A British couple who has been imprisoned for almost eight months on unnamed charges has been released by the Taliban government of Afghanistan.
Following a court hearing on Friday, Peter Reynolds, 80, and his wife Barbara, 76, were released from prison and handed over to Richard Lindsay, the country’s special representative. Following Qatar’s direction, the decision was taken.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Abdul Qahar Balkhi, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, announced on social media that the couple had been detained in February for “violating” Afghan law, but he had not specified what had been done.
Officials from the UK quickly expressed relief and gratitude for the mediating nation.
According to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, “I welcome the release of Peter and Barbara Reynolds from their detention in Afghanistan, and I know that their family will greatly benefit from this long-awaited news.” “I want to pay tribute to Qatar’s crucial role.”
The Qatari Foreign Ministry announced in a statement on Friday afternoon that the couple had arrived in Doha, Qatar’s capital, and would later travel to London. Additionally, it expressed gratitude for the “fruitful cooperation” between British and Afghan officials.
Looking forward to returning
In July, UN human rights experts called on the Taliban to free them after warning of their “rapid deterioration” in both physical and mental health and stating that they “risiko irreparable harm or even death.”
Before their departure to Doha, the couple pictured together with Richard Lindsay, the country’s special representative, on Friday, with the couple standing at the Kabul airport.
“We received excellent treatment.” Barbara continued, “We are looking forward to seeing our children if we can.”
After getting married in Kabul in 1970, the couple has lived in Bamiyan, Afghanistan’s central province, for almost 20 years, and are now running educational programs. Additionally, they became citizens of Afghanistan.
The Taliban remained in Afghanistan when they reclaimed control of the country in 2021, refusing British officials’ orders.
The Reynolds family in the UK had repeatedly pleaded for their release, claiming that they were being treated unfairly and detained on unspecified grounds.
The UK’s Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan minister, Hamish Falconer, stated in a statement that he was “relieved… their ordeal has come to an end” and that the London government had “worked intensively and has supported the family throughout.”
The release comes after Adam Boehler, Washington’s special envoy to the hostages, made a rare trip to Kabul on Saturday to discuss potential prisoner exchange.
Mahmood Habibi, a citizen of the United States, is incarcerated there.
The government is completely destroyed by Gen Z demonstrations in Nepal.
Curfews are in place. Soldiers patrolling the streets. A prime minister’s resignation forced. Difficulty turned out to be at the protests after a social media blackout and years of corruption charges.
After KP Sharma Oli resigned during the unrest, Nepal’s army is currently in talks with demonstrators to elect an interim leader. What will Nepal do next, and why are there so many young people upset?
South Korea has suggested that problems with United States visas for Korean workers must be resolved before a mooted $350bn investment package can move forward.
Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said on Friday that Seoul would work with Washington to address the concerns. Following a high-profile raid by US authorities on a plant in the state of Georgia, South Korea has increased efforts to persuade Washington to resolve disputes over visas and tariffs, illustrating the clash of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies with his calls for foreign investment.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“This is not a prerequisite for Korean investment in the US, but it is a very important issue in practice,” Cho told reporters. “We’ll do our utmost to ensure that the visa problem is resolved in some way before substantial investments begin.”
Earlier this month, more than 300 employees at a battery plant under construction in Georgia were detained in an immigration sweep, before being released and sent home.
The incident prompted calls from companies for a new visa category to make it easier for skilled Korean workers to help set up new factories and train US workers.
‘Bewildering’
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung called the raid “bewildering” and warned it could deter future investment. He said Seoul was pressing Washington “to ensure that visa issuance for investment-related purposes operates normally”.
Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo, who returned from talks in Washington this week, said he raised the issue of visa restrictions affecting Korean workers and other obstacles that threaten investment plans.
After the US announced earlier this year that it planned a tariff of 25 percent on South Korean imports, Seoul entered talks and in late July secured an informal agreement to drop the tariffs to 15 percent.
However, the two countries have since been locked in negotiations to resolve outstanding issues and cement that agreement within a wider bilateral trade deal.
Trump said in July that the agreement included a South Korean package worth $350bn for investments “owned and controlled” by the US.
South Korea described the investments as a “fund” to support South Korean companies’ entry into the US, which would be directed at industries where South Korea possesses “strengths”, such as shipbuilding, semiconductors, secondary batteries, biotechnology and energy.
For Seoul, securing fairer terms has become a test of its ability to protect national interests while managing a vital economic relationship with Washington.
Meanwhile, the visa row highlights the contradiction between Trump’s bid to attract foreign capital and the aggressive immigration crackdown.
Images of workers in handcuffs and chains during the arrests caused deep outrage in South Korea, in what many see as a betrayal of an ally.
Protestors in South Korea earlier this month mocked Trump and accused Washington of luring investment only to criminalise workers. One man’s sign read: “You told us to invest, only to arrest us! Is this how you treat an ally?”
After participating in a debate in parliament wearing the colors of the Palestinian flag, Dutch MP Esther Ouwehand was instructed to change her outfit. She later returned in a watermelon print.
After making comments about conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot last week in what right-wingers in the US believe to be a political assassination, Jimmy Kimmel’s live show was pulled off the air by Disney-owned ABC.
However, Kimmel’s removal is alleged to violate his First Amendment rights to free speech, which are guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The removal of Kimmel’s show was the subject of a protest on Thursday that gathered hundreds of Kimmel fans in Burbank, New York, and Hollywood.
What exactly happened and what the US Constitution says about free speech rights are examined more closely.
Jimmy Kimmel’s fate, what happened to him?
Conservative ally Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on September 10 while giving a speech at a university in Utah in front of a crowd of about 3, 000 people.
Tyler Robinson, 22, was detained on suspicion of killing Kirk after a 33-hour manhunt. Since then, Robinson has been charged with aggravated murder.
Some right-wing figures associated with Donald Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) wing have referred to Robinson as “left-wing”.
Kimmel stated on his show on Monday that “The MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and using all means to gain political points from it.”
Kimmel criticized Trump’s response to Kirk’s death, saying that he was “like a son.” An adult grieving the death of a friend does not do this. A four-year-old despises a goldfish in this manner,” Kimmel said.
Broadcasters Nexstar and Sinclair announced that they would discontinue Kimmel’s late-night program after a backlash.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman, Brendan Carr, added that Kimmel, Disney, and ABC would all face legal action.
In an interview with CNN, Carr’s response was criticized by Anna Gomez, the only Democratic member in the FCC. Gomez claimed that “this administration is increasingly repressing lawful expression.”
The FCC has the authority to grant broadcasters licenses, including ABC and its affiliate stations.
According to Democratic critics, Kimmel’s freedom of speech is violated by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits his show from air.
What is stated in the First Amendment?
Free speech is protected by the First Amendment. There is a provision in the bill that states: “Congress shall make no law repressing the right of the people to assemble peacefully, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances,” prohibiting the free exercise of that right, or denying the right to free speech, the press, or the people’s right to peaceful assembly.
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that the government could not “impose a system of informal censorship” by putting pressure on private companies.
A Rhode Island agency threatened to prosecute book and magazine distributors for selling objectionable publications after the release of this letter.
The Supreme Court ruled last year that plaintiffs must show that the government’s actions directly caused them harm and exceeded the persuasion’s guidelines.
Was Kimmel’s show’s elimination constitutional?
According to experts, Kimmel’s show’s cancellation violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
Carr’s actions are “a classic case of unconstitutional jawboning,” according to Ronnie London, general counsel for the free speech advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The FCC says on its website that “the public interest is best served by allowing free expression of views.”
“Communications law and policy seek to encourage responsive “counter-speech” from others rather than suppressing speech.” Even though some viewpoints or expressions may be extremely offensive, following this principle allows for the most diverse and opposing opinions to be expressed.
What was the response to Kimmel’s removal?
The importance of upholding free speech rights has been highlighted by numerous Democrats, politicians, Hollywood figures, and other talk show hosts.
On Friday, former US President Barack Obama posted a number of articles and commentary on X, saying, “This commentary makes a clear, powerful statement about the importance of free speech, whether the speaker is Jimmy Kimmel, Charlie Kirk, or MAGA supporters or MAGA opponents.”
Whether Charlie Kirk or Jimmy Kimmel, MAGA supporters or MAGA opponents, the statement made in this commentary is clear and powerful about why freedom of speech is at the core of democracy and must be protected.
Obama stated in a previous post that “media companies need to start standing up to the First Amendment rather than capitulating to it.” This is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was intended to stop.
At a party in New York on Thursday, former late-night host David Letterman said, “We all see where this is going, correct? ” It is managed media. It is not good. It’s absurd. It’s absurd.
The state under Donald Trump has a “horrifying record of enforcing speech, extorting private companies, and removing the full weight of the government’s censorship hammer on First Amendment rights,” according to Ken Martin, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Adam Schiff, a senator from California, wrote on X on Thursday that the administration’s “responsible” actions on the free press have been the most obscene attacks in American history. What will remain of the First Amendment?”
The political right, in contrast, has erupted in celebration of Kimmel’s show’s suspension.
On his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, “Great News for America: The ratings-challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED.”
“Congratulations to ABC for having finally the guts to carry out the required work.” If that’s the case, Kimmel has ZERO talent and worse ratings than Colbert. On Fake News NBC, Jimmy and Seth are now two total losers, Trump continued, referring to late-night show hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.
In an effort to finalize an agreement that would allow the well-known video-sharing app TikTok to continue operating in the United States despite threats of a ban, US President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet with his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, on Friday.
Trump, who has praised TikTok for helping him gain young followers during the November presidential election, did not provide details on the nature of the deal, but implied he was looking to secure TikTok’s continued use in the US to appeal to young Americans.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
TikTok boasts about 175 million users in the US, making it one of the top five social media apps.
The platform has experienced issues since last year when lawmakers passed legislation to require the platform to sell its shares to the Chinese internet company ByteDance.
Due to security concerns that Beijing might be able to use TikTok’s algorithm to spread Chinese propaganda, both Democrats and Republicans backed the legislation.
There are reports that Trump allies are set to buy the app, a move that could help US conservatives have more influence on young Americans who make up the majority of TikTok users, experts say.
What we are aware of is:
In a bid by TikTok and its Chinese-based parent company, ByteDance, to stop a law that would require the sale of the short-video app by January 19 or face a ban on national security grounds, outside the US Supreme Court, in Washington, DC, on January 10, 2025 [Marko Djurica/Reuters]
What deal is Trump aiming for?
Following the law passed in April of 2024 that forbids the app from January 19, 2025, it is hoped that a deal will prevent TikTok from being banned in the US unless parent company ByteDance sells a majority stake to non-Chinese owners. Trump should be eager to strike a deal that would allow a group of US investors to instead buy into it.
Details are still unclear, but the deal was agreed in Madrid on Monday, during trade talks between Chinese and US representatives.
Trump is now calling Xi Jinping on Friday to confirm that statement.
Technically speaking, the Chinese company technically imposed a sales ban on January 19 because it refused to do so by the deadline. However, Trump’s government has not yet enforced it, with the president extending the deadline several times.
Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that once more extended the deadline for bans until December 16.
According to US media outlets including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, according to sources with knowledge of the deal, Beijing and Washington will likely control 80% of TikTok, while China will control 20%, including ByteDance, according to a source with knowledge of the agreement.
Trump, who first moved to ban TikTok during his first term as president, due to similar security concerns, has softened his stance towards the app in his second term. In the run-up to the November election, the US president said American investors are willing to invest in the app. TikTok is credited with attracting young voters to his campaign.
“We have a group of significant corporations looking to purchase it,” the statement read. And you know, the kids want it so badly”, Trump told reporters on Tuesday.
“My parents called me up,” I recall. They want it for their children, not for themselves. They say, if I don’t get it done, they are in big trouble with their kids. And I think it’s fantastic. Trump continued, “I detest to see value like that being thrown out the window.”
Who are the US investors wanting to buy TikTok?
According to experts, the agreement will help establish Trump as the “president who saved TikTok” in the US. They also warn that TikTok might still be used to defame Americans under Trump’s administration.
At least two of Trump’s closest billionaire allies are reported to be part of those whose companies are looking to buy the app: billionaire Marc Andreessen, cofounder of Silicon Valley venture capitalist firm Andreessen Horowitz, and Larry Ellison, the billionaire cofounder of tech firm Oracle.
Andreessen and his business partner Ben Horowitz each donated $2.5 million to Trump’s campaign during the presidential election of 2024.
Ellison, who is one of the richest men in the world and has a $362 billion fortune, is even more close to Trump. The US president said in January that he would be open to Ellison buying the app. The White House selected tech company Oracle, with a headquarters in Austin, Texas, to host TikTok data in the US, according to a Reuters news report from January.
Ellison’s control of significant US media channels would be strengthened by taking over TikTok. In August, his son, David Ellison, took over ownership of media conglomerate Paramount Skydance, which counts news and entertainment broadcaster CBS as one of its companies.
According to media expert Marc Owen Jones, there are legitimate concerns about whether Washington might have access to TikTok data in the US under Trump, and that the deal should concern those who identify as politically left.
According to Jones, “Trump is all about himself in many ways, so essentially he is getting this deal as well,” according to Jones, “because he is also getting a media empire that will be run by Trump-friendly allies who are likely to ensure that this platform is not going to steer too far to the left.”
How has China reacted to the proposed deal?
Beijing wanted trade and technology concessions in exchange for the TikTok divestment, according to US officials present at the Madrid trade talks, but it’s not clear what Washington agreed to.
Many Chinese people believe that the US app’s proposed ban on Chinese businesses is unfair and discriminatory. TikTok is banned in China, while the local version, Douyin, is in use, but Chinese people have often voiced pride in the app’s worldwide popularity.
Some residents of Beijing expressed their support for a deal that will be reached on Friday with Washington to keep TikTok online in the US, as they reported to Al Jazeera on the streets this week.
In light of President Trump’s ongoing trade war and the rising geopolitical tensions relating to China’s growing influence on the global stage, some also expressed hope that the agreement will improve relations between the two superpowers.
China has consistently denied claims by US lawmakers that Beijing pressures apps like TikTok to collect personal information for the state.
Beijing has also criticized the US government’s efforts to compel the sale of the app. The Chinese government issued a strong rebuke of TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew in Congress in March 2023, claiming it would never force businesses to mine data.
Does China pose a security threat to the US via apps like TikTok?
The US’s security concerns are legitimate, according to experts.
According to Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Fergus Ryan, “there really is no firewall between the data that tech firms have access to and that the Chinese Communist Party and the state itself can access,” according to Fergus Ryan.
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testifies during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on the platform’s consumer privacy and data security practices and impact on children, on Thursday, March 23, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington]Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo]
What makes TikTok so well-known in the US?
Young Americans have a lot of interest in the social media app, both as a news source and as an entertainment source. About 59 percent of Americans under 30 use the app, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center, with those aged between 13 and 17 being the biggest group of daily users.
The app is also increasingly popular with US adults over the age of 30, with usage rising from 21 percent to 33 percent between 2021 and 2023. About a third of American adults claim to use TikTok overall.
Increasingly, TikTok is also a platform on which businesses can reach potential customers as they leverage partnerships with influential TikTok stars for advertisements.
With 15.2 million users on Trump’s own account, the app has grown to be a necessary tool for politicians to reach young people as well.
