This is not a Muslim ban; over 40 Muslim countries not affected by order: Trump

January 30, 2017

Washington, Jan 30: President Donald Trump insisted on Sunday that his executive order temporarily halting travel from seven majority-Muslim countries+ was "not a Muslim ban," after it was met with confusion, global outrage and huge protests+ across the United States.

trumpban"America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave," Trump said in a statement.

"This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe," he said, adding that more 40 Muslim countries were not affected by his order.

His defense came+ in the form of an official written statement issued by the White House, a rare move for a president who has favored speaking directly to his audience via Twitter.

The president singled out the media, which he has attacked repeatedly since coming into office just over a week ago.

"We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows," he said, referring to the United States.

"To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting."

Trump signed the executive order on Friday, suspending the arrival of all refugees+ for at least 120 days, Syrian refugees indefinitely and barring citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days.

While Trump has cited the September 11, 2001, attacks as justification for his move, he did not target any of the 9/11 hijackers' home countries — Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Judges in at least four states with major international airports — Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Washington — issued temporary stays to block parts of Trump's executive order, preventing authorities from deporting people who had been detained.

Trump recalled that his predecessor Barack Obama, a Democrat, had paused for six months in 2011 the Iraqi refugee program.

And he stressed that the seven countries targeted by his ban were also listed by Obama.

But the previous administration's restrictions were of a different sort, requiring visas for people having traveled to those countries in the past five years.

"We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days," Trump added.

"I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as president I will find ways to help all those who are suffering."

Comments

PedoMhdFkdAmna
 - 
Monday, 30 Jan 2017

Why are 13 Muslim countries banned Israelis from entry ?

Ahmed K.C.
 - 
Monday, 30 Jan 2017

As per their claim 19 people who hijacked airlines on 9/11 were from GCC, namely, 15 from Saudi, 2 from UAE, 1 from Lebanon and 1 from Egypt.
But, no ban on above countries. If he really has DUM, should ban them and see the result.

PedoMhdFkdAmna
 - 
Monday, 30 Jan 2017

Good Trumpanna !

Dean
 - 
Monday, 30 Jan 2017

If he starts banning all terrorists then america will be left with only Muslims. :) We should also ban american products and outlets in Muslim countries. No Muslim should fly to US to show solidarity to the countries that were excluded. Canada is going to ban All Christians from entering Canada after yesterdays Masjid attack. First america should get out of Muslim Land and stop poking nose in Muslim countries for petrol.

Rikaz
 - 
Monday, 30 Jan 2017

Not good, racist president of America....

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 4,2020

Bengaluru, Apr 4: The state government have taken all measures to ensure availability of essential supplies including foodgrains, in the state, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa informed here on Saturday.

He was speaking to newsmen, after holding a meeting of the MLAs, MPs and others, where he had briefed over the measures taken by the state government to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 disease.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 6,2020

New Delhi, Mar 6: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking framing of a proper mechanism to deal with alleged misuse of the sedition law by the government machinery. A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar dismissed the plea filed by a social activist and said it was open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

At the outset, the apex court told advocate Utsav Singh Bains, appearing for the petitioner, that he could not seek quashing of an FIR in a sedition case filed against the management of a Karnataka school for allegedly allowing students to stage an anti-CAA and anti-NRC drama.

Bains told the bench that he was not just pressing for a prayer to quash the FIR but the petitioner has also sought a direction for framing of a proper mechanism to deal with the alleged misuse of the sedition law.

"Let the affected party come and we will hear them. Why it should be done at your instance," the bench said, refusing to entertain the petition.

The petition had sought quashing of the FIR against the principal and other staff of the Shaheen School at Bidar who have been booked under sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea had also sought an apex court direction for a proper mechanism to deal with alleged government misuse of the sedition law.

Section 124A of the IPC says that "whoever brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards... the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life...".

The plea had sought a direction to the Centre and the Karnataka government "to quash the FIR registered in connection of seditious charges against the school management, teacher and a widowed parent of a student for staging a play criticising CAA, NRC and NPR."

The petition had claimed that the police "also questioned students, and videos and screenshots of CCTV footage showing them speaking to the students were shared widely on social media, prompting criticism."

The drama was staged on January 21 by students of the fourth, the fifth and the sixth standard.

The sedition case was filed based on a complaint by social worker Neelesh Rakshyal on 26 January.

The complainant alleged that the school authorities "used" the students to perform a drama where they "abused" Modi in the context of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 19,2020

New Delhi, Jan 19: Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Sunday asserted that every state assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek the amended Citizenship Act's withdrawal, but if the law is declared constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it.

His remarks came a day after he had said there is no way a state can deny the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) when it is already passed by the Parliament.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal said in a tweet.

His remarks on the CAA at the Kerala Literature Festival (KLF) on Saturday had caused a flutter as several non-BJP governments, including Kerala, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Maharashtra, have voiced their disagreement with the CAA as well as National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR).

"If the CAA is passed no state can say 'I will not implement it'. It is not possible and is unconstitutional. You can oppose it, you can pass a resolution in the Assembly and ask the central government to withdraw it.

"But constitutionally saying that I won't implement, it is going to be problematic and going to create more difficulties," said the former minister of law and justice.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.