After announcing results, Sadiq gave the floor to Shehbaz Sharif, who is the joint opposition’s candidate for the post of prime minister.
He rejected the claims that the “threat letter” was fake, adding that the meeting in Washington took place on March 7.
“On March 8, the no-confidence motion was submitted against the prime minister. Look at how these things coincided,” he said, calling for holding an in-camera session.
Human Rights Minister Dr Shireen Mazari’s speech revolved around the alleged US influence on Pakistani politics. “It is this nation’s misfortune that America has always been successful in [changing] the leaders of Pakistan.”
She recalled that the opposition was invited to check the ‘threat letter’ that according to government is ‘proof’ of a foreign-funded conspiracy.
“But I know why you did not come … because you’re a part of that conspiracy, which clearly states that ‘if you will oust Imran Khan and no-confidence vote is successful, then the nation will be forgiven.
“What will be forgiven? What crime has Pakistan done? An independent foreign policy? Who the hell is America to forgive us? And for what crime? For God’s sake have some shame. This is America’s old ways. In the 1950s, America and UK conspired to oust Iranian leader Musaddik — who was a democratic leader.”
She said America has either ousted democratic leaders or assassinated them and has installed dictatorship in countries.
“A few days ago, [US President Joe] Biden went to Poland and said ‘remove Putin and bring regime change’. This is America’s way.”
Michael Millerman goes over the article:
Such circuit decisions normally apply to states within a district — Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, in this case — but Landry said the language employed by the judges gave the decision a national scope.
The government must provide an expedited reply to the motion for a permanent injunction Monday, followed by petitioners’ reply on Tuesday.
Employers who adopt a “mandatory vaccination policy” can comply with the ETS even if some employees are not actually vaccinated. OSHA allows the following exceptions: “those for whom a vaccine is medically contraindicated, those for whom medical necessity requires a delay in vaccination, or those legally entitled to a reasonable accommodation under federal civil rights laws because they have a disability or sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances that conflict with the vaccination requirement.” It seems those unvaccinated employees don’t have to wear masks or be tested each week, since those safeguards apply only to businesses that require employees to choose between vaccination and testing plus masking.
If so, a legal challenge could argue, OSHA is implicitly conceding that testing and masking of unvaccinated employees is not truly “necessary.” In the example OSHA offers, 5 percent of a company’s employees “are entitled to reasonable accommodation.” In terms of COVID-19 risk, that situation is indistinguishable from a workplace where 5 percent of employees simply choose not to be vaccinated.
The vaccination exceptions allowed by OSHA do not include people who are resistant to COVID-19 because they were previously infected. While there is considerable debate about how the protection offered by naturally acquired immunity compares to the protection offered by vaccination, the lack of an exception for people who have recovered from COVID-19 could be another basis for questioning the necessity of OSHA’s requirements.
The vaccine requirement is being imposed through a rarely used process that has a history of being blocked by judges.
There’s only one problem: What is health misinformation? I know of no oracular source of truth about Covid-19. Scientific consensus has shifted dramatically during the pandemic, and even now experts are divided over important issues, such as whether everyone should get a vaccine booster shot. Klobuchar and Luján’s bill elides these complications. Instead they designate an all-knowing authority: Health misinformation, the bill says, is whatever the secretary of health and human services decides is health misinformation.