Under a 1907 law, adultery is still a crime in New York state, the AP reported. A legislative change is foreseen, after which the text will finally be dropped.
Adultery is still treated as a crime in several US states, although charges in court are rare and convictions even rarer.
The legal texts are left over from a time when adultery was still the only legal ground for divorce.
According to the New York law of 1907, the definition of adultery is when “a person whose spouse is alive enters into intimate relations with another”. A relationship with a married man or a married woman is also adultery. Only a few weeks after the law was passed in 1907, a married man and a 25-year-old woman were arrested. The man’s wife has filed for divorce, the New York Times reports.
Since 1972, only a dozen people have been charged with adultery and only five cases have resulted in a conviction. The last adultery case in New York was filed in 2010.
According to Kathryn B. Silbaugh, a law professor at Boston University, the adultery law was aimed at women to discourage them from having an extramarital affair and thus prevent questions about the actual paternity of children. “Let’s put it this way: patriarchy,” Silbo said.
The change is expected to be considered by the Senate soon, after which it will be advanced to the signature of the governor of the state of New York.
Most states that still have adultery laws treat it as a misdemeanor. However, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Michigan still treat adultery as a felony. Several states, including Colorado and New Hampshire, have repealed adultery laws, as does New York. The question of whether the ban on adultery does not contradict the Constitution remains open, the Associated Press commented.
Illustrative Photo by Mateusz Walendzik: https://www.pexels.com/photo/manhattan-skyscrapers-at-night-17133002/
The Ministry of Defense continues to recruit convicts from penal colonies to fill the ranks of the Storm-Z unit
Authorities in the Krasnoyarsk region in Russia’s Far East plan to close several prisons this year amid a dwindling number of incarcerated people, prompted by the recruitment of people serving sentences for the war in Ukraine, Russia’s Kommersant newspaper reported, cited by Reuters.
The newspaper cited Merk Denisov, the human rights commissioner of the Krasnoyarsk region, who told the regional legislature that at least two local prisons would be closed due to “a large one-time reduction in the number of convicts in the context of the special military operation (in Ukraine) “.
Russia has been recruiting prisoners to fight on the front in Ukraine since 2022, when Yevgeny Prigozhin, the late head of the private military company Wagner, began touring penal colonies, offering convicts a pardon if they survived six months on the battlefield , notes Reuters.
Prigogine, who died in a plane crash shortly after leading a short-lived rebellion against Russian military leaders, had claimed to have recruited 50,000 prisoners to join the Wagner PMC. At the time, data released by Russia’s Penitentiary Service showed a sudden drop in the country’s prison population.
The Ministry of Defense continues to recruit convicts from penal colonies to fill the ranks of the “Storm-Z” unit, made up of recruited prisoners, notes Reuters.
Illustrative Photo by Jimmy Chan: https://www.pexels.com/photo/hallway-with-window-1309902/
This prestigious award recognizes the exceptional efforts made by organizations to promote interfaith harmony and understanding, in line with the goals of the World Interfaith Harmony Week established by the United Nations.
The World Interfaith Harmony Week (WIHW), proposed by H.M. King Abdullah II of Jordan at the UN General Assembly in 2010 and adopted unanimously on October 20 of the same year, designates the first week of February as a time to promote dialogue and cooperation among different faith traditions. The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Jordan established the World Interfaith Harmony Week Prize in 2013 to honor events during this week that best embody its objectives.
In 2024, a total of 1180 events were held globally in observance of the UN World Interfaith Harmony Week, reflecting the widespread commitment to fostering interfaith understanding and cooperation. Among these events, 59 reports were submitted for consideration for the H.M. King Abdullah II World Interfaith Harmony Week Prize.
The judging panel, consisting of esteemed individuals such as H.R.H. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad and H.B. Patriarch Theophilus III, carefully evaluated the submissions based on criteria such as the excellence of efforts, collaboration, impact, and adherence to the principles outlined in the UN Resolution establishing the Prize. They awarded the top prize to Bridges – Eastern European Forum for Dialogue for their exceptional contribution.
The winning event, “Gift of Love,” was a captivating interfaith art performance held at Plovdiv’s Bishop’s Cathedral on February 9th. This event brought together 56 youth participants from diverse religious backgrounds, including Armenian, Muslim, Christian Orthodox, Catholic, Buddhist, and pagan traditions. Under the patronage of Her Excellency Ambassador Andrea Ikić-Böhm and the Embassy of the Republic of Austria, the performance showcased a variety of artistic expressions such as paintings, dances, musical performances, and poetry.
The core messages conveyed through the artistic mediums included love for God, compassion for fellow beings, solidarity with global communities, and a spirit of acceptance and tolerance towards individuals from different faiths. The event exemplified the spirit of unity and cooperation that lies at the heart of the World Interfaith Harmony Week.
Angelina Vladikova, President of Bridges-Eastern Europe for Dialogue, said after learning about winning the first prize, “During the last four years we were organizing art performances on the occasion of the WIHW. For four years we were applying for the Prince Award of Jordan – not because we wanted to win the prize, but because we wanted to show the world our understanding of interfaith harmony. This year it was a big surprise for us that we actually won the first prize. This shows to us that every dedication and all the efforts that we put into our work matters. We are grateful for all the youngsters in our association who give us the meaning to continue building bridges across cultures and religions.”
Through their innovative and impactful event, Bridges – Eastern European Forum for Dialogue demonstrated a commitment to fostering meaningful interfaith dialogue and promoting harmony and understanding across religious and cultural divides. Their achievement serves as an inspiration and a testament to the transformative power of collaborative efforts in building a more inclusive and peaceful world.
Chapter 20. 1-26. The question of the authority of Christ. 27-38. The question of the Sadducees. 39-47. Christ and the Scribes.
Luke 20:1. On one of those days when He was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the good news, the high priests and the scribes stood with the elders
This part corresponds perfectly with the account of the evangelist Mark (Mark 11:27-33), which Luke apparently follows here, as well as with the Gospel of Matthew (see the interpretation of Matt. 21:23-27).
Meanwhile, the news of the new expulsion of the merchants from the Temple reached the Sanhedrin, and its members, after a little recovering from their embarrassment, came to the Temple to demand from the preacher an answer to the questions: “By what authority do you do this? And who gave you this power!” These questions were evidently intended to provoke him to some such statement, which, as had happened before, would give them grounds to accuse him of blasphemy and stone him to death. But this treachery fell upon their own heads (cf. Luke 20, the question of John’s baptism).
Luke 20:2. and they said to Him: tell us, by what authority do You do these things, or who gave You this authority?
Luke 20:3. He answered them and said: I will also ask you one word, and tell me:
Anticipating their evil thought, Christ in divine wisdom told them that He would answer them only if they themselves would first answer His question. This question immediately confused the questioners and there was silence. They fully understood the meaning and purpose of the question.
Luke 20:4. Was John’s baptism from heaven or from men?
Luke 20:5. And they, thinking among themselves, said: if we say from heaven, he will say: why didn’t you believe him?
Luke 20:6. If we say, of men, the whole nation will stone us, because they are convinced that John was a prophet.
“all the people will stone us” – Common execution among the Jews (cf. Ex. 17:4).
Luke 20:7. And they answered: we do not know where he was from.
Blaz. Augustine says: “Truly, you do not know because you are in darkness, deprived of light. Is it not better, when some darkness suddenly appears in a man’s heart, to let in the light instead of driving it out? And when they said, “We know not,” the Lord answered, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do this (Luke 20:8). For I know that in your hearts you have said, “We do not know” (Luke 20:7), not because you want to learn, but because you are afraid to confess the truth.”
Luke 20:8. Jesus said to them: and I do not tell you by what authority I do this.
Luke 20:9. And he began to speak to the people this parable: a man planted a vineyard and gave it to vinedressers, and went away for a long time;
The parable of the vineyard in the evangelist Luke is similar to the way it is presented in the evangelist Mark (Mark 12:1-12; cf. the interpretation of Matt. 21:33-46).
“And he began to speak to the people.” According to Mark, the Lord spoke the parable to the high priests, scribes and elders (Mark 12:1: “to them”; cf. Mark 11:27), not to the people. But the evangelist Luke probably understands by “the people” also the high priests together with the scribes and the elders. At least from his Gospel it is clear that these persons were also present when the parable was told (cf. v. 19).
Luke 20:10. and in due time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him of the fruit of the vineyard; but the vinedressers, having pierced him, sent him away empty.
But despite all that he did for his vineyard, it did not bear any fruit, perhaps only wild fruit. Since the vinedressers could not produce fruit and did not dare to reveal their unproductiveness, for which they were responsible, they insulted, beat, wounded and killed one after another the messengers whom the master of the vineyard sent to them. Finally he sent his son, but this son, whom they recognized and could not but recognize, they also beat, drove out, and killed.
Luke 20:11. He also sent another servant; but they, having beaten and humiliated him, sent him away empty.
He sends various “servants”, i.e. prophets that there might be at least some small profit; for, it is said, He desired to receive “fruits,” not all fruits. What can be our fruit to God but His knowledge? And that is our gain; but He makes our salvation and our benefit His own. The evil workers wronged those sent, beat them and sent them away with nothing, i.e. became so ungrateful that they not only turned away from good and did not bear good fruit, but also committed evil that deserves a greater punishment. (Blessed Theophylact)
Luke 20:12. Send also a third; but they also wounded him and drove him away.
Luke 20:13. Then the master of the vineyard said: what shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps when they see him they will be ashamed.
Luke 20:14. But the husbandmen, when they saw him, reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir; let us slay him, that his inheritance may be ours.
Luke 20:15. And when they brought him out of the vineyard, they killed him. What, then, will the master of the vineyard do to them?
“they killed him”. They “killed” the Son by “taking Him out of the vineyard.” It is convenient to say “from Jerusalem” because Christ suffered “outside the gates” (Heb. 13:12). But since by vineyard we understand the people, and not Jerusalem, it is hardly nearer to say that the people, though they killed Him, were outside the vineyard, i.e. not by deliberately putting Him to death, but by handing Him over to Pilate and the Gentiles. Therefore, the Lord suffered outside the vineyard, i.e. not by the hands of the people, for they were not permitted to kill any, therefore He died by the hands of the soldiers. Some have understood the Scriptures by vine. That is, that the Lord suffered outside the Scriptures, that he was killed by those who did not believe Moses. For if they had believed Moses and searched the Scriptures, they would not have killed the Lord of the Scriptures. (Blessed Theophylact)
Luke 20:16. He will come and destroy these vinedressers and give the vineyard to others. And those, hearing this, said: may it not be!
“when they heard this, they said: may it not be”. Obviously, these were people from the common people who realized that the Lord was depicting in the parable the attitude of the Jews towards Him. They say they don’t want the vinedressers to kill the “son”, ie. they were sorry for Christ.
Luke 20:17. But He, looking at them, said: then what does it mean that it is written: “the stone which the builders rejected, it became the head of the corner”?
“what is written means”. More precisely: what then should the sentence from the scriptures about the “stone” mean, if your desire “not to be” comes true, that is, in such a case, the will of God, spoken about Me in the Scriptures, will not be fulfilled.
Luke 20:18. Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken; and on whom it falls, it will crush him.
“everyone who falls” (cf. the interpretation of Matt. 21:44).
Luke 20:19. And at that hour the chief priests and the scribes wanted to lay hands on Him, because they understood that He spoke this parable about them, but they were afraid of the people.
“because they understood”. Who found out? The people or the hierarchs? According to the Evangelist Luke, it is more likely the people who understood that the parable was told about the hierarchs (see verses 16-17). It is as if the evangelist wants to say that the people, who understood the parable indicating the plans of the hierarchs against Christ, were already on the alert, and this is exactly what the hierarchs were afraid of, which is why they did not dare to capture Christ.
Luke 20:20. And as they followed Him, they sent spies, who pretending to be righteous, to catch Him in some word, and then hand Him over to the authorities and the governor’s authority.
The conversation of Christ with the “sly men” about Caesar’s tax is narrated by the evangelist Luke in agreement with the account of the evangelist Mark (Mark 12:13-17; cf. Matt. 22:15-22).
“as they followed Him.” Nevertheless, the hierarchs did not give up their designs and, being constantly on the alert for every deed and word of Christ, sent to Him wicked ones, i.e. conspirators (ἐγκαθἐτους) of them, who, pretending to be pious, i. pretending to act from their own religious necessity, they will catch Christ in some careless word. However, this translation of the Russian text of the Gospel does not fully correspond to the Greek; it is more correct: “they sent learned men, pretending to be pious, to capture Him…”. They wanted to hand over Christ to the principality, and more specifically (κα… – clarifying conjunction) to the power of the procurator.
Luke 20:21. And they asked him, saying: Master, we know that you speak and teach rightly and do not look to the face, but truly teach in the way of God;
“you don’t look at the face”, i.e. you do not belong to any party, but reason impartially (cf. Gal. 2:6).
Luke 20:22. are we allowed to give tribute to Caesar or not?
“to give” poll tax and land tax (φόρον, as opposed to τέλος – duty or indirect tax).
Luke 20:23. And He, realizing their cunning, said to them: Why are you tempting Me?
Luke 20:24. Show me a denarius: whose image and inscription is there? They answered: to Caesar.
Luke 20:25. He said to them: therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
Luke 20:26. And they could not catch Him with a word before the people, they were amazed at His answer and kept silent.
Luke 20:27. Then came some of the Sadducees, who maintained that there is no resurrection, and questioned Him, saying,
“some of the Sadducees came” – it is more correct to say: “rejecting the resurrection”, which refers as a definition to “some”. From this it is clear that only some of the Sadducees rejected the resurrection of the dead because it seemed primitive to them.
It is true that some of the rabbis had more lofty ideas about the afterlife, but the majority had the crudest notions in this respect. According to them, the resurrection would be the restoration of men not only to their former bodies, but also to their former tastes and passions; the resurrected would not only eat, drink, and marry, but would also rise in the same clothes they walked in, even with the same bodily features and defects, “so that people could recognize that they are the same people who they knew during their lifetime”.
With all these gross sensual notions, and denying the resurrection in general (the doctrine of it, according to them, was not contained in the Pentateuch of Moses, which they recognized), they came to the Savior with their question.
Luke 20:28. Teacher, Moses wrote to us: if a married man dies childless, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother;
They chose from the field of rabbinic casuistry the case of a woman who married seven brothers in succession, each of whom died childless, and wanted to know to which of them she would belong in the resurrection.
Luke 20:29. he had, therefore, seven brothers, and the first, having taken a wife, died childless;
Although imaginary, this case was possible because the law stated that if a husband died childless, his brother had to marry his widow to restore his offspring and carry on his name, and the first-born son of this second brother was recorded as son of the deceased.
Disbelieving in the afterlife and resurrection, and supposing that Jesus, whom they had heard teach of the resurrection, and who held the same views of him as their Pharisaic opponents, they foretold the pleasure of perplexing Him with these perplexing questions, and thus ridiculing Him and His very teaching of the resurrection.
Luke 20:30. that woman took the second; and he died childless;
Luke 20:31. the third took her, – so did all the seven, and they died without leaving children;
Luke 20:32. after all the woman also died;
Luke 20:33. and so, at the resurrection, which of them will she be his wife? because all seven had her as their wife.
Luke 20:34. Jesus answered them and said: the children of this world marry and are given in marriage;
“the children of this century”, i.e. the people of the pre-Messianic period.
Luke 20:35. but those who are worthy to receive that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,
Luke 20:36. and they can no longer die, because they are equal to Angels and, being sons of the resurrection, they are sons of God.
“and they can no longer die.” It is more correct “because they can no longer die” (οὐδέ γάρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται). Because of the immortality of the resurrected, their immortality, marriage between them (but not the difference of the sexes) will not exist, since marriage is necessary only where there is death (bl. Theophylact).
“because they are equal to Angels”. This is the reason why they will not die. They will not die by virtue of the change to which their nature is subject, because their equality or likeness to the angels consists in a higher, no longer gross and carnal, corporeality. This physicality will not be subject to death.
“being sons of the resurrection,” i.e. through the resurrection to rise to new life.
“are sons of God”. There is another reason for the immortality of the future life. People will be God’s sons – not only in a moral sense, as God’s beloved children, but also in a higher, metaphysical sense – they will have in themselves the higher divine life, the divine glory (Rom. 8:17), which (life) is eternal naturally.
Luke 20:37. And that the dead will rise, and Moses said it at the blackberry, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
“Moses said it at the blackberry”. The word “said” (ἐμήνυσεν, in Bishop Michael Luzinus wrongly read as ἑρμήνευσεν – interprets) means the announcement of the hidden (John 11:57; Acts 23:30). The Lord mentions Moses mainly because those asking him refer to Moses (see verse 28).
Luke 20:38. But He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for with Him all are alive.
“because with Him all are alive”, i.e. all – to whom He is God – are alive with Him. Even though they are dead, it is for men, with respect to men, but not with respect to God. Thus the future resurrection of the dead is the natural and necessary conclusion of that state of life in which the dead are before the Last Judgment.
Luke 20:39. At this some of the scribes said: Teacher, well said.
“some of the scribes”. According to the evangelist Mark, this was said by a scribe who talked with Christ about the most important commandment (Mark 12:32). As the evangelist Luke has already quoted this conversation above (Luke 10:25, etc.), he here omits it, and mentions only the result of this conversation, the answer of the scribe, or “certain scribes,” as he expresses it.
Luke 20:40. And they no longer dared to ask Him about anything. And He said to them:
“they no longer dared to ask Him about anything”. Here Evangelist Luke also repeats what was reported by Mark (Mark 12:34).
Luke 20:41. how do they say that Christ is the son of David?
“as they say”. See the interpretation to Mark. 12:35-37.
In their blindness they lost sight of the true dignity of the Messiah, and expected to see in Him a political conqueror who would conquer for them the whole world with all its treasures, and since Christ did not live up to these expectations, they declared Him a deceiver, a seducer of the people. To guide them to the truth, Christ asked them, “What do you think about Christ? Whose son is He?” They answered Him: “Son of David.”
Luke 20:42. And David himself says in the book of Psalms: “The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand,
Luke 20:43. until I make Your enemies your footstool.”
Luke 20:44. And so David calls Him Lord; how then is He his son?
Sonship was defined only as an external connection by flesh of Christ with David, while a well-known psalm (Ps. 109:1) shows that David calls Christ (the Messiah) his Lord, who sits at the right hand of God. Thus they should have understood that Christ’s kingdom is not earthly, but heavenly; not realizing this, the learned scribes and lawyers were evidently quite ignorant of what the true dignity of the Messiah consisted. If they understood it, they would see that the signs of the Messiah find a complete correspondence in the person of Jesus of Nazareth whom they were persecuting.
Luke 20:45. And when all the people were listening, He said to His disciples:
“when all the people were listening”. See Mark 12:38-40. The difference between Mark and Luke here is that, according to the former, the Lord’s warning was spoken before and for the people, while according to Luke, it was addressed to Christ’s disciples. This difference can be reconciled in the following way: the Lord spoke in this case aloud to the multitude (Mark), but addressed himself directly to His disciples (Luke).
Luke 20:46. beware of the scribes, who love to walk disguised and love greetings in the marketplaces, front seats in the synagogues, and first places at banquets,
Luke 20:47. who devour widows’ houses, and hypocritically pray long; they will receive a heavier sentence.
“devour the widows’ houses”, i.e. filling his belly and wasting beyond measure. And this is done under a seemingly reverent occasion. Because under the pretext of prayer and spiritual benefit, they teach not fasting, but drunkenness and gluttony, and therefore, says the Lord, “they will receive a heavier sentence”, because they not only do evil, but also cover it up with prayer. Their appearance is reverent, and they turn virtue into a pretext for cunning. Therefore they deserve the greater condemnation, because for their sake the good is condemned. Widows are to be pitied, and they enter their houses, ostensibly to bless them with long prayers. At the same time the widows are forced to incur such expenses on account of their visitation that they are thus ruined. (Blessed Theophylact).
Source in Russian: Explanatory Bible, or Commentaries on all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: In 7 volumes / Ed. prof. A.P. Lopukhin. – Ed. 4th. – Moscow: Dar, 2009. / T. 6: Four Gospels. – 1232 pp. / Gospel of Luke. 735-959 p.
Ukraine war remains the most disturbing topic in Europe. French President Macron’s recent statement about his country’s possible direct involvement in the war was a sign of possible further escalation.
Pope Francis recently called for an immediate ceasefire. We are also seeing growing concern at the UN about further possible ceasefire and negotiation initiatives.
Last Wednesday, the Greek Parliament hosted a conference on ways to achieve peace in Ukraine. Four prominent members of parliament presented their vision on how to stop the war: Alexandros Markogiannakis, Athanasios Papathanassis, Ioannis Loverdos and Mitiadis Zamparis.
Calls for Diplomacy and Peace Intensify as Ukraine War Rages On 4
MP Athanasios Papathanassis has expressed an opinion of many Greeks regarding the need for peace: “Ukraine has been the bridge between Europe and Russia and the desire for its control and influence has led to geopolitical confrontations with a global impact. In this disastrous context collective effort and diplomatic flexibility is necessary for promoting and establishing peace”.
The situation was analysed insightfully by the renowned political scientist and media personality Professor Frederic ENCEL . He expressed scepticism about the chances of peaceful UN involvement and suggested that both sides of the conflict come together to reach a solution. Encel elaborated on France’s policy towards Russia, which has been friendly and balanced for many decades. Now we are in for a change due to fears that Donald Trump’s possible impending victory in the US presidential election will lead to a weakening of NATO.
A special call for peace came from Athens Vice Mayor Elli Papageli. She called for an immediate end to the war through diplomatic means. Vice-Mayor Papageli expressed fears of nuclear war and spoke of its disastrous economic consequences for Europe.
Former CIA analyst and State Department counter-terrorism expert Larry Johnson criticised NATO expansion and European arms supplies to Ukraine. His idea of a peaceful settlement was based on his view that the West was misinterpreting Russia’s intentions. Johnson was critical of Europe and the US and called for “not pouring petrol on the fire”.
Manel Msalmi, president of the European Association for the Defence of Minorities, emphasised the plight of women and children during the war and the need to restore peace. She recalled that during the UN assembly, the UN Secretary General called for peace in the country. She praised Athens as a model of democracy and quoted Aristotle: “Peace cannot be maintained by force, it can only be achieved by understanding.”
She noted that “increasingly, sensible politicians such as the Italian Defence Minister are talking about the start of peace talks, but at the moment the EU is preparing a €50 billion financial aid plan for Ukraine and peace is out of the question in the near future.“
Another issue of concern is the growing corruption in Ukraine, which is directly linked to the war.Ukraine tries to fight against corruption but it is a long and a complicated process. Neither the US nor the EU has developed an effective mechanism to control how this money is spent.”
All this makes diplomatic efforts to end the war simply necessary. For the sake of Europe and the world. The call for peace through diplomacy of ms. Msalmi was warmly welcomed by all the participants.
In early March a delegation of representatives of the world’s largest interfaith body, the United Religions Initiative (URI), visited the English Midlands and London at the invitation of its UK affiliate the United Religions Initiative UK.
The delegation included Preeta Bansal, an American social entrepreneur, lawyer and former senior policy advisor at the White House, who is now Global Chair of URI, and its Executive Director Jerry White, a campaigner and humanitarian activist who shared in the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in banning landmines.
The delegation and conference participants outside the Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) temple, one of the largest Hindu places of worship in Europe
URI is a United Nations affiliate organisation, founded in California in 1998 by retired Episcopalian Bishop William Swing as part of the 50th anniversary commemorations of the signing of the UN Charter. His purpose was to bring different faith groups together in dialogue, fellowship and productive endeavour, mirroring the purposes of the UN in the religious sphere.
URI now has over 1,150 member grassroots groups (“Cooperation Circles”) in 110 countries, divided into eight global regions. These are engaged in areas including youth and women empowerment, environmental protection, promoting freedom of religion and belief, and fostering multifaith cooperation to address social issues. One of the URI’s most active global regions is URI Europe, with over sixty Cooperation Circles across 25 countries. Members of the Board and secretariat of URI Europe from Belgium, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Bulgaria, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain joined the ten person delegation.
URI UK is a registered charity and part of the URI Europe network. It pursues URI’s global aims within the UK context: building bridges of cooperation among diverse religious communities, fostering understanding and collaboration, helping to end religiously motivated violence, and creating cultures of peace, justice, and healing. It was reestablished in 2021 following some years in abeyance, and currently links four UK-based Co-operation Circles. Its activities have included a youth conference on Freedom of Religion and Belief and a multi-faith celebration of King Charles III’s Coronation.
Multi-faith tree planting for the King’s Coronation
URI UK works with all who share its values, such as places of worship, youth groups and community activists, and welcomes people from any background and of all faiths or none. It regards its work as more important than ever, at a time of significant global and local challenges to good relationships between people with differing religious adherence. Chair of Trustees, Deepak Naik, said “Events in the Middle East and elsewhere are posing real challenges for good relations between faith groups here in Britain. On top of that, we learned of the tragic closure of the Inter Faith Network for the UK, which has done outstanding work in supporting dialogue for over 25 years. It is vital to strengthen interfaith activity in the UK and draw in new participants.”
Bringing international perspectives to help regalvanise interfaith activity in the Midlands and London was one of the purposes of the March visit programme. It was also designed to introduce the delegation to interfaith practice and issues in the UK, where some 130 interfaith groups operate at local, regional and national level. Preeta Bansal said, “Britain has always had a good reputation for interfaith dialogue, and my colleagues and I were keen to learn more. We also hope our experiences provided fresh perspectives for activists here and will give rise to new projects and approaches.”
Based in Coleshill in the English West Midlands, the delegation travelled to five diverse inner city districts over four days: Handsworth in Birmingham, Oldbury in the Black Country, the Golden Mile in Leicester, Swanswell Park in Coventry, and the London Borough of Barnet. The programme included visits to places of worship (including observing acts of worship), a touring exhibition, shared meals, and conferences in the five host venues.
The delegation visited Coventry Cathedral, an international centre for peace and reconciliation following its destruction in World War Two
The conferences addressed some difficult themes: preventing religion-motivated violence; exploring the threats that face interfaith understanding; the fragility of interfaith work; and promoting enduring, daily interfaith cooperation to address social issues. They featured contributions from prominent interfaith activists, clergy of different faiths, a Member of Parliament, a Police and Crime Commissioner, academics and local Councillors, table discussions and shared meals. Audiences were drawn from those new to interfaith dialogue as well as more seasoned practitioners. URI UK hopes that more UK interfaith initiatives will choose to become URI Cooperation Circles as a result of the visit, giving them access to resources and contacts worldwide.
Conference delegates at the Nishkam Centre, Birmingham
The programme was also designed to introduce UK interfaith activists to the Public Health Approach to Violence Prevention. This is a new model for isolating and disrupting patterns of violent behaviour which has obtained widespread academic endorsement and gained favour among crime prevention policy-makers in the United States since 2000. It sees a propensity to violence not as an innate condition of certain individuals, but as a pathological behaviour akin to a physical disease. Just as a contagion of disease is effectively tackled by outbreaks being contained and interrupted, so there are powerful techniques for containing, deflecting and interrupting violence, and stopping it spreading – whether this be violent crime, domestic violence, racist violence or religion-motivated violence.
The March conferences tested British reactions to the Approach, in particular relating to religion motivated violence. Participants strongly encouraged URI UK to promote it in UK urban contexts, initially through running pilot schemes in selected urban locations. Deepak Naik said, “I believe the Public Health Approach is clearly applicable for addressing of religion-motivated violence in the UK, whether this take the form of Antisemitic incidents during pro-Palestinian protests in major centres and on campuses, or the Hindu-Muslim riots that were experienced in the previously well integrated city of Leicester in 2021.”
Jerry White explained the Public Health Approach to Preventing Violence
URI UK believes that the visit programme amply met its objectives. Feedback from the international delegation was strongly positive. Franco-Belgian activist Eric Roux, who is a URI Global Council’s trustee for Europe, said, “This visit in UK was really inspiring. The people we met, their diversity and their dedication to a better society, more inclusive and working together in peace, showed us that there is a great willingness in UK to have a vibrant and effective interfaith network. And honestly, these people, from all faiths or none, do a great job in UK. That’s of course needed, as in every country of the world. That’s exactly what URI is all about: grassroot efforts and initiatives. And we are very eager to do our share to empower the people we met in UK with an international network of such efforts, hoping that the grassroot/international connection can help increasing the impact”. Karimah Stauch, URI Europe Coordinator, from Germany added, “We are convinced that interfaith actors make a unique contribution to combating Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all forms of group-based prejudice and hatred. We commend the great work of URI UK and all interfaith actors in the UK and offer our cooperation.“
The Leicester conference, with URI UK Chair Deepak Naik kneeling in the centre
Warwick Hawkins:Warwick served as a career civil servant, providing advisory services to successive British Governments on matters related to religious engagement for a span of 18 years. During this time, he conceptualized and executed various initiatives aimed at fostering interreligious dialogue and promoting social action. His responsibilities encompassed empowering local communities through community rights initiatives and organizing multi-faith commemorations for significant events such as the First World War centenary, the Millennium, and the Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Warwick’s most recent position was leading the Faith Communities Engagement team within the Integration and Faith Division of the Department for Communities and Local Government. He transitioned from government employment in 2016 to establish his own consultancy, Faith in Society, a social enterprise dedicated to supporting faith groups in their civil society engagements through advocacy, strategic planning, and fundraising assistance. In recognition of his contributions to inter-religious dialogue, Warwick was honored with an MBE in the 2014 New Year’s Honours list. He has since remained actively involved in inter-religious projects in various capacities, including private consultancy and trustee roles.
Roberta METSOLA, EP President at the European Council
Delivering on our priorities is the best tool to push against disinformation, said EP President Roberta Metsola at European Council
Addressing the Heads of State or Government at the March European Council in Brussels today, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola highlighted the following topics:
European Parliament elections:
“We are meeting today 77 days from the start of the European Parliament elections. We know how much we need to work together to get out the vote.
In this legislature, we have put Europe’s stamp on global geopolitics and we have defended our European way in an ever-changing world. We have become stronger because of the challenges we faced and not despite them. We have held the constructive European majority together and we must do that again.
Europe is delivering for our people, but we have to be able to get that message across every Member State. Together with MEPs, I have visited many countries to convince our people, especially our young people, to go out and vote.”
Disinformation:
“We know how far other actors will go to try to disrupt our democratic processes. We are seeing attempts in many States to push disinformation, misinformation and propaganda which come from actors hostile to the European project. It is a threat that we must be ready for.
We can make use of both legislative and non-legislative tools – particularly through how we tackle social media. Legislatively, we have the Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act, the AI Act, political advertising and Media Freedom – but we must also be ready to engage better online.
We cannot allow this destructive narrative, propaganda and disinformation to spread without countering it. We have to be ready to engage with the platforms.
This election will be a test of our systems and makes our job of getting the message across even more essential.”
Addressing the citizens:
“My appeal here is to resist the temptation in a difficult campaign to blame Brussels for all that is wrong and give no credit where it is due.
We need to be open and honest about our successes – but also where we could have done better. Where we did not match the expectations of our people. Where people still feel left behind. Where our bureaucracy has pushed people away.
Our industry must be part of the equation. Our farmers have to be a part of the equation. Our young people must be part of the equation. People must have confidence in the process, they must have access to tools that allow them to make the shift and they must be able to afford it. Otherwise, it will not succeed.
The European Union is not perfect, but it is the best guarantee for all of our people. So where we need to fix – let us do so. But let us keep building rather than allow easy cynicism to destroy.
We can hand back a Europe that is stronger, that listens to its citizens, that works better, that is more efficient and effective. That – as Jean Claude Juncker famously put it – is big on the big things and small on the small things.”
Russia’s threat and support to Ukraine:
“There is nothing bigger than the threat posed to peace by Russia. We must continue to do everything within our power to help Ukraine to continue to defend itself.
We have already provided strong political, diplomatic, humanitarian, economic and military support to Ukraine, and here the European Parliament welcomes the adoption of the 13th package of sanctions, and the Ukraine Assistance Fund under the European Peace Facility.
In this critical moment, our support of Ukraine cannot waver. We need to speed-up and intensify the delivery of equipment that they need to sustain its defence.
We also have to help Ukraine by prolonging the Autonomous Trade Measures.”
European security:
“Our project of peace depends on our ability to be secure and autonomous. If we are serious about protecting our collective security we also need to take action on building a new EU security framework.
In shaping this new architecture, we have already found agreement on several issues that many thought impossible. Now we must be ready for the next step of cooperation between us all. In this new world, going alone will not work.”
Enlargement:
“Enlargement remains a priority. For Ukraine, for Moldova, for Georgia and for Bosnia and Herzegovina. For us all.
They all need to follow their own path and fulfil all the criteria required – but – with Ukraine in particular – their progress in meeting the milestones has been impressive.
In the last twelve months, Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina have also made remarkable progress in reforms. It is time to make good on our word. It is time to open EU accession negotiations with them and send a clear signal to people in the Western Balkans.
In this new geostrategic environment, an enlarged EU that is based on clear objectives, criteria and merit, will always serve as our best investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity.”
EU reform:
“We cannot lose sight of the fact that an enlarged EU will require change. Adaptation. Reform. The Parliament has made several proposals to this effect including those on the European Parliament’s right of inquiry, which has seen little movement over the past 12 years, and the triggering of the process for a European Convention.”
Economy:
“Enlargement will also help boost European competitiveness and improve the functioning of our single market. This must be a priority for the next legislature. That is how we grow our economies sustainably. How we pay our debts. How we create jobs and attract investment. How we ensure that growth works for everyone. It is with a strong economy that we can bring prosperity, security and stability. How we can reinforce Europe’s place in the world.”
Middle-East:
“A strong Europe has a role to play in the shifting sands of the world order – not least in the Middle East.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate. We need to use all the tools at our disposal to get more aid in. I welcome the Amalthea Initiative and would like to especially thank Cyprus for your leadership. Nonetheless, land distribution of aid remains the best avenue to deliver the volumes needed.
That is why the European Parliament will keep pushing for a ceasefire. Why we will keep demanding the return of the remaining hostages and why we underline that Hamas can no longer operate with impunity.
This is why we ask for clear conclusions on this today that will give direction going forward.
That is how we get more aid into Gaza, how we save innocent lives and how we push forward the urgent need for a two-state solution that gives real perspective to Palestinians and security to Israel.
A peace that empowers peaceful, legitimate, Palestinian leadership and that ensures lasting stability in the region.”
Situation in the Red Sea:
“This also concerns the situation in the Red Sea. I welcome the EUNAVFOR Aspides which will help protect this highly strategic maritime corridor. But there is more that we can do.
Across the Euro-Mediterranean, businesses are hugely impacted by delays, problems with warehousing and financial implications. We should consider an EU-led taskforce to assess how we can act together to mitigate the socio-economic consequences. There is a role for Europe to play here too.”
Conclusion:
“Let me assure you that the European Parliament will keep working until the last moment to deliver on the remaining legislative files, including on a new migration package.
Ultimately delivering on our priorities is our best tool to push back against disinformation and where citizens can see the difference that Europe makes.”
On Wednesday, Parliament and Council reached a provisional agreement on extending trade support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s war of aggression.
The temporary suspension of import duties and quotas on Ukrainian agricultural exports to the EU will be renewed for another year, until 5 June 2025, to support Ukraine amidst Russia’s continuing war of aggression.
The Commission can take swift action and impose any measures it deems necessary should there be significant disruption to the EU market or the markets of one or more EU countries due to Ukrainian imports.
The regulation also provides for an emergency brake for particularly sensitive agricultural products, namely poultry, eggs, and sugar. MEPs secured the expansion of this list to include oats, maize, groats and honey. They also attained firm commitments from the Commission to take action if there is a surge of Ukrainian imports of wheat. The reference period for triggering the emergency brake will be 2022 and 2023, meaning that if imports of these products surpass the average volumes of these two years, tariffs would be re-imposed. EP negotiators also ensured that the Commission would act faster – within 14 days instead of 21 days – if trigger levels for the automatic safeguards were reached.
Quote
Rapporteur Sandra Kalniete (EPP, LV) said: “Tonight’s agreement reinforces the EU’s continued commitment to stand by Ukraine in the face of Russia’s brutal war of aggression until Ukraine’s victory. Russia’s targeting of Ukraine and its food production also impacts EU farmers. The Parliament heard their concerns, and bolstered safeguard measures that would alleviate the pressure on EU farmers should they be overwhelmed by a sudden surge in Ukrainian imports.”
Next steps
Parliament and Council will now both have to give their final green light to the provisional agreement. The current suspension expires on 5 June 2024. The new regulations should enter into force immediately following this expiration date.
Background
The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, has ensured that Ukrainian businesses have preferential access to the EU market since 2016. After Russia launched its war of aggression, the EU put in place autonomous trade measures (ATMs) in June 2022, which allow duty-free access for all Ukrainian products to the EU. These measures were extended by one year in 2023. In January, the EU Commission proposed that import duties and quotas on Ukrainian exports should be suspended for another year. For Moldova, similar measures were extended for another year after the current measures expire on 24 July 2024. Russia has deliberately targeted Ukrainian food production and Black Sea exporting facilities to undermine the country’s economy and threaten global food security.
The police in Spain have warned that they will now strictly enforce these sanctions, and the same is expected in France.
If you give away the location of a police post or roadblock to other drivers, you can be fined up to… 30,000 euros. It sounds absurd, but a sanction of similar proportions is a fact in several European countries, including France, and the Spanish police last week confirmed their intention to strictly enforce it.
In some countries, such as Bulgaria, warning fellow drivers about traffic police posts or hidden radars is not expressly prohibited by the Road Traffic Act. But the practice of friendly initiation in such cases seems to be no longer as popular as in the past. More and more drivers are using the warning feature of navigation apps like Waze.
In Spain, Germany and France, however, lighting is strictly prohibited. The Spanish Highway Code punishes it with a fine between 100 and 200 euros in principle. And if a driver gives away the location of a police post on social media or otherwise, it carries with it a fine of between €601 and €30,000 under the country’s internal order law. The Spanish police specified that the sanctions will be applied strictly in the future.
Their amount depends on the situation: a simple warning about the presence of policemen on the road will carry a relatively small fine. The maximum amount applies when a police alcohol and drugs check or a special police search operation is revealed. If in such cases the driver also uploads a photo to the police station, this can lead to the deprivation of a license for a period of up to 2 years.
According to a study published in Nature Communications, the device achieved a 20.8% solar-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency.
The new technology is a significant step forward for clean energy and could serve as a platform for a wide range of chemical reactions that use solar-harvested electricity to convert feedstocks into fuels.
The lab of chemical and biomolecular engineer Aditya Mohite built the integrated photoreactor using an anticorrosion barrier that insulates the semiconductor from water without impeding the transfer of electrons.
Aditya Mohite. Photo courtesy of Aditya Mohite/Rice University
“Using sunlight as an energy source to manufacture chemicals is one of the largest hurdles to a clean energy economy,” said Austin Fehr, a chemical and biomolecular engineering doctoral student and one of the study’s lead authors.
“Our goal is to build economically feasible platforms that can generate solar-derived fuels. Here, we designed a system that absorbs light and completes electrochemical water-splitting chemistry on its surface.”
The device is known as a photoelectrochemical cell because the absorption of light, its conversion into electricity and the use of the electricity to power a chemical reaction all occur in the same device. Until now, using photoelectrochemical technology to produce green hydrogen was hampered by low efficiencies and the high cost of semiconductors.
“All devices of this type produce green hydrogen using only sunlight and water, but ours is exceptional because it has record-breaking efficiency and it uses a semiconductor that is very cheap,” Fehr said.
The Mohite lab and its collaborators created the device by turning their highly-competitive solar cell into a reactor that could use harvested energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen.
The challenge they had to overcome was that halide perovskites* are extremely unstable in water and coatings used to insulate the semiconductors ended up either disrupting their function or damaging them.
“Over the last two years, we’ve gone back and forth trying different materials and techniques,” said Michael Wong, a Rice chemical engineer and co-author on the study.
Michael Wong. Photo courtesy of Michael Wong/Rice University
After lengthy trials failed to yield the desired result, the researchers finally came across a winning solution.
“Our key insight was that you needed two layers to the barrier, one to block the water and one to make good electrical contact between the perovskite layers and the protective layer,” Fehr said.
“Our results are the highest efficiency for photoelectrochemical cells without solar concentration, and the best overall for those using halide perovskite semiconductors.
“It is a first for a field that has historically been dominated by prohibitively expensive semiconductors, and may represent a pathway to commercial feasibility for this type of device for the first time ever,” Fehr said.
The researchers showed their barrier design worked for different reactions and with different semiconductors, making it applicable across many systems.
“We hope that such systems will serve as a platform for driving a wide range of electrons to fuel-forming reactions using abundant feedstocks with only sunlight as the energy input,” Mohite said.
“With further improvements to stability and scale, this technology could open up the hydrogen economy and change the way humans make things from fossil fuel to solar fuel,” Fehr added.
Perovskite – This mineral has a higher conductivity than silicon and is less fragile. It is also much more abundant on Earth. Over the last decade, considerable efforts have led to spectacular developments, but its adoption in future optoelectronics remains a challenge. Perovskite photovoltaic cells are still unstable and undergo premature ageing. What’s more, they contain lead, a material that is very harmful to the environment and human health. For these reasons, the panels cannot be marketed.
Halogenated hybrid perovskites are a class of semiconductor materials that have been the focus of particular research in recent years for their remarkable photoelectric properties and their applications in photovoltaic systems.
