Mediaboss Marketing

TEHRAN Iranian police have recently recovered a number of historical relics from an antique dealer who was illegally keeping them in his place in Dashtestan, the southwestern province of Bushehr.

The police discovered the relics after cultural heritage aficionados informed authorities of the unlawful activity of an antique dealer, IRNA quoted a senior police official in charge of protecting cultural heritage on Wednesday.

The relics, which include some copper vessels and utensils, are estimated to date back to the Qajar-era (1789-1925) and even before, Abdolhamid Haqqani said.

The suspect has been surrendered to the judicial system for further investigation, the official added.

With over 6,000 years of history and significant monuments from the Elamite, Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanid eras, Bushehr is one of Irans most important historical centers.

Besides its cultural heritage, beautiful beaches and lush palm groves make it an attractive destination for world travelers.

The historical and architectural monuments of Bushehr include Islamic buildings like mosques and praying centers, mansions, old towers, castles, as well as gardens.

When it comes to cultural attractions, there are many historical mounds in Bushehr including Tall-e Khandaq with Sassanid architectural style, Tall-e Marv located near an Achaemenid Palace, and Qajar era Malek al-Tojar Mansion. Qajar era Kazeruni Mansion, which has been inscribed on the World Heritage List, is another attraction that world travelers love to see among various ancient sites.

ABU/AFM

Read the original here:
Historical relics recovered in southwest Iran - Tehran Times

On 2 February, 1971, representatives from 18 countries gathered in Iran's northern coastal town of Ramsar, nestled between the majestic Alborz Mountains and the Caspian Sea, to sign a landmark treaty aimed at preserving the world's wetlands, Anadolu News Agency reports.

What came to be known as the Ramsar Convention, the first-of-its-kind environmental agreement sought to engage governments in tackling pressing issues related to wetlands, committing to their "wise use," and cooperating on trans-boundary wetlands and species.

The agreement, which came into force in 1975, now has now 171 countries as parties a worldwide network of wetland managers.

Massoud Ghorbani, a Tehran-based environmental activist, said the agreement played a pivotal role in attracting the world's attention to wetlands, but failed to achieve all of its objectives.

"Half a century after the agreement was adopted," he told Anadolu Agency that "the world has recognised the importance of wetlands in sustainable development, climate change and disaster management, but it's also true that wetlands continue to vanish, posing a serious threat to biodiversity."

According to the 2021 Global Wetland Outlook report, almost 64 per cent of the world's wetlands have vanished since 1900, with 35 per cent of wetland habitat losses taking place since 1970.

Iran, which played a key role in the adoption of the first modern agreement on global wetlands conservation, has been grappling with a series of challenges to preserve and protect its wetlands, many of which are already on the brink of extinction.

The country is known to have 141 wetlands spread across 3 million hectares, of which 25 major wetlands have been registered in the Ramsar Convention, covering an area of over 1.4 million hectares.

"Of the 25 Iranian wetlands in the Ramsar Convention, almost one-third are drying out due to environmental degradation, drought, pollution, climate change, coastal erosion and other adverse environmental factors," Ghorbani asserted, urging immediate action.

Last month, the release of water from the Kamal Khan Dam in Afghanistan's Nimruz province spread cheers in Iran's border province of Sistan-Baluchistan, home to the Hamoun wetland.

The 5,660-square-kilometer (2,185-square-mile) area, which gave birth to Zoroastrianism and served as the setting for Persian poet Ferdowsi's epic book "Shahnameh", has degraded over time, threatening the lives and livelihoods of people in the border province.

According to environmental experts, severe drought and poor water management have turned the world-famous Hamoun wetland into an ecological disaster.

"The restricted flow of water from the Hirmand River, which feeds the Hamoun wetland has, over the years, turned the wetland into a wasteland," Hashemi Shafaghi, a journalist and activist from Sistan, told Anadolu Agency, blaming it on the construction of dams in neighbouring Afghanistan as well as mismanagement of water resources in Iran.

"Hamoun wetland has been a lifeline of locals for centuries, and now it has become a source of the misery," Shafaghi asserted, adding that the drought has forced thousands of people to migrate.

The fast vanishing wetlands point to a growing water crisis in the country which, in recent years, has fuelled anger and discontent. Annual rainfall has plummeted to about 200 mm, or almost one-third of the global average, with the majority of provinces battered by arid conditions.

READ: Iran welcomes Taliban's move to release water

An official with the Department of Environment told Anadolu Agency that two-thirds of wetlands in Iran are "on the brink of disaster."

"Twenty years ago, wetlands in Iran were thriving with life and economic prosperity now, they are increasingly contributing to death, diseases and economic crisis," he said, asking to remain anonymous as he is not authorised to talk to the media.

In the Gavkhouni wetland near the central provinces of Isfahan and Yazd, migratory birds such as flamingos, sea sparrows and wild ducks returned a few years ago following heavy rainfall, but they disappeared again with the return of arid conditions.

The central provinces have seen mass protests recently against the growing water crisis. Tens of thousands of people took over the dried Zayendeh Rud River in Isfahan, drawing the attention of top government functionaries.

"Vanishing of wetlands and rivers is a cause of serious concern, which necessitates proper water management strategies based on scientific planning," Farshad Rezvani, an environmentalist from Isfahan who participated in recent protests, said.

"If it continues, we may see larger protests in the future, because water is the lifeline."

Some wetlands, like Jazmourian in the south-eastern Kerman province, have lately shown signs of revival after being dormant for many decades due to heavy rains.

The only source of water in Iran's largest province, the Jazmourian wetland, was hit by severe drought for years due to climate change, construction of dams, soaring temperature and exhaustion of groundwater resources, according to experts.

In the southern Fars province, local environmental revivalists have been engaged in efforts to bring the Kamjan wetland back to life, helped by a grant from the UN Development Program (UNDP).

The efforts won them the Energy Globe Award from an Austrian environmental body last month.

The project, according to environmentalists, is aimed at reviving the dying wetland as well as training people in preventing over-exploitation of water resources.

"Agricultural development activities in the mid-1980s caused the wetland to dry out, which harmed the local biodiversity," said Kouroush Namdari, an environmental researcher who worked on the Kamjan wetland.

Some years ago, there were also concerns about the vanishing of the Hoor al Azam wetland in the oil-rich south-western Khuzestan province, after more than 60,000 hectares of the internationally reputed wetland had dried up due to industrial activities and plans for oil exploration.

READ: Iran and Afghanistan sign water deal after decades-old dispute

The plan was later shelved after protests from locals and environmental activists.

Meanwhile, an official with the Department of Environment said a plan is on the anvil designed to preserve and protect 25 wetlands in Iran that have been registered with the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands.

The plan was floated last year by the Energy Ministry in the previous administration and discussions have continued, the official told Anadolu Agency.

The plan, he stressed, seeks to "prevent illegal stealing of water" from rivers and restore water supply to wetlands in order to help them revive and allow migratory birds to return to their natural habitat.

Apart from that, a "robust disaster management strategy" is also being considered to "mitigate the impact of natural disasters" that have led to the depletion of the country's water resources.

"It is a long-term plan that requires the cooperation of people, environmentalists and the government," he said. "For now, we can only hope for the best and prepare for the worst."

More here:
Iran races against time to revive vanishing wetlands - Middle East Monitor

State attorney Libby Bakalar cites a statute governing the appeal process for election certifications and recounts during a press teleconference at the Division of Elections office in downtown Juneau on Nov. 26, 2018. A federal judge ruled that Gov. Mike Dunleavy violated her First Amendment rights when he fired her on the day he was sworn into office. (Jeremy Hsieh/KTOO)

Recently, a federal district court judge ruled that Gov. Mike Dunleavy violated the First Amendment rights of a Juneau attorney he fired on the day he was sworn into office in December of 2018.

Rashah McChesney sat down with former assistant attorney general Libby Bakalar to talk about what the ruling means.

The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Rashah McChesney: This is kind of a complex timeline, so lets walk through it. You have this blog, One Hot Mess, for several years. At one point, you start writing about former President Trump, and another attorney and the state complains. The state investigates you and your blog and finds no wrongdoing.

Then Gov. Dunleavy gets elected, and he and his former chief of staff, Tuckerman Babcock, send out these demands for resignations to 800-something employees in the state including you. Something thats recently deemed unconstitutional. You resign. Gov. Dunleavy gets sworn in at noon on Dec. 3, and you find out 20 minutes later that youve been fired.

Thats more than three years fighting for this. What was that process like?

Libby Bakalar: You know, it was really slow and grueling, to be honest. I mean, it wasnt like every single day, something different was happening in the case or anything. Its just, its a long time to be in limbo with something like this. You know, I think I wrote about this in my blog it just a takes a very long time to prove this kind of point. When I filed this case, I was like, Ill be surprised if this is resolved within Dunleavys first term of office. So I fully expected it to take pretty much as long as it took. Its just part of being a litigant.

Rashah McChesney: One of the reasons that Tuckerman Babcock said that he did it was because he didnt like your resignation letter. Im wondering if you could tell me a little bit about that letter and sort of describe what you were thinking when you wrote it.

Libby Bakalar: Well, so the attorney general at the time, Jahna Lindemuth, gave everybody a template to write the resignation letters on. So every attorney who submitted the resignation letter used the same template. I may have added something like, Im doing this under duress, or Im doing it because, you know, Mr. Babcock said I was going to be terminated if I didnt do it. I kind of wanted to make it clear that my resignation wasnt voluntary. But that language about the resignation being involuntary was in the template. And as Judge [John] Sedwick said, another attorney who used the exact same language that resignation letter wasnt accepted. So that was just something that I think that we found completely not credible. And I think when you read the letter, you can see its completely professional and completely anodyne. So, you know, that was clearly pretextual and Sedwick saw right through that.

Rashah McChesney: When you submitted that resignation letter did you expect that they were going to accept it and that you were going to lose your job?

I think in the back of my mind, I was worried about losing my job, but I knew that what I was doing was legal. Thats the thing, right? I knew my work was good. I knew my relationships with my clients and colleagues were good. My work was beyond reproach, right? And I knew I had the constitutional right to speak on these matters. And so my mistake was assuming that these folks were going to comply with the law, right? And I think I must have thought that because, you know, when they called me and told me about this, that I was fired, I was like, I picked up the phone, and I said, Are you calling and telling me Youre firing me? And like, yeah, sorry, basically. So it kind of, you know, wasnt like this huge shock, I guess. But I think deep down, I was like, they couldnt really do this, because this is against the law, right? And they did it anyway. And were, you know, were a firm of lawyers. So I thought, Theres no way that these lawyers are going to carry out this illegal order, from Tuckerman Babcock, and I was wrong about that. I was wrong about that. So I think I was surprised on some level.

Rashah McChesney: This is a little bit of a rabbit hole, but there was another lawsuit against the governors administration, for demanding those resignations. These psychiatrists from Alaska Psychiatric Institute sued over the same thing, over being asked to resign.

Libby Bakalar: Right. The ACLU filed a case on their behalf of at the same time that they filed my case. And in that case, the psychiatrist plaintiffs did not submit resignation letters at all, and because of that, the judge had a different analysis. Theres these two lines of free speech cases like this. And one of them has to do with patronage schemes, and one of them has to do with policymaking and disruption at work. And the former line of cases is what the psychiatrist case was about, because they did not submit those resignation letters. And so the judge was able to find in that case, that the entire scheme itself, the resignation letter scheme itself, the very act of submitting of was essentially an unconstitutional patronage.

Rashah McChesney: So, they were just on some kind of parallel track this whole time?

Libby Bakalar: The judge declined to consolidate those two cases early on, the ACLU asked to have them consolidated and for a number of reasons, he denied that motion. And I think when you see the two orders, in those two cases, you can kind of see why. There are a lot of different issues. Obviously the psychiatrists, they didnt have this blog. There wasnt this whole question of whether they were policymakers there wasnt, there was just kind of some different issues going on, different fact patterns.

So yeah, they were similar in some ways. But in a way, it was the best possible outcome, in my opinion that these two cases were decided separately and on different grounds. Because what the judge did, essentially within one case, he invalidated the resignation demand scheme on its face. And in my case, he invalidated it as applied to me. Its sort of a double whammy. I think in the end, it was good because we got those two separate rulings that essentially validated the illegalality of this entire scheme, both as it was conceived and as it was applied.

Rashah McChesney: Now that its been ruled that they fired you unconstitutionally how do they pay for it?

Libby Bakalar: So thats yeah, thats the question. Its either gonna be through a settlement or a jury trial. And so this is kind of like the analogy would be the sentencing hearing, kind of. After someones convicted, right, theres a whole other sentencing phase. Its kind of like that. So the judge basically, you know, quote, unquote, convicted them on this wrongdoing. And now theres the quote, unquote, penalty phase, thats more or less the analogy in the civil setting. So its over in the sense that the merits of the case have been decided, I mean, they could always appeal for all I know, they might appeal. And that could change the picture somewhat. But we have this ruling that says they broke the law, right? So now its like, well, how do you remedy that? And thats an open question.

Rashah McChesney: There could still be a fair amount of wrangling.

Libby Bakalar: Theres a fair amount of loose ends. Its not just, like, completely over. Its a win there. Its a pretty much an unqualified win, in my opinion, just because for me, just psychologically, I just, this whole time, all I ever wanted was for a judge to say, Yes, this was unconstitutional. Yes, this was illegal. And that finally happened. And so for me, its over in my mind on that front. In terms of my feelings of vindication on the merits of what they did, how theyre going to pay for it, whats going to happen in the future, how this will affect state employees. What I really care about is that this never happened to another state employee ever again. I never want to see a mass resignation scheme. I never want to see a partially exempt, non-unionized state employee some geologist, biologist, architect, you know be forced to resign their job every four years. Thats just insane.

Rashah McChesney: Is this case as simple as a free speech test? And should every state employee go out now and write whatever they want about the president on a personal blog and feel reasonably certain that they wont be fired?

Libby Bakalar: I dont know. I definitely would hesitate to answer that question in the affirmative. I dont think thats true. I think there is a fact-based analysis of like, what positions are really policymaking positions for which political affiliation is actually a job requirement? I dont think the court order really answers that question in any kind of uniform way. It certainly doesnt say every non-unionized state employee can say whatever they want, whenever they want. Like, thats not what it says. But I think what it does do is it sends a message that, you know, at least in some cases, you know, non unionized state employees do have free speech rights. Its not a good faith constitutional use of personnel resources, to demand resignations, and to make personnel decisions, based strictly on peoples off-duty speech, right?

But there again, theres complicated case law, and these complicated tests and balancing tests and applying all these factors and things. So its not as cut and dried as now, you know, every non-unionized state employee, every partially exempt state employee can say and do whatever they want. No, thats not what this order says. But I think it does send a message that there are still, there are limits, you know, to what the government can do to you. And we do have, we still have democracy, at least nominally. And we still have free speech rights in this country. And even if you work for the state, and thats, thats been established now. And I think it was established before it should have been known before. But now its been reiterated in no uncertain terms.

So I think future administrations are going to think twice before they try anything like this ever again. So functionally, I think its going to be there will be much more deliberation about that transition. About who is told to leave their job, and who was forced to resign their job. And under what conditions, right? I think I will have set some precedent, these two cases will have set some precedent in that respect.

Rashah McChesney: Right, because this is something that happens during every governors administration, generally, is that they asked for the resignation, but usually of political appointees, right?

Libby Bakalar: Usually commissioner-level and director-level people, deputy director levels people who are quite comfortably within that policymaking framework, right. Not typically ever, you know, a Fish and Game biologist, or, you know, city water, a state water inspector or something. I mean, jobs that have absolutely no policymaking, you cant even make a good faith argument that these are policymaking jobs. But, you know, that was all based on norms before, and this administration shattered those norms.

Just because it had never been done before. And the reason it had never been done before was because you would never even consider asking non policymaking employees to resign. And yet, they did do that as some sort of, quote, bold new thing or something to quote Tuckerman Babcock. But what it was, it was a flex, you know. It was a flex. It was an intimidation tactic. It worked. You know, for the past four years, three-and-a-half years people have been absolutely terrified in this administration.

I hear from state employees every day, how scared they are working for these people. And with good reason. They have shown absolutely no compunction about violating the law and penalizing people for quote-unquote disloyalty.

So there was like, a few different kind of iterations of this, right? And all of it just sent this general message of intimidation. And the idea that youre, you know, the administration is lurking on your social media, and theyre just waiting to pounce on you for disloyalty. I mean, thats a terrible and completely undemocratic way to exist as a government employee. And it just made me so angry. And I think thats what fueled this entire thing for me, is that I just wanted to do something impactful for the entire state employee workforce.

Rashah McChesney: In that other case that we were talking about earlier were a couple of doctors sued over this resignation letter requirement. The judge ruled that Tuckerman Babcock and and Governor Dunleavy dont have qualified immunity in that situation. Does that apply to your case as well?

Libby Bakalar: No, it doesnt, and I didnt expect it to either. Qualified immunity is a very hard thing to lose. You have to really do something bonkers to lose it. And I was actually surprised in the psychiatrists case to see Dunleavy and Babcock stripped of qualified immunity, because its functions, in practice, like absolute immunity, it really does.

Ive never seen it happen where a government defendant in a civil case like this loses qualified immunity. Its just unusual, its very unusual. Because if government workers were able to be held personally liable in their jobs, no one would ever work for the government, right? So there has to be some form of protection there.

But I think what the judge was saying is that they went so far with this, this was so out of the realm of reason to do this, that they were personally liable for it. I think, in a way, I think qualified immunity is good for government workers. In another sense, it also disincentivizes good faith conduct on the part of people in power in government, because unless its their personal assets on the line in these types of situations somebody is acting in bad faith theres no incentive to obey the law.

Take my case, for example. Ive been gone from the Department of Law for three-and-a-half years. They got what they wanted, they got me gone, Im gone. Im not there, right? Theyve gone on. And now like the damages phase is, you know, the damages go to the state of Alaska, not to them. So they lost nothing. So when you lose qualified immunity, at least that sends the message of you cant just do whatever you want. At some point, theres going to be a point at which you are going to have to worry about your personal assets in these things. And you cant just disobey the law, and expect to completely get away with it every time and have the State of Alaska foot the bill in the end.

[Sign up for Alaska Public Medias daily newsletter to get our top stories delivered to your inbox.]

Read the original:
After winning, Juneau attorney reflects on her years-long First Amendment case - Alaska Public Media News

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost had a challenge on his hands in trying to explain First Amendment rights to a school superintendent last week. It is difficult to explain a right so many people believe they understand and yet grossly misinterpret in an era of trolling, triggering and too much time on our hands.

Lebanon City Schools Superintendent Isaac Seever made a mistake when he asked parents and religious leaders not to protest on campus, after he had already supported the First Amendment rights of a group calling itself the After School Satan Club to meet regularly at a Lebanon elementary school.

Yost had to explain to Seever that BOTH groups rights should be supported, after Seever wrote a letter in which he pleaded with parents and the community not to protest on school property because we serve a young student population and some of them may have no idea why adults are gathering in support or opposition on Thursday afternoon.

Yost rightly described the Satan Club as an attention-seeking group, but nonetheless correctly assessed they have a right to meet in the public building. Seever seemed to understand that part. What he missed was others right to protest the move.

The area around the school is a public forum. Public streets, sidewalks, and parks have time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions,' Yost wrote. Content-based restrictions on political speech in a public forum just dont fly.

Such a strong statement from the highest-ranking school official, intended to protect the schools controversial decision, sent to all Lebanon families, in coordination with the Lebanon Police, is just the sort of government policy that chills the exercise of First Amendment rights, even if it fall[s] short of a direct prohibition,' Yost wrote.

Too many people today understand First Amendment rights only when they believe those rights protect THEM. When it comes to the rights of those with whom they disagree, that understanding disappears.

Yost was right to step in, reminding Seever First Amendment rights cannot be invoked only when convenient. Heres hoping Seever and a great many other people learn the lesson.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

View original post here:
Explaining the First Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Marietta Times

A councilwoman in OFallon, Missouri, has been impeached and removed after raising questions about the municipalitys now former police chief.

Katie Gatewood, a former law enforcement officer, had learned that the man hired as chief in 2020 had been the subject of controversy at his previous post in Conroe, Texas. According to a report by officers in the Texas Rangers, in 2017, Philip Dupuis responded to a domestic violence call that involved a fellow officer who was one of his friends. According to another officer who responded to the scene, Dupuis seemed more concerned with what would happen to his friend than about the victim.

Gatewoods interest in determining what really happened in Conroe has now led to her ouster. Her attorney, Dave Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri, said Gatewood made several public records requests and phone calls to learn more information about Dupuis actions. Her colleagues accused her of violating city ordinances by making those inquiries and, last week, voted to impeach and remove her from office.

Those actions have Roland concerned. Gatewood, he said, merely exercised her right to free speech.

It raises incredibly severe First Amendment consequences for the voters, as well as for the elected officials who are being threatened with removal from office, he told St. Louis on the Air.

Roland filed a lawsuit against the city on Gatewoods behalf three days before she was ousted by the council. In it, he argues that the councils actions were retaliatory and that the disciplinary panel against her was biased and that these actions violated her constitutional rights.

Listen: OFallon councilwomans removal raises First Amendment concerns

They said, essentially, that it was illegal for her to ask those questions under city law, Roland said.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig declined to intervene before the impeachment vote. But Roland is hopeful that she will now consider the matter ripe for judicial review. On Wednesdays show, Roland said he plans to approach the federal judge with an updated complaint within a month.

As for Gatewood, her term on the council ends in a little over a year.

We would love to see Katie restored to the council, said Roland, but even if she ultimately is not, we intend to get a ruling as to whether the removal was unconstitutional.

Dupuis resigned from the chiefs job in OFallon last June.

St. Louis on the Air brings you the stories of St. Louis and the people who live, work and create in our region. The show is hosted by Sarah Fenske and produced by Alex Heuer, Emily Woodbury, Evie Hemphill and Kayla Drake. Jane Mather-Glass is our production assistant. The audio engineer is Aaron Doerr.

See more here:
Ousted O'Fallon councilwoman will continue to fight - St. Louis Public Radio