内容摘要：I have made it plain throughout: Here I stand. Not because I am the all-knowing arbiter of right from wrong – any honest writer is aware of how exhausting and foolish that can be – but because I am obliged to tell the truth clearly and, if need be, repeatedly.

I have made it plain throughout: Here I stand. Not because I am the all-knowing arbiter of right from wrong – any honest writer is aware of how exhausting and foolish that can be – but because I am obliged to tell the truth clearly and, if need be, repeatedly.

Work on the reservoir is expected to begin in 2027 and finish by 2032, with an estimated investment of $1.6bn.Of that sum, $400m is allocated for compensation and relocation of about 2,500 people from various villages.

“We have a firm commitment to dialogue and reaching agreements” with those affected, Vergara said.If the reservoir is not built, “we’ll regret it in 15 years,” she said.Civil society groups warn that as many as 12,000 people could ultimately be affected by the project, which enjoys the support of President Jose Raul Mulino, as the entire Indio River basin would be affected.

The 80-kilometre-long Panama Canal handles six percent of global maritime trade and remains vital to Panama’s economy.It is also at the centre of a diplomatic row, as former US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to “take back” the waterway, handed over to Panama in 1999, citing alleged Chinese influence.

For the second time in his presidency, Donald Trump’s first official state visit is to Saudi Arabia.

For the second time in his presidency, Donald Trump has chosen Saudi Arabia as the destination for his first official state visit, following brief stops in Italy and the Vatican for Pope Francis’s funeral.Confident that a careful reading of his writings would expose the baselessness of the charges, Mahmudabad’s lawyers approached the Supreme Court to seek his release and a stay on the police investigation. Before the hearing, however, 200 academics, including vice chancellors and heads of academic institutions, issued a statement urging the court to take a hard line against him. They accused Mahmudabad of trying to “destabilise communal harmony, undermine institutional integrity, and erode gender equity”. They described his posts as “veiled misogyny cloaked in pseudo-academic inquiry” and urged the Supreme Court to consider their broader socio-legal implications.

During the hearing, Mahmudabad’s lawyer read aloud the posts in question. The court responded sceptically, suggesting that his words carried double meanings and amounted to dog whistles. “Someone with an analytical mind will understand the language. … The words used may seem innocuous but can target unintended audiences,” the bench remarked.The Supreme Court then constituted an SIT comprising three senior police officers to “understand the complexity and properly appreciate the language used in the posts”.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s orders created the impression that Mahmudabad’s words could not be accepted at face value. While his statements might appear benign, there must be some hidden meaning or ulterior motive lurking beneath the surface.Public reaction to the court delegating its interpretive duties to the police was one of shock. Was it so difficult for the court to read, analyse and interpret the posts itself? Did the members of the court not have analytical minds to read and understand what was written by Mahmudabad? Was this not their job? Or was the court shying away from committing itself to a position?