

Everton have been deducted 10 points for a breach of the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) for the season ending 2021-22, the league has said.

An independent commission imposed an immediate deduction which will see Everton drop from 14th in the standings into the relegation zone, above bottom side Burnley on goal difference.

The Premier League said it had issued a complaint against the Merseyside club and referred the case to the independent commission earlier this year.

“During the proceedings, the club admitted it was in breach of the PSRs for the period ending season 2021/22 but the extent of the breach remained in dispute,” the league said in a statement on Friday.

“The Commission determined that Everton FC’s PSR Calculation for the relevant period resulted in a loss of 124.5 million pounds ($154.70m), as contended by the Premier League, which exceeded the threshold of 105 million pounds permitted under the PSRs.”

Everton, who had 14 points after 12 games before the deduction, said the sanction was “wholly disproportionate and unjust” and announced its intention to appeal the decision to the Premier League.

“Everton maintains that it has been open and transparent in the information it has provided to the Premier League and that it has always respected the integrity of the process,” it said.

“The club does not recognise the finding that it failed to act with the utmost good faith and it does not understand this to have been an allegation made by the Premier League during the course of proceedings.

“Both the harshness and severity of the sanction imposed by the Commission are neither a fair nor a reasonable reflection of the evidence submitted.”

On October 27, the United Nations General Assembly passed a nonbinding resolution with overwhelming support calling for an immediate humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas and demanding aid access to Gaza.

One hundred twenty countries voted in favour of the resolution, clearly expressing their opposition to the continuation of Israel’s siege and bombardment of Gaza, which has claimed thousands of civilian lives.

The Philippines was not one of those countries. Along with 45 others, it abstained from voting on the resolution. Instead, it acknowledged Israel’s “right to self-defence” while remaining mum on the human rights abuses and war crimes faced by Palestinians in Gaza.

Although disappointing, this was not exactly surprising. The government of the Philippines has been supporting Israel unconditionally for many decades, turning a blind eye to its many violations of international law and grave crimes against Palestinians living under its occupation.

The ties between the Philippines and Israel are as old as Israel itself. The Philippines was one of the 33 countries that voted in favour of UN Resolution 181 in 1947 to partition Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with Jerusalem placed under a special international regime. This plan, as we all know, never materialised. But the Philippines continued to support the Israeli state and its unlawful expansion into Palestinian territories.

Israel and the Philippines established full diplomatic relationships in 1957 and signed a treaty of friendship in 1958. Manila’s support for Israel has remained robust since then. It not only never pressured Israel to cede occupied Palestinian territories but also always actively sought to protect it from international criticism. In 2017, for example, openly contradicting its 1947 position, the Philippines abstained from voting on a resolution criticising then-United States President Donald Trump’s attempt to unilaterally cement Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

A year later, Rodrigo Duterte became the first Filipino president in history to visit Israel. Duterte had promised early in his tenure to carve out an independent foreign policy that wouldn’t automatically toe the US policy line. Yet under his administration, as exemplified in his 2018 visit to the country, the Philippines continued its unconditional diplomatic and political support for Israel on all fronts.

Today, under the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the Philippines is firmly back in the US sphere of influence, and the country’s support for Israel remains as strong as ever.

Since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, in which about 1,200 people were killed and more than 200 taken captive, the Philippines repeatedly demonstrated solidarity with Israel and condemned the harm inflicted on Israeli civilians. But it did not stop there.

In line with its long-held pro-Israel position, the Philippines went beyond advocating for the human rights of Israelis and offered blind support for the Israeli government and its vengeful and objectively disproportionate attacks on Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

By showing unconditional and unquestioning support for the Israeli government and its war on Gaza, the Philippines has placed itself firmly on the wrong side of history and ended up working against its own interests.

Israel’s siege and bombardment of Gaza already has had an immense human cost, claiming more than 11,000 lives, many of them children, in just several weeks. Like all countries, the Philippines has a moral obligation not to take part in, support or in anyway condone state policies and actions that lead to thousands of deaths, widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and mass displacement. It also has an obligation to hold all states, including its allies, to account when they blatantly violate international law. A foreign policy that does not actively demand an end to all violence in Gaza undermines these obligations and leaves the Philippines open to accusations that it is complicit in Israel’s human rights violations and alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Showing blind support for Israel is also contrary to the Philippine government’s own long-term interests.

The Philippines has first-hand knowledge of the perils of having a militarily and economically powerful neighbour that routinely disregards international law and tries to expand into the territories of surrounding smaller states. The Philippines has long been involved in territorial disputes with China and has had confrontations with Chinese ships over such issues as recently as this week.

Supporting violators of international laws and norms weakens the Philippines’ moral stance on the international stage and its calls for condemnation of China’s territorial aggression in the South China/West Philippines Sea. The Philippines cannot expect the international community to help it confront violations of international law by a neighbouring state while it is actively lending its support to similar violations by another nation.

Therefore, for reasons ranging from moral obligation to self-interest, the Philippines should revise its policies on Israel, end its unwavering support towards the Israeli government and, most importantly, adopt a foreign policy that recognises and respects the human rights of all peoples, including the Palestinians. The Philippines must acknowledge that it is wrong to kill civilians, whether they are Israelis or Palestinians, no ifs, ands or buts.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Taking a breath becomes increasingly difficult, foam starts pouring out of your mouth, your vision becomes blurred and your heartbeat slows right down. Then the convulsions take over.

“Then we surrendered to death,” said Dr Salim Namour, describing the symptoms of sarin gas inhalation. He experienced them twice while treating the wounded in Ghouta, Syria, in August 2013, when the regime of President Bashar al-Assad launched a horrific chemical weapons attack on Douma and eastern Ghouta.

“We were destined to live, but not everyone survived.”

Today, Namour heads the Association of Victims of Chemical Weapons (AVCW), one of the organisations that brought a lawsuit which has led to the issue of a French arrest warrant against the al-Assad and three senior officers for the chemical massacre which killed more than 1,100 people.

“The worst effects of exposure to chemical weapons are the deep psychological trauma, the memories of suffocation and the memories of those we lost and loved,” Namour told Al Jazeera. Remembering the terror that befell the hundreds of thousands who were besieged in Ghouta, he said: “They died while they were hungry and dreaming of a loaf of bread, and the children died dreaming of a toy.”

‘Bitterness and disappointment’

Ten years ago, the chemical weapons massacre sparked global outrage, and attention turned to Barack Obama, the then-United States president, who had said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a “red line”.

Despite a mountain of evidence against the regime over the use of chemical warfare on civilian populations, Obama’s “red line” culminated in nothing more than the decision to destroy the chemical weapons arsenal in Syria.

Syria agreed in 2013 to join the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) global watchdog and give up all chemical weapons.

This left “a feeling of bitterness and disappointment” for the survivors, according to Namour, as they believed it allowed al-Assad to escape accountability and punishment.

In September 2013, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution No 2118, which stipulated the need to hold accountable those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

The OPCW announced the completion of its destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons one year after the massacre.

Nevertheless, investigations have proved the use of chemical weapons (such as sarin and chlorine) by regime forces in opposition-controlled areas over the following years.

So, AVCW, along with the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), the Syrian Archive, the Open Society Justice Initiative and the Civil Rights Defenders turned to the international jurisdiction of France’s courts in a bid to hold those responsible accountable.

No immunity for war criminals

The decision to issue an arrest warrant for al-Assad comes two years after the lawsuit was filed and evidence and witnesses were presented to the court in France.

The case against al-Assad and the high-ranking military officials was bolstered by firsthand witness accounts and deep analysis of the Syrian military chain of command, said lawyer Mazen Darwish, founder and director of SCM.

Darwish described the arrest warrant as an “historic precedent” as it aims to hold accountable a serving president, who was previously considered to enjoy absolute immunity.

Darwish said the evidence “proves that it is not possible for a military unit to use [chemical weapons] against civilians without an order from the president of the Republic, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces”.

Darwish said he is not hopeful that the French trial will bring full justice for the victims, which he believes should take the form of a political transition and a path towards transitional justice. Such a process must be based on the principles of preventing recurrence and revenge, and holding those responsible accountable, he said.

The main goal of filing lawsuits in European courts, Darwish said, is to keep the principle of justice on the table, to enable the voices of victims to be heard and to provide proof that these crimes are real and not just “political allegations” between conflicting parties, as the Syrian regime and its supporters claim.

Halting normalisation with the Syrian regime is also one of the goals of this trial, which serves to remind those who welcome Bashar al-Assad that he is a proven war criminal.

“As a Syrian refugee, I hope to return to my country and be able to live there with my children,” Darwish said. “For any national cause, only the people are the ones who are able to make a difference.”

Remembering ‘town of the dead’

Mohamed Eid, 30, remembers the night when his town, Zamalka, became a “town of the dead” as the deadly gas spread through all its neighbourhoods, causing the deaths of entire families within minutes.

As a media activist, Eid picked up his camera to try to document what he was seeing. “I cannot forget the loved ones and relatives we lost,” he told Al Jazeera. “I saw mothers hugging their children as they died, and a father who could not breathe but was calling the rescuers to help his son instead of him.”

Eid said he would consider any formal trial of al-Assad a “victory”, although he would prefer it to take place in Syrian courts. “But the time is not suitable because the regime is still in power and continues to commit crimes to this day, as we see in Idlib,” he said, referring to the continuous bombing by regime forces of areas outside its control in the northwest of the country.

Amin al-Sheikh, 48, received the news of the arrest warrant with a mixture of “caution and indifference” because he believes that France has interests “other than justice for the victims”. He is angry that France allowed Rifaat al-Assad, the uncle of the Syrian President, to leave France and return to Syria in 2021, despite having been sentenced to prison for using funds diverted from Syria to buy French property.

“They are lying to us and will not do us justice. I would be ashamed of myself if I believed them or trusted them, and I will not change my convictions until I see concrete steps that begin to delegitimise this regime,” al-Sheikh said.

‘Don’t suffocate truth’

The horror of the chemical attacks has never left Mahmoud Buwaydani, even years after he became a refugee in Turkey.

The college student was 16 years old when the massacre occurred. “We were accustomed to bombing, but this was different because of the number of victims and the type of weapons that were not often used at the time,” he said.

Buwaydani learned of the arrest warrant against al-Assad with mixed feelings, he said. “I felt hope that we would be able to prosecute the criminals and pain over the memories which came back to me.”

After being forcibly displaced to the north of Syria in 2018, Buwaydani began work to combat government propaganda and misinformation about the crimes he had witnessed, especially the chemical massacre.

He volunteered with the “Don’t Suffocate the Truth” campaign, which works to raise awareness of what happened in Ghouta and to tell the stories of victims and witnesses through its platforms. Buwaydani hasn’t lost hope, he said. “We hope that we will have true accountability for those responsible.”

Other Syrian human rights organisations have also worked to file lawsuits in European courts and to support international efforts to hold the regime and those responsible for war crimes accountable.

Radi Saad, a volunteer with the Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets), said any judicial decision aimed at holding perpetrators of violations inside Syria accountable will go a long way down the path of justice and accountability.

At the same time, the Civil Defence is working with the investigation teams of the OPCW to confirm 146 incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria, after confirming 17 locations and proving the Syrian regime’s responsibility for nine of those attacks.

The Asian country hopes to end the age-old practice of dog meat consumption by 2027.

South Korea aims to ban eating dog meat and put an end to controversy over the ancient custom amid growing awareness of animal protections.

The government and the ruling People Power Party on Friday agreed to introduce before the end of the year an act to end dog meat consumption by 2027, officials said.

The age-old Korean practice of eating dog has long drawn criticism from overseas. But there has also been increasing opposition at home, particularly from the younger generation.

“It is time to put an end to social conflicts and controversies around dog meat consumption through the enactment of a special act to end it,” Yu Eui-dong, policy chief of the People Power Party, said at a meeting with government officials and animal protection activists.

The legislation would ban the breeding of dogs for slaughter as well as dog meat sales, local media reported. A three-year grace period would be matched by financial support for businesses to transition out of the trade.

Yu said the the bill is expected to win bipartisan support, which should allow it to sail through parliament.

Agriculture Minister Chung Hwang-keun told the meeting the government would implement a ban quickly and provide the maximum possible support for those in the dog meat industry to close their businesses.

First lady Kim Keon-hee has been a vocal critic of dog meat consumption, and along with her husband, President Yoon Suk-yeol, has adopted stray dogs.

Anti-dog meat bills have failed in the past because of protests by those involved in the industry and concern about the livelihoods of farmers and restaurant owners.

Eating dog meat is much less common than it used to be, but it is still favoured by some older people. The meat continues to be served in some restaurants.

Animal protection groups welcomed the prospect of a ban. “A dream come true for all of us who have campaigned so hard to end this cruelty,” Humane Society International said in a statement.

But representatives of a national dog meat farmers association expressed outrage, calling the move “threatening” to their right to live.

South Korea has about 1,150 dog-breeding farms, 34 slaughter houses and 219 dog meat distributors in the country, according to government data. About 1,600 restaurants serve dog meat.

A Gallup Korea poll last year showed 64 percent of South Koreans opposed dog meat consumption. The survey found 8 percent of respondents had eaten dog within the past year, down from 27 percent in 2015.