The question here was whether it was subject to civilian or military aviation ATC - from every report released thus far, it was under civilian authority. Obviously, yes, a fighter jet was originally a military aircraft - but that isn’t relevant at the moment, since it’s registered to an organization independent of the US military.
This wasn’t a military aircraft, it was a privately owned 70 year old jet.
A bit of a clickbait title (but only a bit) - the WA law moved to make priests required reporters, professions who are legally required by law to report child abuse. The injunction sought to exempt catholic priests from being required to report child abuse which was reported to them under the ‘seal of the confessional’ (the special super secret group chat that only exists between you, your priest and god) and after this injunction they are still required reporters in all other instances.
This is… at least a consistent ruling? For example religious leaders can’t be held as accomplices if they don’t report crimes that were told to them in a ritual setting (oversimplification) or be held liable if they don’t forewarn about someone planning suicide or some other crime and then said person goes thru with it. Predictably canon law is rife with examples of breaking the seal of the confession to prevent a suicide, of course, but lets just ignore that.
The rationalization for this is twofold: First freedom of religion from civil regulation. Second and more credibly that it would be allowing unfair weight into criminal proceedings because of the perceived sanctity of the confession and the upstanding character of priests (lol). The argument goes that testimony brought of things revealed in confession is by it’s nature hersay, but hersay that would be presented as being devout reporting of an unimpeachable confession, and that could unduly sway juries and in general get really messy so the law just doesn’t want to deal with it.
I strongly disagree with this ruling, the catholics get enough special treatment what with not being prosecuted for raping all those children, that’s just the background to the arguments being made about it.
Yeah that… actually, yeah that’s a good point. Why are we believing this is true? I’ve never heard of this site, their citations are all just random social media dead ends, the article is really sloppy… are we just not questioning this because we want it to be true?
I mean, any article that can say this with a straight face is just so full of it.
These restrictions have raised serious questions about FIFA’s commitment to its own core principles, particularly those emphasizing “access and non-discrimination,” as well as its pledge to uphold human rights and promote inclusion.
Fifa didn’t care about any of that shit when they held it in qatar, fifa has never cared about that, nobody at all is expecting them to suddenly start caring about that, what is this.
When a business starts dictating morality to the general public, it too crosses a line from “just business” to a legit public concern that merits a stronger response. Hiding from the consequences of their actions because it’s “just business” is the reason so much of the world is so incredibly shitty right now, and we need to move past it’s acceptability as an excuse.