Hong Kong’s oldest and largest pro-democracy political party is moving to disband as Beijing’s sweeping crackdown on the city leaves even moderate opposition groups with no room to operate.

“The message was that the party has to be disbanded or there will be consequences,” said one of them, Yeung Sum, a former Democratic Party chairman.

Fred Li, a former lawmaker, said a Chinese official told him that the party should not remain until the end of this year, when an election will be held.

Founded by liberal lawyers and academics three years before the former British colony’s 1997 handover to China, the Democratic Party had campaigned for universal suffrage and on matters from labor rights to conservation during a period when such issues were openly discussed in the city.

Widely seen as moderates willing to work with Beijing, Democratic Party leaders had spearheaded a significant voting bloc in the city’s legislature and were regularly afforded space to critique local government policy, until mass pro-democracy protests in 2019 ushered in a new and more restrictive political era.

Beijing’s crackdown in the years since, including the prosecution and jailing of pro-democracy leaders, has left the once-influential party rudderless as it contends with sweeping national security legislation and “patriots only” electoral reforms enacted in 2021 that make it nearly impossible for opposition candidates to stand for the city’s legislature.

Democratic Party chairman Lo Kin-hei told a news conference last Sunday that 90% of about 110 party members had voted to delegate power to a committee to start the dissolution process, adding he hoped a final vote would take place in the coming months.

“I hope Hong Kong’s political parties… will continue to work for the people,” Lo said. “We have always hoped to serve the Hong Kong people, and to do things that are good for society.”

The Democrats’ move to disband demonstrates Beijing’s unwillingness to allow even the mildest of dissenting voices to be heard in Hong Kong, say analysts.

John Burns, emeritus professor at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), said the party had “symbolized the promise of some kind of democratic development in Hong Kong, leading to universal suffrage as promised in the Basic Law,” referring to the city’s mini-constitution.

“A dissolution of the party reflects official Hong Kong’s turn away from popular participation, locally accountable government, and increased transparency toward more authoritarian rule,” Burns said.

Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the Democrats’ move “shows there are no more feasible ways for groups to exist as an opposition party.”

“It’s self-conflicting for the government to suggest that nothing has changed,” he said.

Criticism of the government remains permitted in Hong Kong, “however strong, vigorous or critical” it may be, so long as it is “based on facts,” the spokesperson said. The Hong Kong government would “continue to resolutely discharge the duty of safeguarding national security,” they added.

No space for compromise

The Democrats had enjoyed relative political freedom following Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule, even holding more seats than any other party in the mostly pro-Beijing legislature until 2004.

The party’s leaders were often the figureheads of major demonstrations, including an annual June 4 vigil to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre and a well-attended pro-democracy march held every July. (Neither event would be permitted on the Chinese mainland, and both are now effectively banned in Hong Kong).

But support for the Democrats plunged in 2010 after its leaders negotiated directly for universal suffrage with officials from Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong – a move seen as a betrayal by other pro-democracy groups.

The party was then pushed further to the sidelines by the emergence of a new generation of pro-democracy leaders and student activists during months-long protests for universal suffrage in 2014.

However, when anti-government demonstrators returned to Hong Kong’s streets en masse in 2019, the Democrats’ popularity resurged as many of its leaders stood on the front lines of the massive – and sometimes violent – protests that rocked the financial hub.

Later that year, the Democratic Party was the biggest winner in local district council elections. But its participation in the protests also drew the ire of Hong Kong authorities and Beijing, paving the way for its demise.

“The party made mistakes when it failed to draw a clear line between itself and radical separatists calling for Hong Kong’s independence from 2014-2020,” said Burns, from HKU. “Authorities have punished the party, jailing and chasing out Democratic Party leaders.”

Over the past five years, the space for the Democrats to maneuver has been increasingly squeezed by Chinese authorities.

In 2020, Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on Hong Kong, introducing the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for four main crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

A year later, the Chinese government rewrote Hong Kong’s electoral rules to require candidates to seek nomination from pro-Beijing groups, essentially excluding the opposition from elections. A legislature filled with Beijing loyalists last year unanimously passed a law expanding the scope of national security offenses.

Beijing and the Hong Kong government argued that the electoral changes had enhanced democracy and have repeatedly defended the security laws as restoring order and returning prosperity to the city. But critics say they have curtailed freedoms and had a “chilling effect” on civil society, including independent institutions and the media.

Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at SOAS University of London, said political and social protests seen as challenging state security are “becoming increasingly if not well-nigh impossible.”

“Many other elements of civil rights, including that of speech and organizing political parties have also been severely curtailed,” he added.

Last year, five former Democratic Party lawmakers were among 45 opposition figures sentenced to prison terms of up to 10 years after they were found guilty of subversion for taking part in an election primary in 2020.

National security police have also placed HK$1 million ($129,000) bounties on pro-democracy activists who fled overseas, including an Australia-based former Democratic Party lawmaker accused of secession, subversion and collusion with a foreign country.

Meanwhile, the trial of media tycoon and outspoken democracy supporter Jimmy Lai is ongoing, more than four years after he was detained on charges of colluding with foreign forces, which he denies.

The Democratic Party’s announcement last weekend follows the dissolution of almost 100 civil and pro-democracy organizations in Hong Kong in the wake of Beijing’s crackdown.

The party had tried to survive as a civic group in recent years but struggled to raise funds as multiple private venues canceled their events, often at the last minute.

Former Democratic Party lawmaker Emily Lau said the party’s move to disband was “very sad.”

“I don’t know what they are thinking in Beijing. We have demonstrated, not just words, but by action, that we are reasonable. We are willing to talk, to negotiate, to compromise, reach a deal and go forward.”

Canada is heading into federal elections, where Prime Minister Mark Carney is vying for a chance to continue leading the country, as tensions grow with its closest neighbor.

The former central banker’s main competition is Pierre Poilievre, Canada’s Conservative party leader whose political capital has declined as US-Canada relations nosedive amid threats from US President Donald Trump.

Canadians do not vote directly for prime minister – they vote for lawmakers representing political parties in their district or riding. The party with the largest number of lawmakers elected to parliament will form the government, and its leader will become prime minister.

While Carney’s Liberal Party and Poilievre’s Conservative Party are the frontrunners, other major political parties will also be on the ballot, including left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) led by Jagmeet Singh, the Green Party and the exclusively-Quebec-based Bloc Québécois.

Trade war and house prices

Poilievre was the favorite to win when former prime minister Justin Trudeau stepped down last month. But Trump’s steep tariffs on Canada, and threats to its sovereignty, dramatically transformed the race.

Trump’s decision to levy a 25% duty on Canadian steel and aluminum, cars and car parts, and threats to tariff pharmaceuticals and lumber have shaken Canadian businesses. It’s a reality Carney has not sugarcoated, warning of “tough days ahead” with pressure on Canadian employment.

“These tariffs are fundamentally damaging to the American economy and by extension to the global economy,” Carney told a press conference this month after Trump announced sweeping tariffs, which partially spared Canada but sent global markets into chaos.

Canadians are also grappling with the high cost of living, especially an affordable housing crisis – an issue likely to feel the sting of a trade war with the US.

The Ontario Home Builders’ Association warned last month that tariffs and counter-tariffs on steel and aluminum products would likely drive up the costs of construction materials, making building and buying new homes more expensive, worsening the housing affordability issue.

US and Canadian tariffs on automobiles, for example, will make cars more expensive on both sides of the border, says economist Randall Morck, a professor at the University of Alberta’s business school.

“Stock prices have gone down, so everybody is poorer,” he said, adding that this likely reflects investors’ estimates that recession and higher unemployment could be on the horizon.

Finance man versus the career politician

Carney, a political newcomer, has not ruled out continued talks with Trump, but he has been moving to deepen ties with more “reliable” allies. In an unusual move, his first prime ministerial trip abroad was to Europe where he spoke to French and British officials about deepening security, military and economic ties.

While a rookie politician, unlike his challenger, Carney’s decades in finance saw him steering governments through major global crises and periods of upheaval. As governor of the Bank of England, he helped the United Kingdom navigate Brexit – which he said mirrors what can happen to the US in the face of tariffs.

“I have seen this movie before. I know exactly what’s going to happen to them, the Americans are going to get weaker,” he said at a campaign event in Ontario this month.

Many Canadians see Carney as someone well-placed to navigate a trade war with a long-standing ally, experts say.

“In a crisis it’s important to come together and it’s essential to act with purpose and with force. And that’s what we will do,” Carney said earlier this month as he positioned himself as the person to take on the US president.

Tensions with the US have slowed the ascent of Poilievre, a career politician who served as a cabinet member in former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. Throughout his campaign he has aimed to appeal to working-class Canadians, painting himself as someone outside the “Ottawa elite” and casting himself as a family man.

Poilievre’s fiery rhetoric about slashing tax and bureaucracy, and his populist “Canada First” policy have won him supporters tired of Liberal rule. But Poilievre now appears to be distancing himself fro comparisons to US President Donald Trump; he has slammed Trump’s threats to make Canada the 51st US state, supported reciprocal tariffs and repeatedly declared he is “not MAGA.”

His decades of political experience and modest background – as the son of two schoolteachers – also set him apart from Trump, says Charles-Etienne Beaudry, political science professor at the University of Ottawa and author of “Radio Trump: How he won the first time.”

Experts say Carney’s lead over Poilievre has widened primarily because the ex-banker has been more vocal than his opponent about how exactly Canada will forge trade ties with other countries and organize retaliatory tariffs.

“I expect that [voters] are going to vote for the candidate that they think will minimize the cost of the trade war with the US,” says Morck, the economist, pointing to the level of anti-American sentiment and distrust among Canadians. “I haven’t seen anything like it since the Vietnam war.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of creating a “general impression” of a ceasefire while continuing to pummel parts of the front line, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin announcing a brief cessation in fighting for Easter.

Putin’s surprise announcement on Saturday, ordering his forces to “stop all military activity” along the front line from 6 p.m. Moscow time on Saturday (11 a.m. ET) until midnight on Monday (5 p.m. Sunday ET) was met with immediate skepticism from Ukraine, although Kyiv agreed to the truce.

Questions were raised over Putin’s motives in calling the brief halt to hostilities, which came soon after the Trump administration threatened to abandon peace efforts without tangible signs of progress.

By Easter Sunday morning, the ceasefire had already been violated multiple times, Zelensky said. Ukraine’s military said that while activity along the front line had decreased, the fighting had not stopped.

Between 6 p.m. local time on Saturday, when the ceasefire went into effect, and midnight, there were 387 instances of shelling and 19 assaults by Russian forces, Zelensky said in a post on X.

“Overall, as of Easter morning we can state that the Russian army is attempting to create the general impression of a ceasefire, while in some areas still continuing isolated attempts to advance and inflict losses on Ukraine,” Zelensky said, citing a report from General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces.

In Russia’s Kursk region – the scene of a shock Ukrainian incursion last year – Moscow’s forces conducted artillery strikes and used drones, he added.

“Everywhere our warriors are responding as the enemy deserves, based on the specific combat situation. Ukraine will continue to act symmetrically,” Zelensky said.

In a post later Sunday, Zelensky said Ukraine’s military had recorded an increase in Russian shelling and the use of “kamikaze” drones since 10 a.m. local time. “In practice, either Putin does not have full control over his army, or the situation proves that in Russia, they have no intention of making a genuine move toward ending the war, and are only interested in favorable PR coverage,” he added.

There does appear at least to be a let-up in the near-daily, deadly aerial attacks on Ukraine. The Ukrainian Air Force said it had not recorded any aerial threats from missiles or drones from Russia since Saturday night, while Russia’s Defense Ministry did not report any drone or missile attacks on Russia overnight.

For its part, Russia’s defense ministry said Sunday that its forces had been “strictly observing” the ceasefire since 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, and accused Ukraine of violating the pause in fighting over 1,000 times.

The ministry said that Ukrainian units had shot at Russian positions 444 times during the night, carried out over 900 drone attacks and used 48 plane-type UAVs.

“As a result, there were deaths and injuries among the civilian population and damage to civilian objects,” a statement from the ministry claimed.

The Ukrainian leader has called for the ceasefire to be extended to 30 days, in line with a US-led proposal last month. On Sunday morning, he said that the proposal still stands, despite the accusations of repeated violations.

“Russia must fully comply with the conditions of the ceasefire. Ukraine’s proposal to implement and extend the ceasefire for 30 days after midnight tonight remains on the table. We will act in accordance with the actual situation on the ground.”

Ukraine’s Armed Forces have stated that they will comply with orders to limit fire on Russia’s army, but would not show restraint if fired on first.

A commander on the ground warned Sunday: “Yesterday we were told to limit fire against the Russians. If they don’t assault or provoke us, we don’t fire. If they move or fire at us, we can answer.”

Putin said the ceasefire was on humanitarian grounds but added that his troops would respond to any “provocations.”

Pope Francis gave the traditional Easter blessing on Sunday, appearing from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica in front of delighted crowds in what marks his highest-profile appearance yet since being discharged from hospital.

The 88-year-old pontiff has not led the main Holy Week and Easter services but has made brief appearances over the Easter weekend, including spending 30 minutes at a prison in Rome on Thursday and a visit to St Peter’s Basilica on Saturday evening.

Francis, who spent 38 days in hospital with double pneumonia where he came close to death, is unable to speak for long periods due to his respiratory difficulties and is undergoing physiotherapy to help regain his voice. The pope also has difficulty raising his arms.

But on Easter Sunday he was able to offer the “Urbi et Orbi” blessing to the “City [of Rome] and to the World”. Only the pope can offer this blessing which includes the offer of an indulgence, a remission for the effect of sins.

His voice sounded weak but he appeared without the nasal canula he has been wearing to receive oxygen.

Prior to his Easter Sunday appearance, the Pope had a brief private meeting with Vice President JD Vance.

“The meeting, which lasted a few minutes, provided an opportunity to exchange Easter greetings,” said the Vatican in a statement.

Since his discharge from hospital last month the pope has been making surprise appearances and has shown a determination to resume his duties. Doctors have advised him to avoid large crowds during his two months recovery period.

The Vatican also released the text of the Pope’s Easter Sunday message where Francis appealed for an end to conflicts across the world, particularly in Gaza. He lamented the “death and destruction” taking place which had created “a dramatic and deplorable humanitarian situation.”

Francis said: “I appeal to the warring parties: call a ceasefire, release the hostages and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace!”

The Israeli military says “professional failures” led to the killing of 15 paramedics and first responders in an incident in Gaza in March, according to an investigation released Sunday.

The group – most of whom worked for the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) – were shot dead before being buried in a mass grave, sparking international condemnation.

The Israeli probe identified several failures during the incident, as well as breaches of orders and a failure to fully report the incident, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement.

The IDF said the troops did not engage in “indiscriminate fire” during the incident, but they opened fire on what they believed to be a “tangible threat” amid what the military called “operational misunderstandings.”

As a result of the investigation, the commanding officer of the 14th Brigade received a letter of reprimand, while the deputy commander of the Golani Reconnaissance Battalion involved in the incident was dismissed from his position. The IDF relieved the deputy commander because of his responsibility for the incident and for providing an “incomplete and inaccurate report” about what happened.

“The IDF regrets the harm caused to uninvolved civilians,” a statement read.

“Existing protocols have been clarified and reinforced – emphasizing the need for heightened caution when operating near rescue forces and medical personnel, even in high-intensity combat zones.”

The troops opened fire on three separate occasions on Sunday, March 23. In the first shooting, Israeli soldiers shot at a vehicle the IDF says was identified as belonging to Hamas. Two Palestinians were killed and one temporarily detained.

An hour later, the troops opened fire once again, this time targeting the convoy of PRCS ambulances and Civil Defense vehicles, killing 15 people, according to the investigation.

Initially, the IDF claimed the vehicles were driving suspiciously without headlights or emergency signals.

But video from the cell phone of one the emergency responders clearly showed that the convoy was driving in a single-file line and the ambulances had their lights on. Despite the release of the video, the IDF investigation still said it was difficult to identify the ambulances.

“Due to poor night visibility, the deputy commander did not initially recognize the vehicles as ambulances,” the IDF said. “Only later, after approaching the vehicles and scanning them, was it discovered that these were indeed rescue teams.”

The IDF said that six of those killed were identified “in a retrospective examination as Hamas terrorists,” raising the question of whether the troops opened fire on ambulances before knowing if there were any militants amongst the vehicles. The military did not identify which of those killed it believed were terrorists or provide any evidence.

About 15 minutes later, the troops opened fire on a Palestinian United Nations vehicle. The investigation concluded this was a result of “operational errors” and was “in breach of regulations.”

“The examination determined that the fire in the first two incidents resulted from an operational misunderstanding by the troops, who believed they faced a tangible threat from enemy forces,” the IDF said. In its initial account of the events, the Israeli military said the two Palestinians killed in the first incident were members of Hamas. It’s unclear if Israel is now walking back that claim.

“The third incident involved a breach of orders during a combat setting,” the IDF said.

The bodies were then removed and buried in a mass grave along with the ambulances and other vehicles. The IDF defended the field commanders’ decision to remove the bodies but acknowledged “the decision to crush the vehicles was wrong.”

“There was no attempt to conceal the event, which was discussed with international organizations and the UN, including coordination for the removal of bodies,” the IDF said.

The PRCS declined to comment on the investigation.

In the wake of the attack, the organization said the incident “can only be considered a war crime punishable under international humanitarian law, which the occupation continues to violate before the eyes of the entire world.”

Despite being dead for more than 300 years, this Indian ruler is still making waves in the nation’s politics.

Aurangzeb Alamgir has become so central to India’s fraught political moment, his memory is leading to sectarian violence across the country.

The sixth emperor of the famed Mughal dynasty, he is considered by many detractors to be a tyrant who brutalized women, razed Hindu temples, forced religious conversions and waged wars against Hindu and Sikh rulers.

And in a nation now almost entirely under the grip of Hindu nationalists, Aurangzeb’s “crimes” have been seized upon by right-wing politicians, turning him into the ultimate Muslim villain whose memory needs to be erased.

Sectarian clashes erupted in the western city of Nagpur last month, with hardline Hindu nationalists calling for the demolition of his tomb, which is about 400 kilometers away.

Seemingly spurred on by a recent Bollywood movie’s portrayal of Aurangzeb’s violent conquests against a revered Hindu king, the violence led to dozens of injuries and arrests, prompting Nagpur authorities to impose a curfew.

As tensions between the two communities continue to mount, many right-wing Hindus are using Aurangzeb’s name to highlight historical injustices against the country’s majority faith.

And they are causing fears among India’s 200 million Muslims.

‘Admiration and aversion’

The Mughals ruled during an era that saw conquest, domination and violent power struggles but also an explosion of art and culture as well as periods of deep religious syncretism – at least until Aurangzeb.

Founded by Babur in 1526, the empire at its height covered an area that stretched from modern-day Afghanistan in central Asia to Bangladesh in the east, coming to an end in 1857 when the British overthrew the final emperor, Bahadur Shah II.

Its most well-known leaders – Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan – famously promoted religious harmony and heavily influenced much of Indian culture, building iconic sites such as the Taj Mahal and Delhi’s Red Fort.

But among this more tolerant company, Aurangzeb is considered something of a dark horse – a religious zealot and complex character.

Aurangzeb “evoked a mixture of admiration and aversion right from the moment of his succession to the Mughal throne,” said Abhishek Kaicker, a historian of Persianate South Asia at UC Berkeley.

“He attracted a degree of revulsion because of the way in which he came to the throne by imprisoning his father and killing his brothers… At the same time, he drew admiration and loyalty for his personal unostentatiousness and piety, his unrivaled military power that led to the expansion of the Mughal realm, his political acumen, administrative efficiency, and reputation for justice and impartiality.”

Born in 1618 to Shah Jahan (of Taj Mahal fame) and his wife Mumtaz Mahal (for whom it was built), historians describe the young prince as a devout, solemn figure, who showed early signs of leadership.

He held several appointments from the age of 18, in all of which he established himself as a capable commander. The glory of the Mughal empire reached its zenith under his father, and Aurangzeb’s scrambled for control of what was then the richest throne in the world

So when Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, the stage was set for a bitter war of succession between Aurangzeb and his three siblings in which he would eventually come face-to-face with his eldest brother, Dara Shikoh, a champion of a syncretic Hindu-Muslim culture.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his ailing father in 1658 and defeated his brother the year after, before forcibly parading him in chains on a filthy elephant on the streets of Delhi.

“The favorite and pampered son of the most magnificent of the Great Mughals was now clad in a travel-tainted dress of the coarsest cloth,” wrote Jadunath Sarkar in “A Short History of Aurangzib.”

“With a dark dingy-colored turban, such as only the poorest wear, on his head. No necklace or jewel adorning his person.”

Dara Shikoh was later murdered.

A sudden shift

By now, Aurangzeb’s authority had reached extraordinary heights, and under his leadership the Mughal empire reached its greatest geographical extent.

He commanded a degree of respect and for the first half of his reign, ruled with an iron fist, albeit with relative tolerance for the majority Hindu faith.

Until about 1679, there were no reports of temples being broken, nor any imposition of “jizya” or tax on non-Muslim subjects, according to Nadeem Rezavi, a professor of History at India’s Aligarh University. Aurangzeb behaved, “just like his forefathers,” Rezavi said, explaining how some Hindus even held high rank within his government.

In 1680 however, that all changed, as he embraced a form of religious intolerance that reverberates to this day.

The zealot ruler demoted his Hindu statesmen, turning friends into foes and launching a long and unpopular war in the Deccan, which included the violent suppression of the Marathas, a Hindu kingdom revered to this day by India’s right-wing politicians – including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Members of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been quick to point out the cruelties inflicted on Hindus by Aurangzeb – forcing conversions, reinstating the jizya, and murdering non-Muslims.

He also waged war on the Sikhs, executing the religion’s ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur, an act makes Aurangzeb a figure of loathing among many Sikhs to this day.

This brutality was on display in the recently released film “Chhaava,” which depicts Aurangzeb as a barbaric Islamist who killed Sambhaji, the son of the most famous Maratha king, Chhatrapati Shivaji.

“Chhaava has ignited people’s anger against Aurangzeb,” said Devendra Fadnavis, the chief minister of Maharashtra, where Nagpur is located.

Muslims alleged members of the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) burned a sheet bearing verses from their holy Quran.

Yajendra Thakur, a member of the VHP group, denied the allegations but restated his desire to have Aurangzeb’s tomb removed.

‘Neither praise nor blame’

Modi’s invocation of the man who led India before him is no surprise.

The prime minister, who wears his religion on his sleeve, has been a long-time member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing paramilitary organization that advocates the establishment of Hindu hegemony within India. It argues the country’s Hindus have been historically oppressed – first by the Mughals, then by the British colonizers who followed.

And many of them want every trace of this history gone.

The Maharashtra district where he is buried, once known as Aurangabad, was renamed after Shivaji’s son in 2023. The triumphs of his forefathers, the great king Akbar and Shah Jahan, have been written out of history textbooks, Rezavi said, or not taught in schools.

“They are trying to revert history and replace it with myth, something of their own imagination,” Rezavi said. “Aurangzeb is being used to demonize a community.”

Modi’s BJP denies using the Mughal emperor’s name to defame India’s Muslims. But his invocation of India’s former rulers is causing fear and anxiety among the religious minority today.

While historians agree that he was a dark, complex figure, and don’t contest his atrocities, Rezavi said it is necessary to recognize that he existed at a time when “India as a concept” didn’t exist.

“We are talking about a time when there was no constitution, there was no parliament, there was no democracy,” Rezavi said.

Kaicker seemingly agrees. Such historical figures “deserve neither praise nor blame,” he said.

“They have to be understood in the context of their own time, which is quite distant from our own.”

Back in Nagpur, demands for the tomb’s removal have gone unanswered, with some members of the Hindu far right even dismissing the calls for demolition.

Local Muslim resident Asif Qureshi said his hometown has never seen violence like that which unfolded last month, condemning the clashes that convulsed the historically peaceful city.

“This is a stain on our city’s history,” he said.

If the idea of robots taking on humans in a road race conjures dystopian images of android athletic supremacy, then fear not, for now at least.

More than 20 two-legged robots competed in the world’s first humanoid half-marathon in China on Saturday, and – though technologically impressive – they were far from outrunning their human masters over the long distance.

Teams from several companies and universities took part in the race, a showcase of China’s advances on humanoid technology as it plays catch-up with the US, which still boasts the more sophisticated models.

And the chief of the winning team said their robot – though bested by the humans in this particular race – was a match for similar models from the West, at a time when the race to perfect humanoid technology is hotting up.

Coming in a variety of shapes and sizes, the robots jogged through Beijing’s southeastern Yizhuang district, home to many of the capital’s tech firms.

Over the past few months, videos of China’s humanoid robots performing bike rides, roundhouse kicks and side flips have blown up the internet, often amplified by state media as a key potential driver of economic growth.

In a 2023 policy document, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology identified the humanoid robotics industry as a “new frontier in technological competition,” setting a 2025 target for mass production and secure supply chains for core components.

Fears have mounted in recent years about how artificial intelligence – and robots – may one day outsmart humans.

And while AI models are fast gaining ground, sparking concern for everything from security to the future of work, Saturday’s race suggested that humans still at least have the upper hand when it comes to running.

The robots were pitted against 12,000 human contestants, running side by side with them in a fenced-off lane.

After setting off from a country park, participating robots had to overcome slight slopes and a winding 21-kilometer (13-mile) circuit before they could reach the finish line, according to state-run outlet Beijing Daily.

Just as human runners needed to replenish themselves with water, robot contestants were allowed to get new batteries during the race. Companies were also allowed to swap their androids with substitutes when they could no longer compete, though each substitution came with a 10-minute penalty.

The first robot across the finish line, Tiangong Ultra – created by the Beijing Humanoid Robot Innovation Center – finished the route in two hours and 40 minutes. That’s nearly two hours short of the human world record of 56:42, held by Ugandan runner Jacob Kiplimo. The winner of the men’s race on Saturday finished in 1 hour and 2 minutes.

Tang Jian, chief technology officer for the robotics innovation center, said Tiangong Ultra’s performance was aided by long legs and an algorithm allowing it to imitate how humans run a marathon.

“I don’t want to boast but I think no other robotics firms in the West have matched Tiangong’s sporting achievements,” Tang said, according to the Reuters news agency, adding that the robot switched batteries just three times during the race.

The 1.8-meter robot came across a few challenges during the race, which involved the multiple battery changes. It also needed a helper to run alongside it with his hands hovering around his back, in case of a fall.

Most of the robots required this kind of support, with a few tied to a leash. Some were led by a remote control.

Amateur human contestants running in the other lane had no difficulty keeping up, with the curious among them taking out their phones to capture the robotic encounters as they raced along.

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is defined by “biological sex” under the country’s equality law – excluding transgender women – in a case that is expected to impact accommodations for trans women in bathrooms, hospital wards, sports clubs and more.

The court ruling on Wednesday is limited to defining the term “woman” within the country’s Equality Act 2010, meaning trans women are no longer protected from discrimination as women, although they remain protected from discrimination in other forms.

But in practice, the impacts of the ruling are likely to be wider than the court suggested. The UK’s equalities regulator has said it will issue new guidance on single-sex spaces following the decision.

The ruling has also energized the polarized debate surrounding transgender rights.

Judges said the ruling should not be seen as the victory of one side over another. But trans rights advocacy groups have called that “an insult” and condemned the court decision as exclusionary, contradictory and concerning for the trans and non-binary communities.

The group of women’s rights campaigners that brought the case, For Women Scotland, popped champagne corks outside the court and said it was grateful for a decision that recognized the need for protections based on biological differences.

Here’s what the ruling means in practice:

Implications for equalities law and single-sex spaces

The head of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said Thursday that it will issue new guidance on single-sex spaces by this summer.

Those spaces will likely include women-only bathrooms, changing rooms, hospital wards, hostels, prisons, sports clubs, domestic violence women’s shelters and more.

Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said in an interview with the BBC on Thursday that “the ruling is enormously consequential,” and it brings “clarity” that “single-sex services like changing rooms, must be based on biological sex.”

Falkner said that trans people can advocate for neutral third spaces, such as unisex toilets or changing rooms, given that “the law is quite clear” that they “should not be using that single-sex facility.”

Falkner also said the UK’s National Health Service must update its guidance on single-sex medical wards to be based on biological sex. Current NHS policy is that trans people should be accommodated according to the way they dress, their names and their pronouns.

The ruling will also have implications for policing and prisons. The British Transport Police said in a statement that it would adopt an interim position that “any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.”

Meanwhile, many businesses and organizations have said they are reviewing the ruling and not yet making any changes. British media report that the EHRC has been inundated with questions from businesses and public bodies regarding what the ruling means for schools, office buildings and women’s charities.

Trans people remain protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic under the equality legislation. The law also protects against discrimination by perception, which is when someone thinks you are the opposite sex.

Impacts on women’s sports

The Supreme Court decision will impact women’s sports, but exactly how is unclear given that new guidance is in the works and many sports bodies and grassroots sports organizations already have their own policies in place.

Faulkner echoed the stance of World Athletics, telling the BBC that trans women cannot take part in women’s sports.

Guidance on transgender inclusion has already been published by all the sports councils covering England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as UK Sport, which supports high-performance athletes. But it’s not yet clear how that guidance will be updated.

“We are now considering what the ruling means for grassroots sports and clubs,” a Sport England spokesperson said in a statement.

What it means for transgender people

The trans community is “absolutely devastated, because this is clear that but there is no upside to this. We have been basically stripped of the right to exist within UK society,” said jane fae, one of the directors of the advocacy group TransActual UK.

Under that act, trans women could obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) for legal recognition of their female gender. But following the Supreme Court Ruling, those certificates appear to be only relevant in terms of deaths, marriages and pensions.

While the UK equalities watchdog talked of “clarity,” trans rights campaigners have said the Supreme Court Ruling raised more questions than answers, especially when it comes to the utility of gender recognition certificates and enforcement of “women’s spaces.”

TransActual has criticized the court for not providing a clear definition of the terms “women’s spaces” or “biological sex.” The ruling says a biological woman is someone “who was at birth of the female sex,” but it’s unclear how intersex people fit into the ruling or what accommodations should be made for trans women who have female anatomy parts (like breasts).

Culture war divisions

Although the court said it was not its place to rule on public arguments on the meaning of gender or sex, the decision has taken aim at a central argument of trans activists and progressive groups — that trans women are women.

And in doing so, it has ignited fears of broader “culture wars,” divisive policies and new restrictions in the UK.

On gendered bathrooms, for example, “the UK has had a much more laissez-faire attitude… what we seem likely to be about to see is the sort of imposition of an American style, ‘this is how loos should be,’ sort of thing,” fae said. “It’s Trump-ian.”

Following the ruling, JK Rowling, who financially backed the case, posted on social media: “I love it when a plan comes together.” The author and women’s rights campaigner has been previously criticized for anti-trans comments.

Other campaigners celebrated outside the court, singing “women’s rights are human rights” and holding up signs reading “Fact is not hate: only women get pregnant.”

But the backlash has been swift. Other women’s rights groups and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations have condemned the ruling and said it rolls back protections provided by the Equality Act.

“Any backsliding should be of concern to everyone that stands against discrimination and oppression in all its forms,” said Scottish feminist organization Engender.

Stonewall, an LGBTQ+ rights charity, said that it shared “the deep concern at the widespread implications” of the court ruling. “It will be incredibly worrying for the trans community and all of us who support them,” it said in a statement, also highlighting that trans people are still protected against discrimination.

A coalition of pro-trans organizations and unions has called for a protest in London on Saturday, saying that the ruling “represents the culmination of the concerted transphobic campaigning we have seen in recent years.”

What it means for British politics

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has so far been silent on the ruling. But a UK government spokesperson said single-sex spaces “will always be protected by this government.”

“We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs,” the spokesperson said.

Starmer and the Labour Party have long struggled with how to address issues of sex and gender. The Supreme Court Decision means the prime minister can avoid wading into the divisive debate and point to the court’s language.

Meanwhile, the opposition Conservative Party has attacked him for past statements that trans women are women and calling for inclusivity in the debate.

“Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either,” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said in reaction to the court ruling which see called “a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious.”

Badenoch has also called for a review of equality acts and the Gender Recognition Act “to ensure that they are there to prevent discrimination, not for social engineering.”

The government’s next challenge will be wrestling with how to ensure public bodies, businesses and organizations implement the changes surrounding single-sex spaces.

The death toll from a boat fire and capsizing in Congo earlier this week rose to 148 with more than 100 people still missing, officials said Friday. About 500 passengers were on board.

The wooden boat capsized Tuesday after catching fire on the Congo River in the country’s northwest, leaving at least 148 people dead and dozens missing, officials said.

The catastrophe began when a fire started as a woman was cooking on board the vessel, Compétent Loyoko, the river commissioner, told The Associated Press. Several passengers, including women and children, died after jumping into the water without being able to swim.

Dozens were saved, with many of the survivors badly burned. The search for the missing included rescue teams supported by the Red Cross and provincial authorities.

The motorized wooden boat caught fire near the town of Mbandaka, Loyoko said. The boat, HB Kongolo, had left the port of Matankumu for the Bolomba territory.

“The death toll among the 500 passengers on board was extremely high,” said Sen. Jean-Paul Boketsu Bofili of Equateur province Friday. “As we speak, more than 150 survivors suffering from third-degree burns are without humanitarian assistance.”

Deadly boat accidents are common in the central African country, where late-night travels and overcrowded vessels are often blamed. Authorities have struggled to enforce maritime regulations.

Congo’s rivers are a major means of transport for its more than 100 million people, especially in remote areas where infrastructure is poor or nonexistent. Hundreds have been killed in boat accidents in recent years as more people abandon the few available roads for wooden vessels packed with passengers and their goods.

“Our magnificent Congo River and the lakes our country abounds in have become huge cemeteries for the Congolese people. This is unacceptable,” said Bofili.