The updated law will ensure that products in the EU, whether sold online or in traditional shops, comply with the highest safety requirements.
On Thursday, MEPs endorsed the revised rules on product safety of non-food consumer products with 569 votes in favour, 13 against and no abstentions. The new regulation aligns the existing General Product Safety Directive with the latest developments in digitalisation and the surge in online shopping.
Improving safety assessments
In order to guarantee that all products placed on the market are safe for consumers, the General Product Safety Regulation includes measures to guarantee that risks for the most vulnerable consumers (e.g. children), gender aspects and cybersecurity risks are also taken into account during safety assessments.
Market surveillance and online shops
The new regulation extends the obligations of economic operators (such as the manufacturer, importer, distributor), increases the powers of market surveillance authorities and introduces clear obligations for providers of online marketplaces. Online market places shall cooperate with market surveillance authorities to mitigate risks, who in turn can order online marketplaces to remove or disable access to offers of dangerous products without undue delay, and in any event within two working days.
Products coming from outside the EU can be placed on the market only if there is an economic operator established in the European Union, who is responsible for its safety.
Efficient recall procedures
The revamped legislation improves the product recall procedure, as currently return rates remain low, with an estimated third of EU consumers continuing to use recalled products.
If a product has to be recalled, consumers must be informed directly and offered a repair, replacement or refund. Consumers will also have the right to file complaints or launch collective actions. Information on products’ safety and remedy options must be available in clear and easily understandable language. The rapid alert system for dangerous products (“Safety Gate” portal) will be modernised to allow unsafe products to be detected more effectively and will be more accessible for persons with disabilities.
Quote
The rapporteur Dita Charanzová (Renew, CZ) said: “Thanks to this law we are protecting our most vulnerable consumers, particularly children. In 2020, 50% of products listed as dangerous came from China. With this law, we took a crucial step against those who do not sell safe products in Europe.
Every product sold must have someone who takes responsibility for it inside the EU. Unsafe products will be removed from websites in two days. Consumers will be informed directly via email if they have bought an unsafe product. In addition, they will have a right to a repair, replacement or refund if a product is recalled. Once this law is in place, there will be fewer dangerous products in Europe”.
Next steps
Council will need to formally endorse the text too, before its publication in the EU Official Journal and entry into force. The Regulation will apply 18 months after its entry into force.
The new rules are projected to save EU consumers around 1 billion euro in the first year and approximately 5.5 billion over the next decade. By reducing the number of unsafe products on the market, the new measures should reduce the harm caused to EU consumers due to preventable, product-related accidents (estimated today at 11.5 billion euro per year) and the cost of healthcare (estimated at 6.7 billion euro per year).
On Thursday, MEPs endorsed the revised rules on product safety of non-food consumer products with 569 votes in favour, 13 against and no abstentions. The new regulation aligns the existing General Product Safety Directive with the latest developments in digitalisation and the surge in online shopping.
Improving safety assessments
In order to guarantee that all products placed on the market are safe for consumers, the General Product Safety Regulation includes measures to guarantee that risks for the most vulnerable consumers (e.g. children), gender aspects and cybersecurity risks are also taken into account during safety assessments.
Market surveillance and online shops
The new regulation extends the obligations of economic operators (such as the manufacturer, importer, distributor), increases the powers of market surveillance authorities and introduces clear obligations for providers of online marketplaces. Online market places shall cooperate with market surveillance authorities to mitigate risks, who in turn can order online marketplaces to remove or disable access to offers of dangerous products without undue delay, and in any event within two working days.
Products coming from outside the EU can be placed on the market only if there is an economic operator established in the European Union, who is responsible for its safety.
Efficient recall procedures
The revamped legislation improves the product recall procedure, as currently return rates remain low, with an estimated third of EU consumers continuing to use recalled products.
If a product has to be recalled, consumers must be informed directly and offered a repair, replacement or refund. Consumers will also have the right to file complaints or launch collective actions. Information on products’ safety and remedy options must be available in clear and easily understandable language. The rapid alert system for dangerous products (“Safety Gate” portal) will be modernised to allow unsafe products to be detected more effectively and will be more accessible for persons with disabilities.
Quote
The rapporteur Dita Charanzová (Renew, CZ) said: “Thanks to this law we are protecting our most vulnerable consumers, particularly children. In 2020, 50% of products listed as dangerous came from China. With this law, we took a crucial step against those who do not sell safe products in Europe.
Every product sold must have someone who takes responsibility for it inside the EU. Unsafe products will be removed from websites in two days. Consumers will be informed directly via email if they have bought an unsafe product. In addition, they will have a right to a repair, replacement or refund if a product is recalled. Once this law is in place, there will be fewer dangerous products in Europe”.
Next steps
Council will need to formally endorse the text too, before its publication in the EU Official Journal and entry into force. The Regulation will apply 18 months after its entry into force.
The new rules are projected to save EU consumers around 1 billion euro in the first year and approximately 5.5 billion over the next decade. By reducing the number of unsafe products on the market, the new measures should reduce the harm caused to EU consumers due to preventable, product-related accidents (estimated today at 11.5 billion euro per year) and the cost of healthcare (estimated at 6.7 billion euro per year).
Reviewing the latest EU Council, MEPs called for EU action to enhance the industrial sector, support households and businesses and continue backing Ukraine.
“The world is more dangerous today”, acknowledged European Council President Charles Michel, stressing the EU’s support for multilateralism and a rules-based order and highlighting the need to “deal with China and not decouple” from it. He welcomed the leaders’ endorsement to send additional weapons and ammunitions to Ukraine, a major step towards a European defence system. Regarding long-term competitiveness, Mr Michel said that Europe must become “a powerhouse of innovation”, particularly on renewable energy and clean technologies.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the EU, given its ambitious targets for the deployment of renewables, needs to create a better regulatory environment for European manufacturers of clean technologies, while highlighting the importance of critical raw materials to ensure the green and digital transitions.
Moving on to the war in Ukraine, she reiterated that the EU will keep supporting Kyiv whatever the cost and described the decision by the International Criminal Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as a “step forward”. Von der Leyen also stressed that the international community needs to do everything possible to bring home all the Ukrainian children illegally deported to Russia since the outbreak of the war.
Many MEPs focused on international industrial competitiveness and strategy, with some highlighting the need to stop the loss of industrial strength and jobs in Europe. Others called on the EU to speak with a single voice for example with regards to China, and to reduce dependence on third countries.
On migration, most speakers insisted that ambition and courage are needed to succeed in the negotiations on the migration and asylum pact, referencing key topics like the fair distribution of migrants and asylum-seekers among member states and tackling the root causes of migration.
Several MEPs argued that more international trade agreements are needed (with existing ones requiring updates), while others focused on security and foreign policy concerns, calling for transatlantic relations to be protected and strengthened. Many also highlighted the need to continue supporting Ukraine and make sure that Russia will be held accountable for its war of aggression.
Some speakers criticised the EU’s approach to handling recent crises and common policies like the European Green Deal, and called for more decisions to be taken at member state level. In contrast, many others demanded enhanced cooperation, an end to vetoes and no more time-wasting in the Council to support households and businesses from threats like surging inflation and energy bills.
The recent report published by the High Council for Family, Childhood and Age (HCFEA) warns of the psychological suffering of children and adolescents, as well as the chronic lack of resources allocated to care, education and social intervention in mental health in France. In our previous article we detailed the continuous and inappropriate increase in the consumption of psychotropic drugs in the paediatric population in France.
Here we analyse the old idea that a mental disorder can be caused by a brain abnormality. And that, being of biological origin, this dysfunction can be solved by chemical, electrical or mechanical treatment. This approach has been favoured for a long time, but the results remain limited. Because, in fact, anomalies are ‘associated’ with mental disorders… the problem is their causality.
These prescriptions, often outside of international scientific consensus and regulatory mechanisms (marketing authorizations and recommendations of health agencies), contradict the words of the WHO, which warned, as recently as 2022, that “all over the world […] current practices place psychotropic drugs at the center of the therapeutic response, whereas psychosocial and psychological interventions and peer support are also avenues to be explored and should be offered”.
The international organisation takes a strong stance on the subject, stating that “to succeed in defining an integrated, person-centred, recovery-oriented and rights-based approach to mental health, countries must change and open up mentalities, correct stigmatising attitudes and eliminate coercive practices”. For this to happen, she adds, “it is essential that mental health systems and services broaden their horizons beyond the biomedical model”.
Biological psychiatry’ is the direct transcription of this biomedical paradigm.
This approach is based on a biological conception of psychological suffering: it seeks markers (mainly neurobiological and genetic) likely to provide a basis for psychiatric diagnoses and to open the way to essentially medicinal treatments. The UN organisation recalls that it has “dominated mental health research […] in recent decades”. Research, but also French policies over the last twenty years.
If international health institutions deplore the invasion of biomedical approaches, particularly in children, and their consequences in terms of overprescription of psychotropic drugs, it is not because of dogmatism. It is because an updated review of the results of research shows, experimentally and empirically, the impasses of the models inspired by biological psychiatry.
Work on the neurobiology and genetics of mental disorders has increased exponentially over the last forty years, supported by improvements in brain imaging and genetic sequencing technologies. Two main directions have been explored: the search for an organic causality of mental disorders on the one hand, and the development of drug treatments on the other.
Unfortunately, their contributions to clinical psychiatry remain limited and contradictory.
Almost all research hypotheses on the neurological and genetic causes of mental disorders – a fortiori in children – have been refuted by the so-called princeps (reference) studies and subsequent meta-analyses. At best, various parameters may have been associated with marginal increases in the risk of developing one disorder or another, but under such conditions that they do not allow any firm conclusions. They are therefore of little interest to practitioners or patients.
Thus, despite decades of intensive research :
No marker or biological test has been validated to contribute to the diagnosis of mental disorders;
No new class of psychotropic drugs has been discovered in the last 50 years, so much so that the pharmaceutical industry has virtually ceased research in this area since 2010. The current drugs were discovered in the 1950s-1970s by serendipity1, or are derivatives obtained by trying to reduce their adverse effects. Their effectiveness is also considered low by the latest publications.
These results are now supported by such a large body of work that the idea of continuing with the same neurobiological hypotheses is questionable. The likelihood of discovering a biological cause of mental disorders that would support the pharmacological approach of biological psychiatry is diminishing as studies progress.
This change of perspective began to emerge in the course of the 2000-2010s and is now widely supported by the most renowned specialists at international level.
For example, Steven Hyman, former director of the National Institute of Mental Health ((NIMH, the American institute for mental health research), states that “although neuroscience has made progress in recent decades, the difficulties are such that the search for the biological causes of mental disorders has largely failed“. Similarly, Thomas Insel, who succeeded him as head of the prestigious institute, recently admitted that “neuroscience research has, for the most part, yet to benefit patients.”, and that “the issues raised by biological psychiatry research were not the problem facing patients with serious mental illness”.
The most prestigious scientific journals are increasingly taking the same line. Psychiatrist Caleb Gardner (Cambridge) and medical anthropologist Arthur Kleinman (Harvard) wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019:
“Although the limitations of biological treatments are widely recognized by experts in the field, the prevailing message to the general public and the rest of medicine is still that the solution to mental disorders is to match the right diagnosis to the right drug. As a result, psychiatric diagnoses and psychotropic drugs proliferate under the banner of scientific medicine, even though there is no thorough biological understanding of the causes of psychiatric disorders or their treatments.”
In general, the problems posed by the biomedical approach to mental health have been well documented for a long time in numerous works by authors from multiple disciplinary fields – neurosciences, psychiatry, human sciences, history, sociology and social sciences…
Stigmatisation effects
Contrary to the good intentions of de-stigmatisation campaigns, which thought that allowing people with mental disorders to say “it’s not me, it’s my brain” would be socially and therapeutically beneficial, several international studies have shown that it increased social rejection, perceived dangerousness and pessimism about the possibility of recovery. Caregivers adhering to this view also showed less empathy towards patients. Finally, patients were also more pessimistic about their symptoms and more likely to rely on medication.
With regard more specifically to children, biomedical conceptions have undoubtedly contributed to the increase in the prescription of psychotropic drugs. At the same time, they are generally unfavourable to psychotherapeutic, educational and social practices, which have been widely documented as effective and recommended as first-line treatment.
The example of hyperactivity and depression
In support of its analysis, the HCFEA was particularly interested in the issue of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), which is considered to be the most common diagnosis in school-age children, and in the issue of depression, which can be understood in terms of several mental health problems in children and adolescents.
ADHD cannot therefore be formally qualified as a neurological disease or disorder
No significant results for hyperactivity
Brain imaging studies published in the 1990s suggested that advances in neurobiology would soon allow diagnostic tools to be validated. Thirty years later, no test for ADHD has yet been recognised.
Hundreds of structural and functional brain imaging studies have shown differences correlated with ADHD, but none of them correspond to structural brain changes, and even less to lesions: ADHD cannot therefore be formally qualified as a neurological disease or disorder. Moreover, they are quantitatively minimal, contradictory, and of no interest from the point of view of diagnostic and therapeutic practices or health policies. Other work suggested a dopamine deficit or dysfunction of dopaminergic2 neurons as the cause of ADHD, but this perspective has been tested and refuted.
In general, the hypotheses concerning the neurological etiology of ADHD are now scientifically weak and dated.
Initial studies also suggested a strong genetic etiology3. These associations or their causal impact have been disproved. Currently, the best established and most significant genetic risk factor is the association of ADHD with an allele4 of the gene coding for the dopamine D4 receptor. According to a meta-analysis, the associated increase in risk is only 1.33. More precisely, this allele is present in 23% of children diagnosed with ADHD and only 17% of control children. This is of no clinical relevance.
A recent review of over 300 genetic studies concludes that “the results from genetic studies of ADHD are still incohérent and inconclusive”.
Depression: neither neurological nor genetic
In 2022, Joanna Moncrieff’s team of internationally recognised experts on depression and psychotropic drugs published a study that demonstrated the inconsistency of biomedical views and drug treatments for depression.
This publication, combining reviews and meta-analyses on a panel of very large numbers of patients, aimed to produce a synthesis of the main works that have studied the links between serotonin and depression over the last three decades. Their conclusion is clear: they found no convincing evidence that depression is related to lower serotonin levels or activity.
Most studies have found no evidence of reduced serotonin activity in people with depression compared to those without depression. In addition, high-quality genetic studies with good statistical power also rule out any association between genotypes associated with the serotonin system and depression.
What consequences on diagnostic and treatment practices and health policies?
In the current state of scientific knowledge, there is no established causal link between biological mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment in the field of psychiatry, a fortiori in children. A serotonin or dopamine deficiency should therefore no longer be used to support the prescription of antidepressants or psychostimulants for depression or ADHD. This is consistent with the low effectiveness of biological treatments observed.
The American Psychiatric Association has attempted to classify mental disorders in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (first edition, 1952; now DSM-5) – APA, CC BY
In the same way, one should be careful about the use of diagnostic categories inherited from large nomenclatures such as the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the powerful American Psychiatric Association, an international reference. In the absence of a biological etiology, the diagnostic categories described in the DSM have no scientific validity: they do not denote any identifiable natural entity that could be interpreted as a disease. The same is true for the psychiatric diagnoses in the ICD-10, the International Classification of Diseases published by the WHO
This lack of validity is manifest in the variability of diagnoses according to the age of the child, the high proportion of co-morbidities, and the heterogeneity of clinical situations that the nomenclatures do not allow to grasp in detail – all the more so because, due to their naturalistic epistemology, they were constructed to be independent of the contexts of occurrence of the disorders.
Moreover, despite its evolutions, the DSM still suffers from reliability problems: the diagnostic decisions made by two doctors about the same patient are too often different, which limits their interest. Given its scientific weakness and considering that it “had been an obstacle to research”, the NIMH, the main funder of mental health research worldwide, disassociated itself from it.
The problem is not only epistemic but also political: since the 2000s, France has relied on the idea that these diagnoses could be the basis for standardized recommendations of good practice. The result is disappointing. Thirty years of mental health policies oriented by biomedical approaches have not prevented an increase in the psychological suffering of children and adolescents, an increase in suicide rates, a chronic deficit in the supply of care, a deterioration of institutions and care and education teams, a scissor effect between the demand for and the supply of care, unbearable waiting times, a continuous increase in the consumption of psychotropic drugs…
Taking into account the advances in research also means considering the absence of convincing results as an evolution of scientific knowledge in its own right, capable of reorienting public policies and research practices.
The current model of biological psychiatry has not lived up to its promise, in part because of the narrow and misguided application of the evidence-based approach to mental medicine, which seeks to apply research data to the clinical experience of the practitioner.
While we should not necessarily hold it against those who developed and supported it, we must now take this failure into account in order to rethink approaches, policies and systems of care, education and social intervention. In this respect, the the High Council for Family, Childhood and Age report does not limit itself to documenting the malaise and the reasons for it: it proposes new approaches and details the psychotherapeutic, educational and social strategies likely to contribute to the accompaniment and care of children, as well as the support of families.
This is where research and public policy efforts must now focus.
Serendipity: In the scientific world designates a form of intellectual availability, which makes it possible to draw rich lessons from an unexpected discovery or an error.
Dopaminergic: which works or reacts to dopamine. Dopamine is of many which is a chemical that serves as a neurotransmitter in the brain and is involved in “motor control, attention, pleasure and motivation, sleep, memory and cognition.
Etiology: study of the causes of diseases. By extension: All the causes of a disease.
An allele is a variable version of the same gene, that is to say a varied form. There are usually a few alleles for each gene, but some genes have several dozen alleles.
Authors
Sébastien Ponnou Psychoanalyst, Senior Lecturer in Educational Sciences at the University of Rouen Normandy – France
Xavier Briffault Researcher in social sciences and epistemology of mental health at the Medicine, Science, Health, Mental Health, Society Research Center (CERMES3), National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS)
Disclosure statement
Sébastien Ponnou is a qualified member of the HCFEA’s Council on Childhood and Adolescence. He directs several research projects for which the CIRNEF and the University of Rouen Normandie have received funding from public organizations and mutual foundations: Interdisciplinary Research Institute for Man and Society (IRIHS), Fondation EOVI – Fondation de l’Avenir, FEDER – Région Normandie.
Xavier Briffault is, as a sociologist and epistemologist of mental health, a qualified member of the HCFEA’s Council on Childhood and Adolescence.
Hundreds of thousands of workers in both countries have lost their livelihoods because of the earthquakes, preliminary findings showed in the new ILOassessments of the disaster’s impact on the labour market.
“Employment promotion is central to a successful and inclusive response to this disaster,” said ILO Director-General Gilbert Houngbo. “People can only begin to rebuild their lives if they have rebuilt their livelihoods. We owe it to those who have lost so much in the earthquake to ensure that the principles of social justice and decent work are firmly embedded in the recovery and reconstruction process.”
The earthquakes left more than 658,000 workers unable to earn their living, and more than 150,000 workplaces unusable, initial findings suggest.
In the face of steep income and job losses, ILO warned about increasing risks to occupational safety and health, as well as child labour.
Affected workers face average income losses of more than $230 per month each, for as long as the disruption continues. Overall, the crisis is likely to have reduced take-home payby around $150 million per month in the affected areas, ILO reported.
Lost work hours have rippled across the affected area. Estimates show that in Malatya, 58.8 per cent of work hours are estimated to have been lost, with comparable figures of 48.1 per cent in Adıyaman and 45.2 per cent in Hatay.
The affected provinces in Türkiye are home to more than four million workers, most employed in agriculture, manufacturing, trade, or other “low-value-added” services.
Syria: Soaring ‘disemployment’
In Syria, where 12 years of civil war had already taken a huge toll on the economy and labour market, ILO estimated that about 170,000 workers have lost their jobs as a result of the earthquakes. This has directly affected around 154,000 households and more than 725,000 people.
Around 35,000 micro, small and medium-sized enterprises have also been affected. This temporary “disemployment” has led to total labour income losses equivalent to at least $5.7 million a month.
The five worst-affected districts – Aleppo, Hama, Idleb, Lattakia and Tartous – were home to an estimated 42.4 per cent of the country’s total population. This includes around 7.1 million people of working age of 16 and up, 22.8 per cent of whom are women.
Post-quake assistance
Immediately after the earthquakes struck, ILO set to work covering the emergency needs of workers and their families.
In Türkiye: ILO is already planning and implementing labour market and enterprise recovery strategies.
Emergency labour-based enterprise programmes include engaging businesses to enable them to offer decent and sustainable jobs.
ILO helps business organizations and trade unions to function and provide critical services to their memberships.
Dedicated initiatives will focus on seasonal agricultural workers, child workers and refugees.
Support will be provided to social partners to ensure that they can continue to engage in recovery and reconstruction initiatives as key actors of national social dialogue.
In Syria: New and continuing efforts are reaching populations in quake-affected areas.
A series of training campaigns for engineers is improving occupational safety and health practices.
Ongoing employment-intensive works reach affected neighbourhoods in Aleppo.
Grants support ILO’s social partners to help them reach affected workers and businesses, as well as improving occupational safety and health practices.
Find out how the EU works to reduce emissions from greenhouse gases besides CO2.
As the EU works hard to reduce CO2 emissions, it is also making efforts to regulate other greenhouse gases heating up planet Earth, such as methane, fluorinated gases – also known as F-gases – and ozone-depleting substances. Although they are present in smaller volumes than CO2 in the atmosphere, they can have a significant warming effect.
MEPs from the environment committee call for ambitious emission reductions of fluorinated greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. They support the European Commission’s proposals to encourage the use of alternatives to fluorinated greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances where possible or to put measures in place to reduce their leakage and emission during production or use. Members will vote on Parliament’s positions on reductions for fluorinated gas emission and ozone-depleting substances at the end of March 2023 ahead of launching negotiations with EU governments.
Cutting fluorinated greenhouse gases emissions
What are fluorinated gases?
Fluorinated gases are man-made and can be found in common appliances such as refrigerators, air conditioning or heat pumps, aerosols, solvents and foam blowing agents. They account for around 2.5% of EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Even though F-gases are found in smaller volumes in the atmosphere than CO2, they can capture more sun energy. The EU must reduce their emissions to achieve its 2050 goal of cutting down emissions to net zero.
As they do not damage the atmospheric ozone layer, F-gases are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.
What has the EU done so far?
F-gases are covered by the Paris Agreement together with CO2, methane and nitrous oxide as well as under international agreements on ozone-depleting substances.
To further reduce F-gases in the EU, MEPs want to:
Strengthen new requirements proposed by the Commission that prohibit the placing on the single market of products containing F-gases
Phase out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – commonly used in air conditioning and refrigeration – placed on the EU market by 2050.
Have close monitoring to ensure the HFC phase-down does not endanger the RePowerEU heat pump deployment targets.
Increase enforcement to prevent illegal trade and non-compliance
The Commission estimates that its proposals for the F-gas Regulation would save 310 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent until 2050, which is the same as the total annual greenhouse gas emissions of Spain in 2019.
Phasing out ozone-depleting gases
What are ozone-depleting substances?
Found in similar appliances as F-gases, ozone-depleting substance are also man-made chemicals. When they reach the upper atmosphere, these substances may damage the ozone layer, which keeps the Earth from dangerous solar radiation.
In order to further cut emissions of ozone-depleting substances, MEPs support the Commission’s proposal for an update of the legislation, including a ban on the production, use or trade of such substances, except for strictly defined cases. They also call for better monitoring, improved enforcement and stricter penalties to avoid illegal activities.
According to the Commission, the proposed changes in the regulation on ozone-depleting substances would lead to savings of another 180 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2050 – the same as the total annual greenhouse gas emissions of the Netherlands in 2019.
Reducing methane emissions
What is methane?
Methane occurs naturally in the atmosphere but is also generated through human activities, such as agriculture, industry and the combustion of fossil fuels. It accounted for 12% of the impact ofthe EU’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2021.
On March 25th Protestors from the Azeri community in iran gathered in front of the European Parliament and in front of the EU institutions to show their support to the Iranian revolution as well as the Ukrainian diaspora
On March 25th Protestors from the Azeri community in iran gathered in front of the European Parliament and in front of the EU institutions to show their support to the Iranian revolution as well as the Ukrainian diaspora .
The movement called the Freedom and Justice gathering for Iran ” which was organised by Salah Kamerani ,the Spokesperson of this movement together with Mrs Charifa Jafari with the presence of the representatives of the non -Persian nations in iran and Ukrainian diaspora in Europe as well as European journalists and human rights activists.
The rally was moderated by Manel Msalmi, the president of The European Association for The Defense of Minorities. It was a peaceful demonstration organised by South Azerbaijanis to take place in order to expose the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran by excluding non-Persian nations from all spheres of decision-making by disinformation and misinformation.
The voice of each nation in Iran has been suppressed in different ways and their basic human rights have been denied. South Azerbaijanis have 40 years of non-violent struggle against racism .The source of recent protests were women, the youth and minority nations.South Azerbaijanis are determined to change the course and press their mark by exposing the racism in Iran and by bringing their untold story to the attention of the world.
The protest is also an opportunity to condemn the imperialist ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran for stoking the Russian aggression against Ukraine by supplying drones despite their poor accuracy.So, strengthening minority nations in Iran is a strategic solution for fighting against Iranian aggression.
The Speakers included Mrs Sharifa Jafari ,Mr Saleh Kamrani ,Qashqai Representative Ruhalla Muradi ,Dr Awdi Representative of the Arab Ahwazi community ,Baluchi Representative,The head of the media commission Mr Babek Azad ,the logistics unit manager Mr Mahud Bilgin
and The head of the Finance Commission Mr Eldar Garadagli.
Famous British journalist and reporter Chris white joined the rally from Ukraine as a reporter to speak about the iranian drones used outside Leviv where he stayed in his humanitarian mission which is an entirely civilian area.He showed his solidarity with the people of Iran and his call for justice for the people of Ukraine .
Gary Cartwright, the editor in chief of EUtoday mentioned his support to the non-Persian nations in iran and his constant work with the Ukrainian diaspora in Europe to help the population there who are victims of the Russian aggression and the need to stop the Iranian regime from persecuting civilians inside and outside iran .
The rally ended with a statement calling for justice and freedom for all non -Persian nations inside Iran as well as women and young protestors victims of IRGC violence, condemning the arbitrary arrests of protestors and the death executions of political dissidents as well as the use of drones against the Ukrainian civilians and the support of the Russian aggression and asking the EU and international community to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Some 13 months of often brutal fighting and attacks on civilians since Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine began, have left millions displaced, with key civilian infrastructure in need of urgent protection.
Touring the area around Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, Rafael Mariano Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) met with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the nearby city of the same name, to discuss ongoing threats.
Assessing the serious nuclear safety and security situation, Mr. Grossi underlined the urgent need to protect the power plant during the ongoing military conflict in the country.
IAEA teams are rotating in and out of the plant, which remains under the control of Russian forces.
“Despite our presence at the site for seven months now, the situation at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant is still precarious,” he said.
The nuclear safety and security dangers are all too obvious, he cautioned.
It is necessary “to act now to prevent an accident with potential radiological consequences to the health and the environment for people in Ukraine and beyond”, he stressed.
Mr. Grossi said his travel to Ukraine was also aimed at ensuring the regular rotation of IAEA experts to and from the site is maintained and improved, following the very challenging circumstances faced by the experts during the previous rotation in February, which had been delayed by almost a month.
During the current visit, he was accompanied by a new group of IAEA experts, the seventh such team present at the site since the IAEA Support and Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzhya was established.
Mr. Grossi and Mr. Zelenskyy also visited the Dnieper hydroelectric station, which is an essential component for nuclear safety at the Zaporizhzhya plant.
“I remain determined to continue doing everything in my power to help reduce the risk of a nuclear accident during the tragic war in Ukraine,” Mr. Grossi said.
IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi meets Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine on 27 March 2023.
Bomb-shelter classrooms
Since February 2022, thousands of schools have reportedly been severely damaged or destroyed by bombing and shelling, leaving almost 2.7 million Ukrainian children accessing learning online or through hybrid modalities, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has said.
Concluding a three-day visit to Kyiv, Irpin, and Demydiv, Hollywood star and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Mr. Bloom said education can and must be an anchor to children in a time of war, where an estimated 1.5 million children in Ukraine are at risk of depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions, with long-term implications.
“Amid the chaos and uncertainty of war, supporting children’s education is an essential tool in protecting their long-term mental health and wellbeing,” he said. “Above all, children need an end to this war and sustained peace to regain their childhoods, return to normalcy and begin to heal and recover.”
In Irpin, a town heavily impacted by the early days of the fighting, he visited a bomb-shelter classroom, converted with UNICEF support, to provide a safe space for children to continue learning when air-raid sirens may sound.
Safe spaces
“Some of the children I have met, such as 10-year-old Hanna from Volnovakha, Donetsk region, have had limited access to face-to-face education for more than a year,” Mr. Bloom said.
At UNICEF’s Spilno Child Spots in Irpin and Kyiv, Mr. Bloom saw children play and learn. They can also benefit from psychosocial support, medical checks, and referrals to specialized services. He also met with President Zelenskyy to discuss educational challenges amidst the conflict.
“While UNICEF is helping ensure that children are able to learn online, they are still missing out on the crucial experience of interacting with their classmates and teachers,” Mr. Bloom said. “Especially for younger children, these interactions are key for their emotional and cognitive development and cannot be replaced by a computer screen.”
UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Orlando Bloom meets children affected by the war in Ukraine.
Growing needs
In 2022, over 500,000 children and their caregivers visited 180 Spilno Spots across Ukraine. Over the past year, UNICEF has provided education, health, nutrition, water and sanitation, and protection assistance to children and families affected by the war, including efforts in countries hosting refugees from Ukraine.
UNICEF continues delivering for children inside Ukraine and in neighbouring countries and requires $1.05 billion to meet the growing needs of 9.4 million people, including 4 million children, who remain deeply impacted by the war.
Security Council rejects fresh action on pipeline explosions
On Monday, the UN Security Council rejected a draft resolution that would have authorized an international independent investigation commission into the explosions in September last year, of the Russian-operated Nord Stream gas pipelines.
Brazil, China, and Russia voted for the draft, with none voting against it, and 12 Council members cast abstentions.
The two Nord Stream pipelines built to carry natural gas from Russia to Europe under the Baltic Sea, sustained millions of dollars in damages from the blasts. National investigations have yet to yield any conclusive evidence into how the explosions occurred.
Nord Stream I carried gas to Germany from Russia until Moscow cut off supplies last August, while the second pipeline never became operational, after Germany suspended it’s involvement in the service just before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The Council had debated the issue in February, noting that investigations are ongoing by governments in the region.
Confused about the time in Europe? This guide provides a clear explanation of the time zones and daylight saving time changes across the continent.
If you’re planning a trip to Europe or need to communicate with someone in a different time zone, it’s important to understand the time differences across the continent. This guide will provide a clear explanation of the time zones and daylight-saving time changes in Europe, so you can stay on schedule and avoid confusion.
Europe is divided into several time zones, ranging from UTC-1 to UTC+4. The time zones are based on the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) system, which is the primary time standard used across the world. Each time zone is one hour ahead or behind the adjacent time zone, with the exception of some countries that have chosen to adopt half-hour or quarter-hour time differences. Understanding the time zones in Europe is essential for scheduling meetings, flights, and other activities.
Time Zones in Western Europe
Western Europe is divided into four time zones: Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), Western European Time (WET), Central European Time (CET), and Eastern European Time (EET). GMT is the standard time zone for the United Kingdom and Ireland, while WET is used in Portugal and the Canary Islands. CET is used in most of Western Europe, including France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. EET is used in countries such as Greece, Romania, and Ukraine. During daylight saving time, the time zones shift forward by one hour, except for GMT which does not observe daylight saving time.
Time Zones in Central Europe
Central Europe is located in the Central European Time (CET) zone, which is one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT+1). This time zone is used in countries such as France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Switzerland. During daylight saving time, which begins on the last Sunday in March and ends on the last Sunday in October, the time zone shifts forward by one hour to Central European Summer Time (CEST), which is GMT+2. It’s important to note that not all countries in Central Europe observe daylight saving time, such as Iceland and Belarus.
Time Zones in Eastern Europe
Eastern Europe is located in the Eastern European Time (EET) zone, which is two hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT+2). This time zone is used in countries such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Ukraine.
During daylight saving time, which begins on the last Sunday in March and ends on the last Sunday in October, the time zone shifts forward by one hour to Eastern European Summer Time (EEST), which is GMT+3.
However, some countries in Eastern Europe do not observe daylight saving time, such as Belarus and Russia. It’s important to check the specific time zone and daylight saving time practices of the country you are in or travelling to.
Daylight Saving Time Changes in Europe
Daylight saving time changes in Europe vary by country and region. In general, daylight saving time begins on the last Sunday in March and ends on the last Sunday in October. However, some countries, such as Iceland and Belarus, do not observe daylight saving time at all. Other countries, such as Turkey and Russia, have changed their daylight-saving time practices in recent years. It’s important to check the specific daylight saving time practices of the country or region you are in or travelling to in order to avoid confusion and ensure you arrive on time.
On the tenth of March, the institutions of the Bulgarian state and our public commemorate the day when, in 1943, in the darkest hours of the Second World War, when its outcome was not at all clear, with its collective efforts, our people stopped the deportation of our compatriots of Jewish origin, the Bulgarian Jews, to the Nazi death camps.
The role of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in this work has never been forgotten and has always been emphasized, especially by the Jewish community, for which we are grateful. Therefore, there is no need, and it is not appropriate for the Church to point out its merits, even less for the fact that in a certain, difficult historical moment, it acted in the only way possible for it, namely – in harmony with the commandments of the Orthodox faith .
The truth is that when, on the night of March 9-10, 1943, Metropolitan Stefan sought an urgent meeting with the state leadership to express the Church’s disapproval of the impending deportation, and Metropolitan Kirill entered the imprisoned Jews at the school in Plovdiv and told the guards, that if they were taken he would go with them, these were not isolated acts of civil position, but the result of a systematic, firmly held line of the Holy Synod. In accordance with the Christian teaching and the thousand-year-old practice of tolerance, empathy and love, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church has always rejected any form of anti-Semitism, racial or religious hatred towards the representatives of the Jewish community, as well as in principle towards every person. As early as the adoption of the anti-Semitic Law for the Protection of the Nation, in the minutes of the Holy Synod of 1940, the warning words of the Bulgarian bishops can be heard: “The Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which carries out among our people the saving truth and commandment of our Savior that we are all sons of a heavenly Father, cannot fail to draw attention to the factors responsible that this bill, in some of its decrees against the Jewish-Israelites, contains provisions which cannot be considered just… Every man and every nation must protect from dangers, but in this justified pursuit, injustice and violence against others should not be allowed”.
And more: “The question of our attitude towards the Jews is clear. We are Christians, and as bishops of the Holy Bulgarian Church, we cannot but stand on the ground of the Holy Gospel and Christ’s teaching about the equality of all people before God, regardless of origin, race and culture. Therefore, we must stand up for the Jews.”
The Holy Synod declared this position as early as 1940, and it found its most vivid expression in the action of the ninth against the tenth of March 1943, as a result of which not a single Jew living on the territory of the canonical diocese of the Bulgarian Exarchy at that time time, was not sent to extermination to the death camps.
This action would not have been possible if the Bulgarian people had not been churched, if they had not been firmly united around their metropolitans, if the voice of the Church had not been so strong, because it was the voice of the faithful, Christ-loving and philanthropic Orthodox Bulgarian people of God. Not someone else, namely the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, has nurtured in its people the strength and determination to oppose evil – qualities that are a manifestation of their belonging to the Christian faith and its values. The power of faith was demonstrated by the people, led by the bishops of their Orthodox Church, in the frosty days of 1943, and with their faith they saved their compatriots – Jews. People’s power is impossible without the Orthodox faith, and this is a very important lesson that we must learn for ourselves today from the case of the tenth of March.
We cannot but mention with deep sadness that, despite this, more than 11 thousand Jews from neighboring territories, temporarily under Bulgarian secular administration, were still taken and many of them died in the flames of the Holocaust. We mourn for them. We regret that the Exarchate did not have the strength and opportunities to take care of the Jews in those dioceses that were forcibly separated from its body 30 years earlier, in the same way as for the Jews in Bulgaria. We are sincerely sorry!
Usually, on this day, the names of only some of the metropolitans, who especially manifested themselves in the holy and philanthropic work of saving the Bulgarian Jews in 1943, are mentioned. However, we are obliged to recall the names of all worthy bishops who were members of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Exarchy, who were gathered in the name of Christ and God was among them and blessed their work, and the Holy Life-giving Spirit dictated their decisions. These are: Metropolitan Neofit of Vidin – Deputy Chairman of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia, Metropolitan Mihail of Dorostol and Cherven, Metropolitan Paisiy of Vrachan, Metropolitan Boris of Nevrokop, Metropolitan Sophronius of Turnovo, Metropolitan Yosif of Varna and Preslav, Metropolitan Kirill of Plovdiv, Metropolitan Philaret of Lovech, Metropolitan Evlogii of Sliven and Metropolitan Kliment of Stara Zagora.
Eternal and blessed be the memory of these ancestors of ours! Let their work be an inspiration and an example to us when we have to face contemporary manifestations of xenophobia, anti-Semitism or human hatred of any nature and against anyone. Their faith is our faith, their strength is our strength, their convictions are our convictions. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church will always educate its pious and Christ-loving people in love for neighbor, tolerance, solidarity and humanity. It has been so since Bulgaria became an Orthodox Christian state and, as far as it depends on us, it will be so here forever and ever.
May God forgive our archpastors who died blessedly, who helped save the Jews in the exarchian dioceses on the territory of Bulgaria and thus protected the dignity of the Orthodox Church and preserved the honor of our Motherland.
Short address of this publication: https://dveri.bg/da6qk
