Spain appeals for Covid ‘common sense’ after shopping crowd scenes

The Spanish government has called on people to behave responsibly and use their “common sense” after pictures over the weekend showed the streets of Madrid and other big cities heaving with crowds despite the country’s ongoing struggle with the second wave of the coronavirus.



a group of people standing in front of a large crowd of people: Photograph: Victor Lerena/EPA


© Provided by The Guardian
Photograph: Victor Lerena/EPA



a group of people standing in front of a large crowd of people: Crowds in Madrid on Sunday. A combination of Black Friday, seasonal shopping and the Christmas lights brought people out in large numbers in big cities across Spain despite Covid warnings.


© Photograph: Victor Lerena/EPA
Crowds in Madrid on Sunday. A combination of Black Friday, seasonal shopping and the Christmas lights brought people out in large numbers in big cities across Spain despite Covid warnings.

Spain has been in a state of emergency since the end of October and is subject to an overnight curfew. The prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has asked people to drastically curtail their social lives and limit their movements for the common good.

However, a combination of Black Friday, seasonal shopping and the switching on of Christmas lights appears to have brought large numbers of people out on to the streets of Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and Málaga over the weekend.

On Monday, Silvia Calzón, Spain’s secretary of state for health, urged people to act wisely and avoid large crowds.

“We’d like to appeal to people’s sense of prudence and responsibility,” Calzón said in an interview with Canal Sur radio, adding: “If we really like Christmas, let’s try to make sure we’re all here for next Christmas”.

She pointed out that huge sacrifices had been made to “flatten the curve” and that many families – especially those with vulnerable members – had suffered greatly.

“If we can do things outdoors and avoid crowds, so much the better because we expose ourselves less [to infection] and that means we reduce exposure to the people we love,” said Calzón.

Ignacio Aguado, the vice-president of the Madrid region, played down the crowds, which he described as normal. “I’d rather they were in the streets than [in large groups] at home,” he told LaSexta TV.

Madrid’s mayor, José Luis Martínez-Almeida, said he would not discourage people from heading into the centre of the city, adding that police had a plan for avoiding large build-ups of people.

“As long as people are in the street and sufficiently distanced – and not in enclosed areas – there’s no problem,” Martínez-Almeida told ABC.

However, he urged people to follow the health and safety guidelines and, where possible, to avoid big concentrations of people.

The Spanish government is hoping to avoid another surge in Covid cases early next year by suggesting that Christmas and new year gatherings be limited to six people, and that a 1am-6am curfew be in force on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve.

“We’re working on a specific plan for a Christmas that will be different but safe,” Sánchez said last week. “This year, we will need to stay at a distance from our loved ones, instead of embracing them.”

The regional government of Madrid is proposing to allow groups of up to 10 people to gather on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day and the

Read more

Women challenge banishment from Ute Indian Tribe’s reservation in U.S. appeals court

Denver • A lawyer for four women who were temporarily banned from the Ute Indian Tribe’s reservation in Utah asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to revive a lawsuit challenging their punishment.

In 2018, the tribe banned Angelita Chegup, Tara Amboh, Mary Carol Jenkins and Lynda Kozlowicz from its reservation about 150 miles east of Salt Lake City for five years over allegations they tried to destabilize the tribal government and had filed frivolous lawsuits for nearly 30 years, among other things.

The women’s lawyer, Ryan Dreveskracht, told a three-judge panel for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver during a virtual hearing that courts have previously found that Native Americans have the right to challenge a banishment. He said the punishment puts 15% of the state off limits to his clients.

“This is the only land they have ever known,” he said.

The tribe’s lawyer, Preston Stieff, argued that federal courts have not found that a temporary banishment is the equivalent of being in custody, the legal standard for them to intervene in tribal discipline under the Indian Civil Rights Act. The 1968 law prevents sovereign tribal governments from infringing on the rights of members and non-members.

Tribes historically did not build jails to incarcerate people and banishment developed as a way to deal with people both accused of committing crimes and also civil offenses, said Grant Christensen, a professor at the University of North Dakota’s law school who focuses on Native American law.

The Ute Indian Tribe says the women, described in their lawsuit as older, tried to disrupt federal litigation between it and Utah to stop the reservation from being reduced in size. The existing reservation boundaries were eventually upheld, the tribe said.

A federal district judge in Utah threw out the women’s claim, citing a 2017 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in another temporary banishment case. It involved members of the United Auburn Indian Community in California who were banished for 10 years after they publicly accused the tribal council of financial mismanagement and claimed that tribal elections were rigged.

The court ruled that they did not have a right to challenge the banishment in federal court because of tribes’ sovereign immunity to determine the makeup of their communities.

However, in 1996 the 2nd Circuit appeals court found that a federal court could become involved in a case of permanent banishment imposed by the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians in New York.

Source Article

Read more

Women challenge tribal banishment in US appeals court

DENVER (AP) — A lawyer for four women who were temporarily banned from the Ute Indian Tribe’s reservation in Utah asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to revive a lawsuit challenging their punishment.

In 2018, the tribe banned Angelita Chegup, Tara Amboh, Mary Carol Jenkins and Lynda Kozlowicz from its reservation about 150 miles (241 kilometers) east of Salt Lake City for five years over allegations they tried to destabilize the tribal government and had filed frivolous lawsuits for nearly 30 years, among other things.

The women’s lawyer, Ryan Dreveskracht, told a three-judge panel for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver during a virtual hearing that courts have previously found that Native Americans have the right to challenge a banishment. He said the punishment puts 15% of the state off limits to his clients.

“This is the only land they have ever known,” he said.

The tribe’s lawyer, Preston Stieff, argued that federal courts have not found that a temporary banishment is the equivalent of being in custody, the legal standard for them to intervene in tribal discipline under the Indian Civil Rights Act. The 1968 law prevents sovereign tribal governments from infringing on the rights of members and non-members.

Tribes historically did not build jails to incarcerate people and banishment developed as a way to deal with people both accused of committing crimes and also civil offenses, said Grant Christensen, a professor at the University of North Dakota’s law school who focuses on Native American law.

The Ute Indian Tribe says the women, described in their lawsuit as older, tried to disrupt federal litigation between it and Utah to stop the reservation from being reduced in size. The existing reservation boundaries were eventually upheld, the tribe said.

A federal district judge in Utah threw out the women’s claim, citing a 2017 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in another temporary banishment case. It involved members of the United Auburn Indian Community in California who were banished for 10 years after they publicly accused the tribal council of financial mismanagement and claimed that tribal elections were rigged.

The court ruled that they did not have a right to challenge the banishment in federal court because of tribes’ sovereign immunity to determine the makeup of their communities.

However, in 1996 the 2nd Circuit appeals court found that a federal court could become involved in a case of permanent banishment imposed by the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians in New York.

Source Article

Read more

Women challenge tribal banishment in US appeals court | National politics



Women challenge tribal banishment in US appeals court

This undated photo provided by Mountain West News Bureau shows Angelita Chegup, left, and Tara Amboh, who are among four women banished from their reservation for what they say are political reasons. A lawyer for the four women who were temporarily banned from the Ute Indian Tribe’s reservation in Utah asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2020 to revive a lawsuit challenging their punishment.




DENVER (AP) — A lawyer for four women who were temporarily banned from the Ute Indian Tribe’s reservation in Utah asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to revive a lawsuit challenging their punishment.

In 2018, the tribe banned Angelita Chegup, Tara Amboh, Mary Carol Jenkins and Lynda Kozlowicz from its reservation about 150 miles (241 kilometers) east of Salt Lake City for five years over allegations they tried to destabilize the tribal government and had filed frivolous lawsuits for nearly 30 years, among other things.

The women’s lawyer, Ryan Dreveskracht, told a three-judge panel for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver during a virtual hearing that courts have previously found that Native Americans have the right to challenge a banishment. He said the punishment puts 15% of the state off limits to his clients.

“This is the only land they have ever known,” he said.

The tribe’s lawyer, Preston Stieff, argued that federal courts have not found that a temporary banishment is the equivalent of being in custody, the legal standard for them to intervene in tribal discipline under the Indian Civil Rights Act. The 1968 law prevents sovereign tribal governments from infringing on the rights of members and non-members.

Tribes historically did not build jails to incarcerate people and banishment developed as a way to deal with people both accused of committing crimes and also civil offenses, said Grant Christensen, a professor at the University of North Dakota’s law school who focuses on Native American law.

Source Article

Read more

Donald Trump stumbles through final appeals to women as he vows to get their husbands back to work

President Donald Trump has employed a series of dubious reelection strategies, but none have been more befuddling than his sexist appeals to women that have illuminated the 1950s mindset that he can’t seem to shake.



Donald Trump et al. standing in front of a crowd: LANSING, MICHIGAN - OCTOBER 27: U.S. President Donald Trump pumps his fist after addressing supporters during a campaign rally at Capital Region International Airport October 27, 2020 in Lansing, Michigan. With one week until Election Day, Trump is campaigning in Michigan, a state he won in 2016 by less than 11,000 votes, the narrowest margin of victory in the state's presidential election history. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
LANSING, MICHIGAN – OCTOBER 27: U.S. President Donald Trump pumps his fist after addressing supporters during a campaign rally at Capital Region International Airport October 27, 2020 in Lansing, Michigan. With one week until Election Day, Trump is campaigning in Michigan, a state he won in 2016 by less than 11,000 votes, the narrowest margin of victory in the state’s presidential election history. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In yet another unforced error at a time when former Vice President Joe Biden is crushing Trump among female voters, the President told the women of Lansing, Michigan, this week to reelect him because “we’re getting your husbands back to work.”

That offensive salvo pointed not only to his long history of sexist remarks, but also his ignorance about the disproportionate impact that the coronavirus pandemic has wrought on working women, who are juggling their jobs with the burdens of homeschooling their children as the virus enters the dreaded fall surge.

Trump’s insulting language about women — and his combative, aggressive demeanor toward his critics, which even he has acknowledged is a problem with female voters during several recent rallies — has created some real electoral consequences for him this cycle.

Trump won a majority of White women voters in 2016, but CNN’s new poll released Wednesday afternoon showed yet another major warning sign for Trump as it showed Biden leading among White women 54% to 45%.

Democrats have never won a majority of White women dating back to 1972 exit polls, according to CNN’s Director of Polling and Election Analytics Jennifer Agiesta. (Former President Bill Clinton won White women by 48% to 43% in 1996, but the party has never gotten to the 50% threshold or above.)

If the President had been paying attention to news beyond the confines of what affects his grievance-laden campaign, he might have noticed that a stunning 617,000 women dropped out of the US labor force in September, just as the school year started, a figure that was nearly eight times the number of men.

About half of those women were of prime working age, between 35 and 44, as CNN Business’ Anneken Tappe reported, creating fears about the pandemic’s long-term consequences on equity and gender diversity in the workplace.

Before the pandemic hit — apparently unbeknownst to Trump in his “Leave It to Beaver” bubble — about 57% of women were participating in the workforce, according to a US Department of Labor report last year on women’s employment.

Moreover, some 70% of mothers with children under 18 were working when Trump took office in 2017. Mothers were the primary or sole earners for 40% of households with children, compared to 11% in 1960, according to Labor Department statistics.

But Trump’s frame of reference when it

Read more

Trump continues bizarre appeals to suburban women

Maeve Reston | CNN

If President Donald Trump loses his reelection bid in November, it will be in part because of his fundamental misunderstanding of the beliefs of “suburban women,” whom he has tried to win back with a series of bizarre and racist appeals that seem more targeted to a stereotype from the 1950s and 1960s than the American women who actually live in those areas today.

Many of the female voters who have abandoned Trump recoil from his divisive language and disapprove of both his handling of race relations and the pandemic. But he has tried to convince them to support him through a campaign of fear and xenophobia, with claims about the Democratic agenda that plunge deep into the realm of the ridiculous and would be believed only by the most naïve, low-information voters.

His speech Saturday night in Michigan exemplified those political miscalculations when it comes to women he has referred to as the “suburban housewives of America” as he tried to create fear about crime from immigrants and argued that Joe Biden will upend life in the suburbs by putting public housing projects in the middle of leafy neighborhoods — a reference to an Obama-era housing regulation aimed at ending segregation.

“Would you like a nice low-income housing project next to your suburban beautiful ranch style house? Generally speaking, no,” Trump said in Muskegon. “I saved your suburbs — women — suburban women, you’re supposed to love Trump,” he said.

The President went on to make the ludicrous claim that Biden and Democrats want to overwhelm Michigan neighborhoods with refugees from Syria, Somalia and Yemen, and “poorly vetted migrants from jihadist regions.”

Continuing his long-standing pattern of mocking women he perceives as opponents in sexist or misogynistic language — a tactic that does not go over well with women in either party — Trump attacked Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer during the same rally, along with his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton, and NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, who moderated his Thursday night town hall.

Trump accused Whitmer, whom he has previously called “a dictator,” of unnecessarily locking down her state as she fought the pandemic. That led his crowd to break into a chant of “Lock her up!” a little more than a week after federal authorities revealed a plot by extremists to kidnap Whitmer and overthrow the government.

Rather than condemning the derailed plot — which led to terrorism, conspiracy and weapons charges against more than a dozen men — or discouraging that kind of divisive language, Trump essentially endorsed the cheer with his authoritarian rhetoric about jailing his political opponents by adding Clinton and the Biden family into the mix.

“Lock them all up,” Trump replied to the crowd.

He complained that Whitmer said publicly that his refusal to denounce White supremacists, extremists and hate groups has emboldened activists like those who allegedly planned the foiled attack against her.

“I guess they said she was threatened, right?” Trump said, seeming to doubt the specifics of

Read more

Donald Trump continues bizarre appeals to suburban women as he campaigns in Covid hotspots

If President Donald Trump loses his reelection bid in November, it will be in part because of his fundamental misunderstanding of the beliefs of “suburban women,” whom he has tried to win back with a series of bizarre and racist appeals that seem more targeted to a stereotype from the 1950s and 1960s than the American women who actually live in those areas today.



a man wearing a suit and tie: President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, Saturday, Oct. 17, 2020, in Janesville, Wis. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)


© Alex Brandon/AP
President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, Saturday, Oct. 17, 2020, in Janesville, Wis. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Many of the female voters who have abandoned Trump recoil from his divisive language and disapprove of both his handling of race relations and the pandemic. But he has tried to convince them to support him through a campaign of fear and xenophobia, with claims about the Democratic agenda that plunge deep into the realm of the ridiculous and would be believed only by the most naïve, low-information voters.

Loading...

Load Error

His speech Saturday night in Michigan exemplified those political miscalculations when it comes to women he has referred to as the “suburban housewives of America” as he tried to create fear about crime from immigrants and argued that Joe Biden will upend life in the suburbs by putting public housing projects in the middle of leafy neighborhoods — a reference to an Obama-era housing regulation aimed at ending segregation.

“Would you like a nice low-income housing project next to your suburban beautiful ranch style house? Generally speaking, no,” Trump said in Muskegon. “I saved your suburbs — women — suburban women, you’re supposed to love Trump,” he said.

The President went on to make the ludicrous claim that Biden and Democrats want to overwhelm Michigan neighborhoods with refugees from Syria, Somalia and Yemen, and “poorly vetted migrants from jihadist regions.”

Continuing his long-standing pattern of mocking women he perceives as opponents in sexist or misogynistic language — a tactic that does not go over well with women in either party — Trump attacked Democratic Gov. Michigan Gretchen Whitmer during the same rally, along with his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton, and NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, who moderated his Thursday night town hall.

Trump accused Whitmer, whom he has previously called “a dictator,” of unnecessarily locking down her state as she fought the pandemic. That led his crowd to break into a chant of “Lock her up!” a little more than a week after federal authorities revealed a plot by extremists to kidnap Whitmer and overthrow the government.

Rather than condemning the derailed plot — which led to terrorism, conspiracy and weapons charges against more than a dozen men — or discouraging that kind of divisive language, Trump essentially endorsed the cheer with his authoritarian rhetoric about jailing his political opponents by adding Clinton and the Biden family into the mix.

“Lock them all up,” Trump replied to the crowd.

He complained that Whitmer said publicly that his refusal to denounce White supremacists, extremists and hate groups has emboldened activists like those

Read more