Search

"20 years to life": Bali's brutal new law

Major changers are coming into effect for foreigners in Bali. Indonesia's Department of Immigration has doubled down on its zero-tolerance approach to unruly tourists, as those found in breach of immigration laws or have overstayed their visas could be sentenced to life behind bars. Crimes that were previously punishable with sentences from six months to one year in prison are increasing to jail-time of up to 20 years, according to The Bali Sun. “Indonesia is a country that upholds the tourism sector, but comfort must be accompanied by order. We want foreign nationals who come to Indonesia to understand and follow the rules and norms that apply in this country,” Director General of Immigration Law and Human Rights Silmy Karim said, according to local newspaper Nusa Bali. “We also try to ensure that those who come are quality tourists, through strengthening intelligence co-operation and information exchange with other countries.” There will also be an increase in immigration checkpoint officers, patrol officers and investigators, and more mobile taskforces. The rules won't affect tourists who apply for temporary visas on arrival and leave with in the mandated 30-day period or extend their visa and leave within 60 days. The Indonesian government has recently cracked down on foreigners overstaying their welcome, deporting more than 400 people this year alone for violating immigration laws. Just last year, a dozen Australians were among more than 200 foreigners kicked out of Bali for abusing the visa system by doing illegal business or working in Bali. This follows the introduction of the tourist tax and the release of their tourist dos and don'ts list, as they attempt to monitor foreigners' activities. Image: AsiaTravel / Shutterstock.com

Legal

“Don’t marry him”: Bride-to-be shares wild altercation with her future in-laws over her wedding dress

A woman has been told to “run” from her fiancé after sharing a wild conversation she had with her future in-laws about her wedding dress. The bride-to-be shared that ever since she was a child, she wanted to wear her mother’s wedding dress on her own big day. However, the woman was then confronted by her soon-to-be in-laws, with drama ensuing over her wedding dress. Taking to Reddit’s “Am I The A**hole?” page, the woman explained, "My mother's wedding dress has been passed down for generations and I remember being a little girl dreaming of walking down the aisle in it." Despite her wishes to wear the family heirloom on her big day, she said things went south at a dinner at her sister-in-law’s (SIL) house when she "tapped her spoon against the glass and said that she had to make a toast." "She then said she would be right back before going into another room and returning with a large plastic bag," the bride continues. "Everyone seemed to be excited but I just felt confused." As she "awkwardly smiled", her SIL opened the bag to reveal her wedding dress from her wedding two years earlier as her in-laws began clapping, as her future sister-in-law announced she wanted the bride to wear her dress at her upcoming nuptials. "I tried to smile but I guess I didn't do a good job of hiding my disappointment and everyone began asking me what was wrong," the bride-to-be continues, adding that she tried to explain that she wanted to wear her mother's wedding dress. At this point, her SIL began to cry and her in-laws began berating her, causing the bride to burst into tears and run outside. "My fiancé didn't even come after me and after crying my eyes out on the steps for what felt like hours, he finally came outside and yelled at me to get into the car," she says. Confused, she got into the car only for her fiancé to berate her for making "such a big scene" leaving him feeling "embarrassed in front of his family." "He sounds so mad and he even said he couldn't believe he chose to marry such a 'bitchy c--t' (his exact words)." The woman tried to explain how important it was to her to wear her mother's dress and that she had already promised her mother she would be wearing it on her big day. "I felt like my fiancé's family planned this and put me on the spot thinking I wouldn't stand up for myself and just agree to wear SIL's dress," she continues. "I don't think I did anything wrong but a part of me thinks I should have just gone along with it and then told SIL in private that I wouldn't be wearing the dress." Hundreds of people were quick to comment on her post, suggesting that she “run” not only from her in-laws, but from her partner as well. "Ma'am you need to leave that whole family behind including your fiancé," one said. "You just had a peek into your future if you carry on with this relationship." "Don't you dare marry that man!!!" another said. "The problem doesn't exist as the wedding shouldn't be happening anymore," another added. One Redditor suggested she "be thankful that he is showing you who he really is before you marry him." "You have just had a glimpse of what your future is going to look like if you go through with your wedding." Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

A woman has gone head-to-head with her mother-in-law over the name she has chosen for her unborn child. The pregnant woman took to Reddit to share her unusual predicament, explaining how her mother-in-law has demanded she change the name of her baby. The soon-to-be mum shared how she recently had dinner with her husband’s family, where she decided to reveal the baby’s gender and name. She had been keeping the information secret, but with only a few weeks of her pregnancy left, she decided to share the happy news that she was having a baby boy and had chosen the name Shawn for her son. But not everyone shared her happiness over the moniker, as her mother-in-law went pale with shock and demanded she choose a new name. “My in-laws got quiet for a moment before asking if there were other options we'd considered. Apparently, Shawn is the name of my 17-year-old sister-in-law Ashley's former bully who tormented her [for years],” the pregnant woman explained on Reddit. While she empathised with her in-laws, she didn’t want to change the name as it was the only one her and her husband agreed on for their son. She also explained that she hadn’t known about the family connection when they picked the name, and hadn’t picked it out of any malicious intent. “We took forever to pick a name,” she said. “Shawn is the only one we could agree on.” The dinner party soon ended after the argument began, but the mother-in-law didn’t back down, sending the expecting mum demanding messages. “She texted me and my husband again to ask us to find a new name for Ashley's sake.” “Would I be the a**hole for not wanting to change it? We were only able to agree on it a few weeks ago.” Commenters were torn over the subject, with many rushing to the pregnant woman’s defence, saying she can pick whatever name she wants for her son. “My spouse and sibling have the same name. Somehow, you just compartmentalise it,” one shared. “I feel like if a new baby in my family shared a name with my bully I'd just adapt,” another wrote. “After all, Shawn is a VERY common name, so I can't freak out every time I hear it and survive in this world.” However, a select few sided with the mother-in-law, sharing how stunned they were that the couple couldn't find enough compassion to pick another name. One person said, “I understand the difficulty of finding a name that feels right, but for me, after learning this, Shawn would quickly become another name that didn't work. It's only been decided on it for a few weeks so I'd just go back to the drawing board.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gemma-horton-1515949">Gemma Horton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> From court cases to conspiracy theories, the royal family’s right to privacy is, somewhat ironically, nearly always in the spotlight. The latest focus is Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, whose whereabouts have been the subject of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a60008117/kate-middleton-health-speculation-conspiracy-theories-online/">online speculation</a> after it was announced she was undergoing abdominal surgery and would be away from public duties until after Easter. This comes just weeks after King Charles <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68208157">revealed that he is undergoing treatment for cancer</a>, and a legal settlement between Prince Harry and Mirror Group Newspapers over <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68249009">illegal phone hacking</a>. Interest in the personal lives of the royals and other celebrities <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193">is a constant</a>, driving newspaper sales and online clicks for decades. You only needs to consider the media frenzy that followed Princess Diana to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2013.833678">see this</a>, and its potentially devastating consequences. From a legal perspective, the British courts have ruled that everyone – the royal family included – is entitled to a right to privacy. The Human Rights Act incorporates into British law the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights. This includes article 8, which focuses on the right to privacy. In the years after the Human Rights Act came into force, courts ruled on a string of cases from celebrities claiming that the press invaded their privacy. Courts had to balance article 8 of the convention against article 10, the right to freedom of expression. Rulings repeatedly stated that, despite being in and sometimes seeking the limelight, celebrities should still be afforded a right to privacy. Some disagree with this position, such as prominent journalist <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-hacking-piers-morgan-b2336442.html">Piers Morgan, who has criticised</a> the Duke and Duchess of Sussex asking for privacy when they have also released a Netflix documentary, a broadcast interview with Oprah Winfrey and published a memoir. But the courts have made the position clear, as in the case concerning Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas after Hello! Magazine published unauthorised photographs from their wedding. The <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/190559/3/Final%20Edited%20Version%20-%20Celebrity%20Privacy%20and%20Celebrity%20Journalism-%20Has%20anything%20changed%20since%20the%20Leveson%20Inquiry_.pdf">court stated</a> that: “To hold that those who have sought any publicity lose all protection would be to repeal article 8’s application to very many of those who are likely to need it.” There is no universal definition of privacy, but scholars have identified key concepts encompassing what privacy can entail. In my own research, I have argued that the <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/190559/3/Final%20Edited%20Version%20-%20Celebrity%20Privacy%20and%20Celebrity%20Journalism-%20Has%20anything%20changed%20since%20the%20Leveson%20Inquiry_.pdf">notion of choice</a> is one of these. Privacy allows us to control the spread of information about ourselves and disclose information to whom we want. <h2>Privacy and the public interest</h2> There are exceptions to these protections if the person involved had no reasonable expectation of privacy, or if it was in the public interest for this information to be revealed. There is no solid, legal definition of the “public interest”, so this is decided on a case-by-case basis. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2021.1889866">In the past</a>, the public interest defence has been applied because a public figure or official has acted hypocritically and the courts have stated there is a right for a publisher to set the record straight. When it comes to medical records and information concerning health, case law and journalistic <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/">editorial codes of conduct</a> are clear that this information is afforded the utmost protection. Model Naomi Campbell was pictured leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and these images were published by the Daily Mirror. The court found that there had been a public interest in revealing the fact she was attending these meetings, as she had previously denied substance abuse. The House of Lords accepted that there was a public interest in the press “setting the record straight”. Nonetheless, the publication of additional, confidential details, and the photographs of her leaving the meeting were a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/06/mirror.pressandpublishing1">step too far</a>. The House of Lords highlighted the importance of being able to keep medical records and information private. <h2>Royal health</h2> When it comes to the royals, the history of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a23798094/lindo-wing-st-marys-hospital-facts-photos/">publicity</a> around royal births, often posing with the newborn royal baby outside of the hospital, has set a precedent for what the public can expect about the royals’ medical information. When they choose to go against this tradition, it can frustrate both royal-watchers and publishers. King Charles made the choice to openly speak about his enlarged prostate to “assist public understanding”. And, as Prostate Cancer UK noted, this has worked – they noted a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-charles-cancer-statement-treatment-b2494190.html">500% increase in people visiting their website</a>. However, he has chosen to not to divulge information about his cancer diagnosis beyond the fact that he is receiving treatment. This is his right. While revealing further information might stop speculation and rumours about his health, it is not the king’s duty to divulge private, medical information. However, if his health begins to impact his ability to act as monarch, the situation could change. It might be that the press finds more information about his health without his knowledge, but unless they have a genuine public interest in publishing this information, privacy should prevail. You would no doubt want your private medical information kept secret, not shared around your workplace and speculated on unless it was absolutely necessary. It is thanks to these laws and court precedent that you don’t have to worry about this. The royal family, regardless of their position, should expect the same standard. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gemma-horton-1515949">Gemma Horton</a>, Impact Fellow for Centre for Freedom of the Media, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-the-royal-family-have-a-right-to-privacy-what-the-law-says-224881">original article</a>.

Legal

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

A woman has asked for advice on how to navigate her relationship with her sister-in-law, after the woman overheard an inappropriate conversation at her child’s funeral. The grieving mother, a 28-year-old named Melissa, took to Reddit to share the heartbreaking story of how her toddler passed away after a battle with cancer. Melissa described the time as the “hardest in my life”, explaining how she felt she lost “a part of herself” after the funeral. While Melissa expected her toddlers’ memorial service to be difficult, she never predicted a family member would make it even harder. The mother said that when she heard her sister-in-law telling people about her pregnancy, she thought the move was just cruel. “She didn't make a big announcement but more than ten people at the service 'heard' and it's what everyone was talking about. To understate it, I was livid,” Melissa wrote on Reddit. Melissa’s post then asked social media users for advice, as she was unsure how much of a relationship she wanted to have with her sister-in-law after the stunt. The 28-year-old shared that she had fallen pregnant herself, and was facing pressure to have a party in celebration, but she didn’t want her whole family in attendance. “I've been working on who I want to invite, and I really don't want my SIL there,” she said. “Besides what she did, she's a vindictive and mean person and I cannot stand her.” “I mentioned it to my husband and he says he couldn't care less whether she's there or not. But for the sake of saving face, I want opinions before I do this.” She asked the online forum if she would be “an a**hole” for not inviting her, addin that she would still be inviting her husband's other sister and husband's brother's wife. “The original SIL will be the only one not invited,” she clarified. The post was flooded with comments as many backed up Melissa, slamming the sister-in-law for her selfish behaviour. “I wouldn't want someone like that around me. Announcing a pregnancy at a child's funeral is insane,” one said. “Cut her off and ignore everyone close to her. You are right to have nothing to do with her. She's totally classless.” However, others encouraged her to have an adult conversation with her sister-in-law in an attempt to mend their relationship. “Please let it go,” one person began. “This happened on a terrible day during a bad time for you. It's possible that could be clouding how you're looking at this, she may not have been malicious at all.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

A woman has banned her in-laws from seeing her newborn daughter after they “betrayed her trust” and directly went against her wishes. The new mum shared the story to Reddit, as she explained why she was cutting contact with her husband’s parents after they pierced her child’s ears without their knowledge or consent. “My husband is from a culture where it's not uncommon to pierce baby girls' ears and his mother started pestering me about getting my daughter's ears pierced a few days after she was born,” the 32-year-old mum began. “I made it clear that I would not be doing that, and that I'd be waiting until she's old enough to ask for it herself. We live in my country where piercing a baby's ears isn't common at all.” The new mum's world soon came crashing down after the baby spent a weekend with her grandparents, before she went back to her parents red in the face and screaming. “My mother-in-law was looking after her over the weekend and decided to pierce her ears without my knowledge or consent.” “When I saw this I threw a fit. My baby was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out.” The doctor advised the parent to take the earrings out as they were irritating the baby, but the issue didn’t end there. “I decided at that moment that my mother-in-law and everyone else on that side of the family (except for my sister-in-law, who's on my side about this) is going to have no alone contact with my daughter ever again - or at least until she's a teenager.” “My worry is that she'll do the same thing again, and to be frank, she's lost my trust entirely. I told her that if she had a problem with that, I'd report what she did to the police.” The husband of the baby girl reluctantly sided with his wife over the issue, despite saying it wasn’t a big deal and suggesting everyone move on from the incident. The story prompted a mixed response online, with some people saying the woman was overreacting and should work towards rebuilding trust with her in-laws. Others, however, had the opposite opinion, with one person saying, “Forget rebuilding trust, I'd be having them charged with assault.” Another person said, “They mutilated a child and they knew it was against the parents wishes. These people have serious problems. Not that I'd press charges, but getting holes poked in someone else's kid is a huge thing.” Image credits: Getty Images

Family & Pets

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

Warning: This story contains graphic content. Mariska Hargitay, who plays Olivia Benson, a character that investigate rapists on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, has revealed that she too is a victim of sexual assault. The actress opened up about her traumatic past in a powerful essay written for <a href="https://people.com/mariska-hargitay-experience-rape-renewal-reckoning-8424247" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People Magazine</a>, where she revealed that she was raped by “a friend" when she was in her thirties. "A man raped me in my thirties," she bravely revealed in the essay. "It wasn’t sexual at all. It was dominance and control. Overpowering control." The actress revealed that he was a friend who "made a unilateral decision" and recalled the fear she felt when the incident occurred. "He grabbed me by the arms and held me down. I was terrified," she said. "I didn’t want it to escalate to violence. I now know it was already sexual violence, but I was afraid he would become physically violent. "I went into freeze mode, a common trauma response when there is no option to escape. I checked out of my body," she recalled. Hargitay, who is the daughter of the late actress Jane Mansfield, said that she never thought of herself as a "survivor", and often "minimised" what happened to her when she talked about it with others. "My husband Peter remembers me saying, “I mean, it wasn’t rape," she wrote. "Then things started shifting in me, and I began talking about it more in earnest with those closest to me. They were the first ones to call it what it was." The actress said that she wants other survivors to feel "no shame" about sexual assault and wants "this violence to end." She added that justice "may look different for each survivor," but for her she wants "an acknowledgment and an apology" after what happened. "This is a painful part of my story. The experience was horrible. But it doesn’t come close to defining me, in the same way that no other single part of my story defines me," she concluded, adding that she feels for all sexual violence survivors. "I’m turning 60, and I’m so deeply grateful for where I am. I’m renewed and I’m flooded with compassion for all of us who have suffered. And I’m still proudly in process." Hargitay started her own foundation, the Joyful Heart Foundation, in 2004 to help survivors of sexual assault. Image: Getty

Caring

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-mitchell-1468293">Dale Mitchell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> From Elle Woods in Legally Blonde to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2015.1087367">Jennifer Walters in She-Hulk</a>, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird to Denny Crane in Boston Legal, our popular culture is often where we first see and witness legal practice. Sometimes this comes via the silver screen, other times television. But it would be wrong to think that all we see on legal television shows is accurate – even when it claims to capture reality. Most legal dramas are terrible at capturing the realities of law. <h2>Not accurate: Law(less) and (dis)Order</h2> Law and Order (1990-) innovated television drama by showcasing both the investigation of a crime by police, and then its prosecution in court. With its multiple spin-offs, including Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (1999-) and the shortlived Law and Order: Trial by Jury (2005-2006) (which had the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aolG65V1Dx8">best theme song of all the series</a>), the Law and Order franchise is a televisual legal juggernaut. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aolG65V1Dx8?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> As with most serials, Law and Order presents the criminal justice system as moving quicker than you can say dun dun. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The mean duration of criminal law matters in Australian higher courts was <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release">almost one year</a> (50 weeks) across 2021-22. While <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s5.html">procedural rules in civil matters</a> require courts to facilitate the “just and efficient resolution of disputes at minimum expense”, in criminal law, speed and efficiency must not be prioritised over accuracy: a person’s liberty is at stake. Most criminal matters do not proceed to a full trial as an accused will often plead guilty to the charges. As a result, the matter proceeds to sentencing without prosecutors needing to prove the offence. The rates of this occurring are quite alarming. <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release">Data across 2021-22</a> reveals over 75% of defendants in Australian courts entered a guilty plea, and almost four in five criminal convictions (79%) resulted from a guilty plea. <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1705761/32_1_8.pdf">Research suggests</a> defendants plead guilty for a variety of reasons, including to avoid the cost of a trial and to receive a lesser sentence. <a href="https://theconversation.com/pandemic-pushed-defendants-to-plead-guilty-more-often-including-innocent-people-pleading-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit-165056">Data from the United States</a> suggests the pressures of the pandemic led to innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. If Law and Order was a more accurate reflection of criminal law, matters would proceed immediately to sentencing due to guilty pleas. And should an accused be found guilty, a chunk of their sentence would be reduced by time served awaiting trial. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/60GV5lv8h3o?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Not accurate: Suits</h2> Suits (2011-19) centres around law firm partner Harvey Specter (Gabriel Macht) and his mentorship of Mike Ross (Patrick Adams) – the “lawyer” who never graduated law school and provides legal advice thanks to his photographic memory. This is, obviously, a brutal ethical breach for all involved, and clearly fraud. In Australia, law students who present themselves to be lawyers are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-07/law-graduate-jacob-reichman-fined-posing-solicitor-gold-coast/7824324">subject to sanctions</a> by the Legal Services Commission. They can <a href="https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/35821-fake-lawyer-cops-suspended-jail-sentence">cause harm to clients</a> who have hired their services. And the Legal Admissions Board may <a href="https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2020/11/chief-justice-wants-answers-before-considering-lawyer-impersonators-bid-to-become-legal-practitioner/">deny their entry</a> into the profession. (Spoilers) Ross is eventually sentenced to two years in prison for this fraud, a similar sentence to <a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/1202786675709/">a recent case in the United States</a>, but he only serves three months before solving a crime and earning early release. More unrealistic than this early release is that Ross does fairly quickly thereafter gain admission to the profession, which seems unlikely to occur so soon after such an act of fraud. While Suits has left its mark(le) on the popular imagination of law, it fails to address one of the primary duties of civil litigation: the duty of disclosure. The MacGuffin-ing of law is common in TV serials. It’s the “smoking gun” found on the day of the trial, or for the lawyers in Suits, the random document which shows up during the trial to turn the case - dramatically presented by our protagonists as they flail into court armed with this data sans ethics. This is not quite accurate. In adversarial legal systems like Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, civil litigation rules <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s211.html">require parties</a> to disclose to one another all documents in their possession or control which are directly relevant to a matter in dispute. This is a continuing duty, so if you discover such a document at any time during the case, it must be disclosed. While <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s212.html">exceptions</a> based on various privileges may apply, this essentially means civil litigation must be run in an “all cards on the table” manner. Randomly producing undisclosed material at trial requires the leave of the court and may result in orders of contempt and <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s225.html">cost penalties</a>. It’s not like the lawyers of Suits have ever really been concerned about ethics, though. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wUh9jomHZp4?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Not accurate: How to Get Away with Murder(ing rules of evidence)</h2> While most lawyers would support making it a criminal offence to critique Viola Davis, How to Get Away with Murder (2014-20) presents one of the most common offences within legal dramas: the haphazard approach to rules of evidence. Annalise Keating (Davis) and her ragtag team of morally illiterate law students (although I never see them studying?!?!) manipulate people to obtain evidence and then dramatically prompt witnesses on the stand to read this information into the record, or otherwise “sneak” it into the trial. This is not accurate. And it ignores the basic reality that so much of legal practice is about not just obtaining evidence, but ensuring that evidence is admissible in court. One of the most important rules of evidence deals with <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s59.html">hearsay evidence</a>. A court cannot allow evidence to be considered if its reliability is unable to be interrogated. Witnesses can only present evidence that they saw, heard or perceived themselves. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, such evidence would be inadmissible. Like in Suits, these approaches to presenting evidence may have serious implications. This poor trial management results in <a href="https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/rpp074.pdf">delays to criminal trials.</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rMB_Gw5-T-I?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Accurate: Fisk</h2> Fisk (2021-) follows Helen Tudor-Fisk (Kitty Flanagan), an established contract lawyer whose personal dramas lead her to move to the boutique Melbourne probate law firm of Gruber and Gruber (played by Marty Sheargold and Julia Zamero). Fisk excels in showing the importance of lawyer-client relations and the word-of-mouth that sustains much of small legal practice. It’s the anti-Suits, and Fisk is more powerful for it. The discussions of wills and estates and most basic legal principles in Fisk are mostly sound – and the show doesn’t need to get into “legalese” as matters are resolved out-of-court. This is a distinct reality of law: litigation is a last resort. Forms of <a href="https://www.qls.com.au/Practising-law-in-Qld/ADR/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution/Types-of-Alternative-Dispute-Resolution-(ADR)">alternative dispute resolution</a>, including mediation, negotiation and conciliation, have become the primary way of resolving legal disputes. Fuelled by <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/alternative-dispute-resolution/civil-dispute-resolution-act-2011">legislative changes</a> which require the exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution measures before proceeding to litigation, and a pursuit of reduced costs, the drama of trial is not something anyone should yearn for. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1Qt0Wo1gGo?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Accurate: Rake</h2> Cleaver Greene, a character said to be loosely based on the career of a Sydney barrister, shows us the absolute madness of work as a “<a href="https://nswbar.asn.au/the-bar-association/senior-counsel#:%7E:text=Senior%20counsel%20are%20barristers%20who,a%20QC%20or%20queen's%20counsel.">silk</a>”. Rake excels at showing the reality of law. The show raises interesting and accurate questions of law (yes, it is true there is no <a href="https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/18992/1/2011006119.pdf">explicit offence</a> of cannibalism in New South Wales) and presents Australian court process accurately. Thankfully, there’s not a gavel in sight. <a href="https://www.survivelaw.com/post/941-working-hardly-random-facts-about-the-gavel">Australian courts do not use gavels</a>, and their presence in legal dramas in Australian and UK courts shows a lack of attention to detail. The presence of the gavel as a symbol of justice is <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/1994/17.pdf">an entirely American invention</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qWWI2EdOssk?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Rake is accurate, in part, because the site of drama is rarely the courtroom, but rather Greene’s personal life. The accuracy of that element for law I will leave up to the jury. But with a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13218719.2013.822783">2014 study</a> finding 35% of lawyers engaged in hazardous or harmful drinking and another showing <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/study-finds-high-rates-anxiety-depression-in-legal-profession/11412832">high rates of anxiety and depression</a> in the legal profession, the evidence is compelling.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212880/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-mitchell-1468293">Dale Mitchell</a>, Lecturer in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-gavels-no-hearsay-and-lots-of-drinking-a-law-expert-ranks-legal-dramas-by-their-accuracy-212880">original article</a>.

Legal

Why can’t I use my phone or take photos on the airport tarmac? Is it against the law?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/doug-drury-1277871">Doug Drury</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/cquniversity-australia-2140">CQUniversity Australia</a> Mobile phones are not allowed to be used while on a plane because they can interfere with the aeroplane’s navigation instruments and <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-the-real-reason-to-turn-on-aeroplane-mode-when-you-fly-188585">cause various safety and social issues</a>. As soon as the plane lands, we’re permitted to turn off flight mode, but at some airports we can’t get much of a signal. That’s because airports are known as mobile signal “<a href="https://thepointsguy.com/news/slow-connection-airport-tarmacs/">dead zones</a>” due to a lack of mobile towers – they can’t be placed at the airport itself due to height restrictions. Any nearby mobile towers would be located away from the airport’s runway systems to avoid interfering with the aeroplane’s flight path, especially take-off and landing direction. Most airports put up indoor repeater antennas within the airport terminal; these help increase the mobile signal strength coming from the nearest mobile tower somewhere near the airport. But you won’t be allowed to make calls while walking away from the plane, anyway. <h2>Why can’t I use my phone on the tarmac?</h2> As we are taxiing in, the <a href="https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-experience/onboard/communication.html">cabin crew</a> remind us not to smoke outside of designated areas at the terminal and not to use our mobile phones until we are inside the terminal building. If you exit the plane down the rear stairs, why aren’t you allowed to use your phone once away from the aeroplane, if you can get a signal? Surely it won’t affect navigation. The answer is manifold, and regulations aren’t the same across the world. In Australia, a <a href="https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/travel-and-passengers/onboard-safety-and-behaviour/using-your-electronic-devices-flights">government regulation</a> prohibits the use of mobile phones on the tarmac – the aeroplane movement and parking area of the airport. You won’t be fined if you whip your phone out while walking to the terminal, but the airline may admonish you for not following the rules. However, if you decide to (<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/woman-arrested-after-running-onto-tarmac-at-melbourne-airport-20151125-gl7bkq.html">run around on the tarmac</a>, you could get arrested by federal police. The airport tarmac is very busy not just with aircraft, but also baggage carts, catering trucks, aeroplane waste removal trucks, and fuel trucks. Getting passengers off the tarmac and into the terminal building quickly and safely is a priority for the staff. If you are distracted while walking to the terminal building because you’re talking on your phone, it can be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/25/alabama-airport-worker-killed-jet-engine-safety-warnings">highly dangerous and even deadly</a> if you end up too close to an operating plane. An operating jet engine is extremely hot and has a strong exhaust. Additionally, the front of the engine has a low-pressure area called an <a href="https://www.ukfrs.com/guidance/search/aircraft-systems-and-construction">ingestion zone</a> that can suck in a person. Ground staff are trained to stay at least ten metres away from this area. However, this information is not shared with the passengers. <h2>A myth about fuel</h2> You may have heard that mobile phones are a fire hazard near fuel, and aeroplanes are, of course, refuelled on the tarmac. However, the chances of fuel catching fire during this process are extremely low, because the refuelling truck is <a href="https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/safe-aircraft-refuelling/">bonded and “grounded” to the plane</a>: the operator attaches a wire to the aircraft to move built-up static electricity to the ground to prevent any chance of a spark. <figure class="align-right zoomable"><figcaption></figcaption></figure> There have been stories in the press about mobile phones sparking <a href="https://www.verizon.com/about/news/vzw/2014/12/fact-or-fiction-using-a-cell-phone-at-the-gas-station-can-cause-a-fire">fires at petrol stations in Indonesia and Australia</a>, but these turned out to be inaccurate. There is <a href="https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/30A/FI%20-%20NFPA%2030A-2015%20Para%208.3.1%20-%20Attachments%2014-19.2017-04-04.pdf">no evidence a phone can spark a fire at a fuel pump</a>, despite the warning labels you might see. Either way, the chances of a mobile phone causing this on the tarmac with a refuelling truck that is grounded to the aeroplane are extremely low, not least because the passenger permitted areas and refuelling areas are completely separated. <h2>Why are we told not to take photos on the tarmac?</h2> This rule varies from airport to airport depending on their <a href="https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/can-i-film-and-take-photos-security-checkpoint">security processes</a>. Such restrictions are carryovers from the changes to airport security following the <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jlecono50&i=739">September 11 2001 terrorist attacks</a>. The now federalised security teams, TSA (Transportation Security Administration) in the United States and the Department of Home Affairs in Australia, change their processes frequently to prevent having any identifiable patterns that could be used to create a security breach. The increased security measures also mean new technologies were introduced; airport security sections do not want photos taken of how they operate. The airport security process is a major choke point in the flow of passenger movement due to the screening process. If a passenger is perceived to be slowing the process down by taking photos or talking on their phone, they will be reminded to turn off their device and/or stop taking photos of security personnel and equipment. If you refuse to follow the rules of the screening process, you will be <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/travelsecure/passenger-screening">denied entry</a> into the airport terminal gate area and miss your flight. Can you also get arrested for using your phone? Depends on the airport and country. I, for one, do not want to find out.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207926/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/doug-drury-1277871">Doug Drury</a>, Professor/Head of Aviation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/cquniversity-australia-2140">CQUniversity Australia</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-cant-i-use-my-phone-or-take-photos-on-the-airport-tarmac-is-it-against-the-law-207926">original article</a>.

Travel Tips

Wacky pet laws that will make you laugh

There are laws to protect people from harm, animals from cruelty and to keep the animal-human relationship harmonious. But then there are those wacky laws that will make you scratch your head and wonder how they became laws in the first place. 1. In some areas of Oklahoma dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property. 2. In Chicago, you cannot bring your French poodle to the opera. 3. In Berea, Ohio, any pet that goes out after dark must wear a tail light. 4. In Creskill, New York, all outside cats must wear three bells to warn birds of their approach. 5. In Madison, Wisconsin dogs are forbidden from harassing squirrels in the public park next to the capital. 6. In Denver Colorado an animal control officer must notify dogs of any impending impounds three days before it’s due to happen. They do this by posting notices on trees in the public parks and along the road running next to the park. 7. In Memphis, Tennessee, if a frog's croaking keeps you awake at night, you can have that frog arrested. 8. In Turin, Italy owners can be fined up to $650 for not walking their dog at least three times a day. 9. In Reed City, Michigan, you cannot own a pet cat and bird simultaneously. 10. In French Lick Springs, Indiana, all black cats must wear bells on Friday the 13th. 11. In certain areas of Oklahoma it is against the law to make “ugly” or “mean” faces at a dog. 12. In Honolulu, Hawaii, it’s unlawful to annoy birds at any public park. Image credit: Shutterstock

Legal

Advice on dealing with tricky in-laws

From heated discussions to awkward family dinners, your relationship with your in-laws can have a big impact on family time. Here’s how to navigate this sometimes tricky dynamic. There’s nothing worse than heading to a family engagement when you have a son-in-law (or your daughter’s parents-in-law) that you just don’t get along with. Whether there's been a fight that you haven’t been able to move on from, or you simply don’t get along, if you find your in-laws draining or annoying, you may need to change the boundaries. Do you know the old saying, “good fences make good neighbours”? Think of your in-laws like your neighbours – there needs to be really good fences (aka boundaries) in place for the relationship to run smoothly. The best way to go about this is in such a way that you don’t make anyone feel as though you're closing them out, but rather comes off that you are simply focussing on yourself and things you have going on. Once you’ve set boundaries, don’t be afraid to talk to your family and in-laws about them, they’re not as fragile as you think. But do choose your words carefully and keep the focus on you and what your needs are, rather than making any judgements or comments about them or their behaviour. Still not sure how to deal with your son, daughter, sister or brother in-law? Here are some top tips for setting boundaries and dealing with awkward situations: <ol> <li>The person with the primary relationship (for example your daughter, not your son-in-law) should be the one to step in and help fix a problem if it arises. You should never be the messenger or go straight to an in-law. Gently raise the issue or concern with your immediate family member. </li> <li>Decide with your partner, or in your own time if you are single or widowed, what type of role you want your in-law/s to play in your life. If you don’t get along and spending time with them just seems to cause issues, then you might want to limit catch-ups to birthdays and big events. This is ok. Just be gentle if asked to explain. And keep your explanation brief and about you. Something along the lines of, my schedule is quite busy at the moment or I don’t feel up to going out too much, but I am looking forward to the next family get together. </li> <li>Never criticise your family for their relationship with his or her spouse/your in-laws, nor comment on your in-law to your immediate family member – for example don’t criticise your son-in-law to your daughter/his wife. This tends to only lead to complications and awkwardness. And remember, you only know what your daughter tells you and if they come to you everytime they’re upset or angry with their partner or their partner’s extended family, you’re only hearing the problems when your daughter is frustrated and upset. You might not hear all the good things and about when they make up. Don’t take these things on board and stay out of it by reserving any judgement or comments. </li> <li>Don’t get involved. Easier said than done, right? You have to trust that you have brought your children up right and they are responsible enough to navigate their own relationships, treat others respectfully and can stand up for themselves if need be. As such, you should not get involved in their issues, arguments and general day-to-day dealings with their other relationships. Stay on the peripheral, be there for some light guidance if need be, but ultimately you should just help them come to their own opinions, decisions and judgements on things rather than sharing your ones with them. </li> <li>Don’t get pulled into arguments by your child and in-law. You can be supportive and still let the couple handle their own problems. Take a step back and trust that you have raised an adult who has the vision and the courage to resolve the problems that concern his/her own family. Couples need to set boundaries for their own relationships and this can, as I am sure you know, take some time to find the right ones. </li> <li>Think of yourself as a guest. When spending time with family in big groups, and especially when you’re at someone else’s home, it is best to think of yourself as a guest and act accordingly. For example you may not like the way you son’s wife is doing things in her home (child rearing, cooking, cleaning etc), but unfortunately it is not really any of your business. This is between your son and his wife. A good checkpoint is to ask yourself if you have a sense of entitlement and expectancy that is inappropriate. If there are issues that you just can’t stand but can’t let go, then you may need to consider not visiting them.</li> </ol> Image credits: Getty Images

Family & Pets

"Makes me vomit": Richard Dreyfuss slams new Hollywood diversity laws

Richard Dreyfuss has taken a stand against new diversity laws that will come into affect at next year's Oscars, saying the new rules make him "vomit". The legendary actor condemned the change to the standards, claiming the laws are trying to legislate people's feelings. Appearing on PBS show Firing Line with Margaret Hoover, a fired-up Dreyfuss said, “This is an art form. It’s also a form of commerce, and it makes money. But it’s an art.” “And no one should be telling me as an artist that I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is.” Mr Dreyfuss, who famously played Matt Hooper in the 1975 horror film Jaws, went on to say that minorities should not be "catered to" in the arts, but rather awards given based on merit. “What are we risking? Are we really risking hurting people’s feelings? You can’t legislate that. And– you have to let life be life. And I’m sorry, I don’t think that there is a minority or a majority in the country that has to be catered to like that,” he said. With the rules set to come into effect in 2024, a film will have to meet certain diversity and inclusion standards in four different categories set out by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to be considered for “Best Picture” at the Oscars. The categories, each pertaining to different aspects of a movie’s production, would require new diversity measures to be met through “On-screen Representation,” “Creative Leadership and Project Team,” “Industry Access and Opportunities,” and “Audience Advancement.” “On-screen Representation” is classified as at least one lead character from an under-represented racial or ethnic group, which the Academy defines as women, people of colour, people who identify as LGBTQ+ or people with disabilities, with the new standards meant to encourage diversity on and off the screen. Dreyfuss continued his rant about the new standards, saying the rules will limit what roles actors are able to take, and simply described outdated racist ideals as forms of "art". “Am I being told that I will never have a chance to play a black man? Is someone else being told that if they’re not Jewish, they shouldn’t play the Merchant of Venice? Are we crazy? Do we not know that art is art? This is so patronising. It’s so thoughtless, and treating people like children.” Image credits: Getty Images

Movies

7 bizarre laws across the globe

Laws differ from country to country, and many remain unheard of. Here are some of the most outdated and unbelievable laws that still exist across the world. 1. Swiss bomb shelters In Switzerland, every citizen is required by law to have a bomb shelter or at least access to one. 2. Children under 12 banned from using phones In Blue Earth Minnesota, USA, it is illegal for children under 12 years of age to speak on the phone unless they’re accompanied by a parent or guardian. 3. Can’t ride an ugly horse In Wilbur, Washington it is illegal to ride a horse that is deemed to be ugly! Although it is unclear what constitutes an ugly horse. 4. First four firemen get paid In Zeigler, Illinois, USA, only the first four men to make it to the scene will be paid. 5. Failed surgery = no hands In Ancient Egypt, if a surgeon lost a patient while performing an operation on them, the surgeon's hands were cut off. 6. Too scruffy to drive In Athens, a driver can have their licence taken away simply because they are deemed too scruffy or poorly dressed. 7. Criminal birthday offence In Samoa, it is a crime to forget your wife’s birthday. Image credit: Shutterstock

Legal

There’s a growing gap between countries advancing LGBTQ+ rights, and those going backwards

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong joined 50,000 people to march in support of queer rights across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for World Pride in early March. A week earlier, Albanese became the first sitting prime minister to march in Sydney’s Mardi Gras, something he’s done over several decades. And yet at the same time, in another part of the world, Uganda’s parliament passed <a href="https://theconversation.com/ugandas-new-anti-lgbtq-law-could-lead-to-death-penalty-for-same-sex-offences-202376">a string of draconian measures</a> against homosexuality, including possible death sentences for “aggravated homosexuality”. Any “promotion” of homosexuality is also outlawed. Seven years ago, I co-wrote a book with Jonathan Symons called Queer Wars. Back then, we suggested there was <a href="https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/queer-wars-the-new-global-polarization-over-gay-rights">a growing gap</a>between countries in which sexual and gender diversity was becoming more acceptable, and those where repression was increasing. Sadly, that analysis seems even more relevant today. <h2>A growing gap</h2> Some countries have been unwinding criminal sanctions around homosexuality, which are often the legacy of colonialism. This includes, in recent years, former British colonies <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/22/singapore-decriminalize-gay-sex">Singapore</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/indian-supreme-court-decriminalises-homosexuality">India</a>. But others have been imposing new and more vicious penalties for any deviation from stereotypical assumptions of heterosexual masculine superiority (what Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243205278639">terms</a> “hegemonic masculinity”). Anti-gay legislation is currently pending in Ghana, which led US Vice President Kamala Harris to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234">express concerns</a> on a recent visit. These moves echo the deep homophobia of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has <a href="https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/putins-anti-gay-war-on-ukraine/">bizarrely linked</a> intervention in Ukraine to protecting traditional values against LGBTQ+ infiltration. Meanwhile, reports from Afghanistan suggest that anyone identified as “LGBT” is <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/26/afghanistan-taliban-target-lgbt-afghans">in danger of being killed</a>. Indonesia recently passed legislation <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/06/indonesia-passes-legislation-banning-sex-outside-marriage">penalising all sex outside marriage</a>. This follows <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13639811.2022.2038871">years of anti-queer rhetoric</a> from Indonesian leaders and crackdowns in regional areas. And while the Biden administration is supportive of queer rights globally, the extraordinary hysteria <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/07/cpac-anti-trans-rhetoric">around trans issues in the Republican Party</a> reminds us the West has no inherent claim to moral superiority. <h2>Where to next?</h2> Speaking at the World Pride Human Rights Conference, both Wong and Attorney General Mark Dreyfus made it clear Australia would press for recognition of sexuality and gender identity as deserving protection, as part of <a href="https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/speech/sydney-worldpride-human-rights-conference-opening-statement">our commitment to human rights</a>. Wong also announced a <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/213443-wong-announces-international-fund-for-lgbt-rights/">new Inclusion and Equality Fund</a> to support queer community organisations within our region. Australian governments have usually been wary of loud assertions of support for queer rights. This is partly due to a reasonable fear this merely reinforces the perception that such language reflects <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/african-studies-review/article/abs/locating-neocolonialism-tradition-and-human-rights-in-ugandas-gay-death-penalty/33A06F4F33CF586E20E208BE790E71E0">a sense of Western superiority</a>, unwilling to acknowledge other societies may have very different attitudes towards gender and sexuality. Australia is part of the Equal Rights Coalition, an intergovernmental body of 42 countries dedicated to the protection of the rights of LGBTQ+ people, and has supported sexual and gender rights in the <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/australias-second-universal-periodic-review-human-rights">country reviews</a> undertaken by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Australia has a minimal presence in Uganda, and direct representations are unlikely to have much effect. Uganda is a member of the Commonwealth, as are Ghana, Kenya and Zambia, where official homophobia appears to be increasing. But there’s little evidence the Australian government sees this as a significant foreign policy forum, or is prepared to push for sexual rights through its institutions. As persecution on the basis of sexuality and gender identity increases, more people will seek to flee their countries. Queer refugees face double jeopardy: they’re not safe at home, but they’re often equally unsafe in their diasporic communities, which have inherited the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/lgbt-refugees-untold-story/">deep prejudices of their homelands</a>. The UN’s refugee agency <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/lgbtiq-persons.html">reports</a> that most people seeking asylum because of their sexuality are unwilling to disclose this, because of discrimination within their own ethnic communities. This makes it impossible to have accurate numbers. But a clear signal from Australia would be a powerful statement of support – that it understands the situation and welcomes people who need flee because of their sexuality or gender expression. An official Canadian government document <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/canada-role/2slgbtqi-plus.html">states</a>: "Canada has a proud history of providing protection to and helping to resettle the world’s most vulnerable groups. That includes those in the Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional sexually and gender diverse community." Theirs is a model worth following. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-a-growing-gap-between-countries-advancing-lgbtq-rights-and-those-going-backwards-203329" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Caring

Dad left “furious” after mother-in-law rubs whiskey on baby’s gums

A dad has been left “furious” after learning his mother-in-law had rubbed whiskey on his six-month-old daughter’s gums as an “old fashioned” remedy for teething. Some have pointed out that the father’s response is a “red flag”, and perhaps the most concerning part of the story. Posting on Reddit’s “Am I the A**hole” forum, the baby’s 28-year-old first-time mother described the ordeal and asked whether she was in the wrong. She said she was at her mother’s house with her daughter, who is “teething horribly”. “My mum does some old fashion things and she’s really into herbs and natural healing and such, so she wanted to try rubbing whiskey on my daughter’s gums,” she wrote. “She said she did it to me and all three of my siblings. I let her, and it did seem to calm my daughter down a bit.” She told her husband when she got home and said “he was furious”. “He said that’s harmful to our daughter and it does not relieve any pain,” she continued. “He got really upset and said I shouldn’t let my mum do something like that, and told me I couldn’t bring our daughter to my mother’s anymore. “He’s since called the next two days off of work, and is super paranoid watching me every second with our daughter. I feel this is unfair.” While experts emphasise parents should never give whiskey or any other alcohol to teething babies, Reddit users had differing opinions. One wrote, “You’re the a**hole, yeah.” “I mean, you know alcohol is unsafe. It also happens not to work as a topical analgesic – if the baby quietens down, it’s because of the general sedative effect of alcohol. I think it’s hilarious how your mother conflates the use of a well understood but completely inappropriate drug with ‘herbs and natural healing’.” The second most popular reply said the woman was not in the wrong. “A tiny drop of alcohol on someone’s finger is absolutely not sedating a baby and is in no way harmful,” the user wrote. “Alcohol absolutely does have a numbing effect and is used topically for infants and adults with toothache as well. It’s absurd to get up in arms over something so mundane and he’s treating her like she allowed the baby to drink shots or something. I swear this sub is off the rails lately. Is it just solely populated by teenagers now?” A third chimed in, saying she made a “bad judgement call” but it was natural to take her own mother's advice. “It’s natural to look to our elders for guidance and to trust them,” they wrote. “While many mothers (including my own) have used this method, we know a lot more about these older ‘tried and true’ remedies these days … You’re not some monster that’s going to harm your child.” Others expressed that the husband’s reaction was worse than the old-fashioned teething remedy. “Honestly, if this is how your husband is reacting, that’s a red flag,” they said. “He’s right, it doesn’t relieve pain, and if you were to start doing it regularly, yeah, it can be harmful. However, it was a one-time thing that you told him about, and now you know not to do it again. “He shouldn’t be acting like it was a conspiracy to intentionally hurt your daughter.” Another user had the same opinion, writing, “Her husband literally took two days off work to micromanage parenting because of this? That’s excessive. It’s called having a conversation between two adults, saying, ‘We shouldn’t do this again’, and moving on!” A third said, "Your husband’s response is actually the most concerning part of this post … taking off work multiple days to ‘watch over’ your wife over something like this. “This should have been an easy discussion about how that’s not the right way to handle teething and then move on. “This isn’t real a big deal, the damage done to the child was literally zero. If this is how something like this is handled how are things that matter going to handled?” Image credit: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

5 strangest laws around the world

As we navigate through life, we learn how different other countries are in this complicated world of ours, especially when it comes to laws. Here are 10 of the most absurd laws from around the world. 1. It’s illegal to hold salmon under suspicious circumstances This law applies to England and Wales. This law essentially means if a person receives or disposes of any salmon in circumstances where they believe that the salmon has been illegally fished. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment. It might sound weird, but the title is certainly stranger than the meaning behind it. 2. It’s illegal to let your chickens cross the road in Quitman, Georgia This isolated US law calls for owners to keep their chooks under control. The law describes chicken as a “culinary delicacy sacred to its municipality.” The law also states, “It shall be unlawful for any person owning or controlling chickens, ducks, geese or any other domestic fowl to allow the same to run at large upon the streets or alleys of the city or to be upon the premises of any other person, without the consent of such other person”. 3. It was illegal to change a light bulb unless you were a licensed electrician in Victoria, Australia Luckily the Aussies have made this law redundant, but back in the day for Victorians, if your light went out, too bad! It would have been illegal for you to change your own light bulb. While there were no harsh penalties for doing so, up until 1998, if caught, you’d be whacked with a $10AUD fine. 4. It’s a legal requirement to smile at all times except at funerals or hospitals in Milan, Italy Say cheese! In Milan, the law compels you to smile by a city regulation from Austro-Hungarian times that was never repealed. Exemptions include funeral-goers, hospital workers, or those beside an ill family member. You could be up for a fine if you're looking too glum. 5. You must let anyone use your toilet if they ask in Scotland If you’re busting in Scotland, you won’t have an issue finding a bathroom because, by law, you must let a person intending to use the bathroom into your home. This law derives from an old Scottish common law regarding hospitality which is still enforced to this day; however, it’s not really safe. Would you let a stranger into your home to use the bathroom? Image credit: Shutterstock

Legal

Grandma sparks rift by secretly feeding baby its first solids

There are a lot of exciting firsts for parents, significant milestones that should be theirs to celebrate, but one defiant Grandmother doesn’t quite follow this philosophy. A mum has taken to Reddit to express her fury over her mother-in-law feeding her 10-week-old baby ice cream, the first solid food the child had ever been given. The mum explained on Reddit that she and her mother-in-law have a less-than-perfect relationship. While they remain civil, her mother-in-law’s criticism has only increased since the birth of her child. “I am so aggravated and upset,” she began her post titled “My mother-in-law fed my 10-week-old ice cream. When she was pregnant, her mother-in-law even went as far as to say she was “just the incubator”. Even her husband’s maternal grandmother had told her to be nicer. She also had some unusual bonding activities planned for when her granddaughter was born. "She has been itching to give my baby ice cream or frosting from before I even gave birth. I have noooo idea why. Both my husband and I said no multiple times," the mum wrote. "Yesterday she turned her back to me and gave my two-month-old ice cream. I'm assuming it was just the finger tip full of ice cream. I know this was true because later on she told my husband she did it.” Aside from the mother’s outrage, the bub was left with an upset stomach and a nappy rash. Although her baby wasn’t endangered, she remained understandably upset. "I can't forgive my mother-in-law. She knew it was wrong or she wouldn't have hid. We have repeatedly said no. She's still too young, we were worried about allergies, and we want to be there for fun stuff like that (when she's old enough)," she shared. She asked users if she would be taking it too far if she were to cut contact with her mother-in-law for a while, and they were clearly on the mother’s side. “This got me so heated. This is foul behavior from your mother-in-law." one person commented. “Should never be left alone with your kid. Seriously. She has shown herself to be unfit." another added. "Definitely put your mother-in-law in time out," said a third. "I gasped at this title! Never let her alone with your baby," a fourth wrote. "If it were me, she'd be cut off permanently.” Others questioned how a grandmother could risk making their grandchild sick just to prove a point. "A 10-week-old can't even have water - what the eff was she thinking? This would be my hill I'd happily die on. The rage I've got for you!" said a fellow mum. "That seems like a cruel thing to do to little one's digestive track," said another, while another wrote, "She... made your 10-week-old-baby sick.” The mum added an update thanking those who responded, saying she was overwhelmed. “I knew I would get some responses but I'm truly blown away with the amount. I'm even more blown away that you all believe I am not over-reacting," she wrote. "It makes me feel so validated. “In-law relationships can be so tricky but I truly feel they need a 'time out’." Image credit: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

What a way to go: Beloved Law & Order Star dies at age 78

Actor and comedian Richard Belzer, best known for his role as detective John Munch on Law & Order, has passed away at 78. Richard died on Sunday at home in Bozouls, southwest France. Richard’s longtime friend, writer Bill Scheft, confirmed the news to The Hollywood Reporter. “He had lots of health issues, Bill explained, “and his last words were, “‘F**k you, motherf**ker’.” Richard faced battles with his health - he survived testicular cancer in 1983 - and family tragedy through his life - both his father and brother died to suicide. His cause of death is currently unknown, but Richard is survived by his wife, actor Harlee McBride, and his two stepdaughters. Richard, who retired from acting in 2016, portrayed detective John Munch for 23 years from 1993 to 2016. The character spanned multiple shows, making an appearance in the likes of Homicide: Life of the Street, Law & Order: SVU, The Wire, and Arrested Development. “I never asked anyone to be on their show," he said in 2008 to The Comic’s Comic. “So it’s doubly flattering to me to see me depicted in a script and that I’m so recognisable and loveable as the sarcastic detective and smart-ass. “Much to my delight, because he is a great character for me to play, it’s fun for me. So I’m not upset about being typecast at all.” Richard’s presence in Hollywood wasn’t limited to just dramas, with the actor and comedian making his name on the comedy circuit, too. He began his career in stand-up in 1972, making his big-screen debut in The Groove Tube, and before Saturday Night Live, he performed in New York on the National Lampoon Radio Hour with the likes of John Belushi, Gilda Radner, and Bill Murray. It was in 1975 that Richard secured a role as the warm-up comic for SNL. His roles were primarily cameos, and one stated that the SNL creator had gone back on a promise to work him into their scripts. One of Saturday Night Live’s original cast members, comedian Laraine Newman, took to Twitter to pay tribute to the late Richard, telling supporters that he was “one of the funniest people ever. A master at crowd work.” <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> I'm so sad to hear of Richard Belzer's passing. I loved this guy so much. He was one of my first friends when I got to New York to do SNL. We used to go out to dinner every week at Sheepshead Bay for lobster. One of the funniest people ever. A master at crowd work. RIP dearest. <a href="https://t.co/u23co0JPA2">pic.twitter.com/u23co0JPA2</a> — Laraine Newman (@larainenewman) <a href="https://twitter.com/larainenewman/status/1627327574572662786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2023</a></blockquote> SNL cast member and host, Billy Crystal, shared Laraine’s sentiments, writing “Richard Belzer was simply hilarious. A genius at handling a crowd.” <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Richard Belzer was simply hilarious. A genius at handling a crowd. So sad he’s passed away. — Billy Crystal (@BillyCrystal) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillyCrystal/status/1627370051333672960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2023</a></blockquote> Actor and comedian Patton Oswalt couldn’t contain his shock at the news, “I just always thought he’d be around ‘cause it seemed like he always was. A true original.” <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Aw goddamit, RIP Richard Belzer. I just always thought he’d be around ‘cause it seemed like he always was. A true original. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TheBelzBabe?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheBelzBabe</a> — Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) <a href="https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/1627354718908616704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2023</a></blockquote> Meanwhile, actor Christopher Meloni - who is also best known for his work in the Law & Order universe, shared a throwback pic of Richard with co-star Mariska Hargitay. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <a href="https://t.co/9aQUaGh1mU">pic.twitter.com/9aQUaGh1mU</a> — Chris Meloni (@Chris_Meloni) <a href="https://twitter.com/Chris_Meloni/status/1627384361694765062?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2023</a></blockquote> And Mariska Hargitay herself took to Instagram to share a touching tribute to Richard about how she would dearly miss both him and his unique light, to an outpouring of love and support from fans. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/Co2u7jQv18k/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Co2u7jQv18k/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Mariska Hargitay (@therealmariskahargitay)</a> </div> </blockquote> Images: Getty

News

Law and Order crew member shot dead on set in New York City

A Law and Order: Organized Crime crew member has been fatally shot outside the series set in New York. Johnny Pizarro, aged 31 who was identified as the show's parking enforcer, was killed on the 19th of July, during a car ambush in Brooklyn, according to the NYPD. The father of three, was then take to Woodhull Hospital where he was pronounced dead. The murder happened around 5:15 am in the Greenpoint area when a killer opened the door of the victim's vehicle and shot him in the face and neck. Pizarro was inside his vehicle and had a traffic cone on the roof of the car at the time of the shooting. Reports claim he was gunned down while reserving spaces for filming. The NBC crime show, had been gearing up for its third season after it was renewed in May. "We were terribly saddened and shocked to hear that one of our crew members was the victim of a crime early this morning and has died as a result," NBC said. "We are working with local law enforcement as they continue to investigate. Our hearts go out to his family and friends and we ask that you respect their privacy during this time." Image: Fox News

News

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws

A pregnant US woman has argued her unborn baby should count as a second passenger in her car in the wake of <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roe v Wade being overturned</a>, after she was fined for driving in a lane that requires at least two people in the car. Brandy Bottone of Plano, Texas, was pulled over on June 29 after driving in a high-occupancy (HOV) lane by the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department looking for drivers violating HOV lane rules, as reported by <a href="https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/pregnant-woman-cited-for-hov-violation-says-her-unborn-baby-should-count-as-second-person/3010193/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC-Dallas Fort Worth</a>. HOV lanes, also known as carpool and T2 lanes, require drivers to have at least one passenger in their car when they use the lane. When an officer told Bottone about the rule and asked whether she had any passengers with her, she said she did. “I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person’,” the 32-year-old told <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Dallas Morning News</a>. The officer argued that the rule applies to “two people outside the body”, to which Bottone responded that, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, her unborn child is considered as a living person. “And then I said, ‘Well [I’m] not trying to throw a political mix here, but with everything going on, this counts as a baby’,” Bottone recounted. She said the officer told her he didn’t “want to deal with this”, insisting the law for HOV lanes required “two persons outside of the body” to be in the vehicle. While the penal code in Texas recognises a foetus as a person, there appears to be no language in the state Transportation Department’s code that recognises a foetus in the same way. Though deputies told Bottone that her case would likely be dismissed if she fought it, she still plans to fight the $215 ticket, arguing that her in-utero baby should count as another occupant. “This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life,” she told The Morning News. “I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.” Image: NBC DFW

Legal

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"20 years to life": Bali's brutal new law

“Don’t marry him”: Bride-to-be shares wild altercation with her future in-laws over her wedding dress

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

Why can’t I use my phone or take photos on the airport tarmac? Is it against the law?

Wacky pet laws that will make you laugh

Advice on dealing with tricky in-laws

"Makes me vomit": Richard Dreyfuss slams new Hollywood diversity laws

7 bizarre laws across the globe

There’s a growing gap between countries advancing LGBTQ+ rights, and those going backwards

Dad left “furious” after mother-in-law rubs whiskey on baby’s gums

5 strangest laws around the world

Grandma sparks rift by secretly feeding baby its first solids

What a way to go: Beloved Law & Order Star dies at age 78

Law and Order crew member shot dead on set in New York City

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws