Search

Grandma banned from babysitting after ignoring daughter's simple request

A new mum has banned her own mother from babysitting duties, after she blatantly refused to follow a few basic safety instructions. The young mum took to Reddit to share her plight, after moving back home so she could save up to buy a house, which at the time her mum "very enthusiastically agreed to". But, after a few months of living together again, the 23-year-old mum has had more things added onto her plate, as she's constantly worried about her own mum not following her instructions when it comes to her son, who was born in September. She said that her mum has been "constantly checking to see if he has teeth" or pushing them to "stop feeding him milk", or even trying to "give him really complicated food" like candy yams. And whenever she expresses her concerns, her mum nonchalantly responds with: "I did with you and you survived". It reached a peak when her mother gave her baby boy some water, which according to The World Health Organisation, children under six months should not be drinking anything else other than breast milk or formula. This is because babies stomachs are very small and their kidneys are still developing, so they are unable to process water in the same way adults do, plus it puts them at risk of water intoxication and nutrition loss. The grandmother blatantly ignored her daughter's request and gave her grandson water anyways responding with, "See, he's fine. He isn't dead." That was the young mum's breaking point and she immediately took her baby away. "She will no longer be watching the baby alone since she is constantly overstepping my boundaries and doing everything I ask her to not do," she wrote. But she said that things are complicated since they're living together and now her mother isn't speaking to her because she made her "feel like a bad parent and grandparent." The young mum questioned whether she was the bad guy in this scenario, but other Reddit users were quick to defend her for setting her boundaries. "One would hope for a *little* bit more for their kid than "not dead"," one wrote. "This is an incredibly low standard for her to be proud of maintaining", another added. Image: Getty

Family & Pets

Bride sparks feud for banning her niece from her big day

A bride-to-be has sparked a feud for deciding to ban her sister’s “loud and distracting” toddler from her wedding ceremony, with the bride asking social media users for advice. The bride was only weeks away from her intimate destination wedding, which included a guest list of only a few friends and close family. After being met with a difficult decision, the bride took to Reddit to share how a massive family feud had erupted in the weeks before the big day. “My sister is bringing her one-year-old toddler. The child is more than welcome — she’s part of the family and we want her there as part of the day,” she began. “However, as she’s still very young (and very loud at times), I’ve asked that somebody takes her out during the ceremony if she’s being distracting, shouting and babbling loudly.” “I know that this will probably happen as she’s constantly chatting loudly and is never quiet.” “But it’s only for half an hour and she can be as loud as she likes for the rest of the day.” “I just want everybody to be able to focus on the ceremony and I don’t want the distraction.” The bride said she was worried about sounding selfish, but then admitted that she was allowed to be selfish on her big day, and wanted all eyes on her and the groom. “We want everyone to be able to enjoy them and, to be honest, we want the guests’ attention focused on us,” she said. However, after the bride told her sister of the plans, things didn’t go down well. “My sister has told me I’m being an a****** for ‘excluding’ my niece from the ceremony and therefore by default ‘excluding’ my brother-in-law who will be the one to take her out,” the bride said. “She says that I’m asking him and the one-year-old to go all that way just for the evening meal as they will miss the ceremony and that the toddler will most likely miss that too as it will be after bedtime.” “I’ve told her that there’s a whole afternoon of relaxing things going on — photos, cake, a little walk outside and late lunch that they will be part of but apparently she’s still really annoyed with me.” The bride says her sister is now “threatening” to attend the wedding alone, leaving her partner and their daughter at home. “We’ve called her bluff and said if that’s what she wants to do then we understand,” she said. “To be honest, she’s p***ing us off so much that we’d be fine with all three of them not coming at this point.” “I don’t think that I’m asking anything unreasonable.” “All I want is a peaceful, relaxed ceremony where we can all focus on what’s going on without a toddler babbling away. “Also, to be honest, even if this WAS an unreasonable ask, surely as it’s my wedding day then it’s up to me? Isn’t it the one day of my life when I can do literally anything I want?” The post was quickly met with hundreds of comments, with most people flocking to the bride’s defence. One person wrote, “This is basic event etiquette, but it seems like sis cannot be relied on to follow basic etiquette - or even asked to do so without herself acting like a toddler.” Another suggested: “Removing a disruptive baby from a formal event would be normal etiquette, but if you specifically had to ask in advance, I’ll guess she’s got a history of not doing so.” “Your wedding, your rules. You could have gone completely child-free, all you asked was for the common courtesy of taking her outside if she got noisy.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

A woman has banned her in-laws from seeing her newborn daughter after they “betrayed her trust” and directly went against her wishes. The new mum shared the story to Reddit, as she explained why she was cutting contact with her husband’s parents after they pierced her child’s ears without their knowledge or consent. “My husband is from a culture where it's not uncommon to pierce baby girls' ears and his mother started pestering me about getting my daughter's ears pierced a few days after she was born,” the 32-year-old mum began. “I made it clear that I would not be doing that, and that I'd be waiting until she's old enough to ask for it herself. We live in my country where piercing a baby's ears isn't common at all.” The new mum's world soon came crashing down after the baby spent a weekend with her grandparents, before she went back to her parents red in the face and screaming. “My mother-in-law was looking after her over the weekend and decided to pierce her ears without my knowledge or consent.” “When I saw this I threw a fit. My baby was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out.” The doctor advised the parent to take the earrings out as they were irritating the baby, but the issue didn’t end there. “I decided at that moment that my mother-in-law and everyone else on that side of the family (except for my sister-in-law, who's on my side about this) is going to have no alone contact with my daughter ever again - or at least until she's a teenager.” “My worry is that she'll do the same thing again, and to be frank, she's lost my trust entirely. I told her that if she had a problem with that, I'd report what she did to the police.” The husband of the baby girl reluctantly sided with his wife over the issue, despite saying it wasn’t a big deal and suggesting everyone move on from the incident. The story prompted a mixed response online, with some people saying the woman was overreacting and should work towards rebuilding trust with her in-laws. Others, however, had the opposite opinion, with one person saying, “Forget rebuilding trust, I'd be having them charged with assault.” Another person said, “They mutilated a child and they knew it was against the parents wishes. These people have serious problems. Not that I'd press charges, but getting holes poked in someone else's kid is a huge thing.” Image credits: Getty Images

Family & Pets

Woman receives lifetime ban from cruise line over "illegal" item

A 42-year-old mother has received a lifetime ban from Carnival Cruise Line voyages, after she attempted to board one of the company's ships with a seemingly innocent item. Melinda Van Veldhuizen, a nurse practitioner and mother of two from Texas, said she was treated "like a criminal" when cruise ship employees found a bag of the CBD “sleep tight” gummies in her luggage while at a port in Miami. Melinda told local news station WPLG she packed the gummies to help her get some sleep on the August trip she had planned to take with her family to celebrate both her 21st wedding anniversary with her husband and her son’s senior year of high school. Ms Van Veldhuizen was taken to a separate area of the security check-in when the discovery was made, and was questioned by Carnival security and police for two and a half hours. The mother was blocked from boarding the ship, and her husband and son also disembarked as they didn’t want to go on the cruise to Aruba, Curaçao and the Dominican Republic without her. The family had spent just under $9,000AUD on their planned vacation, Ms Van Veldhuizen’s attorney Daren Stabinski told the Washington Post. CBD is a compound commonly derived from hemp that doesn’t cause impairment or a “high,” and is different from marijuana's mind-altering substance of THC. CBD is becoming more readily available across the globe, and is used to treat ailments from chronic pain to sleeplessness. In most parts of the US, CBD products that contain no greater than 0.3 per cent of THC are legal. According to WPLG, Ms Van Veldhuizen’s gummies contained less than 0.01 per cent THC. Despite the product being legal in the state Ms Van Veldhuizen was departing from, the hemp product is prohibited by Carnival Cruise Lines. “While certain CBD products used for medicinal purposes may be legal in the US, they are not legal in all the ports we visit and therefore are also considered prohibited items,” its website states. Soon after Ms Van Veldhuizen was forbidden from going on the cruise she paid for, she received a letter from Carnival informing her she was banned from all Carnival ships for life. The letter signed by Captain Rocco Lubrano states that she will “not be permitted to sail on-board any Carnival Cruise Lines vessel in the future.” “This decision was based on your actions on the current cruise, which were a violation of the ship rules, interfered with the safety and/or enjoyment of other guests on the ship or caused harm to Carnival,” Mr Lubrano wrote. Ms Van Veldhuizen said she has taken more than a dozen Carnival cruises over the years and was freaked out by the letter and the whole experience, and was not expecting such a severe reaction. “I thought it was one of those situations where you’re like, ‘Oh shoot, I left a bottle of water in my backpack; you gotta throw it away,’ kind of thing like that happens at TSA,” she said. Ms Van Veldhuizen is pursuing an internal claim with Carnival, but has threatened to sue if her situation isn’t resolved “appropriately” and hired Mr Stabinski to assist her. “Out of all the cases I take, this one was just specifically outrageous,” Mr Stabinski said. Image credits: WPLG

Travel Trouble

5 times movies were banned for the silliest reasons

Sometimes films are banned for poor taste, extreme themes, or literal pornographic content. Other times, films are banned for ridiculous reasons. These are their stories. 1. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial <a href="http://www.ifc.com/shows/the-spoils-before-dying/blog/2015/06/10-movies-that-were-banned-for-crazy-reasons" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Apparently</a>, the governments of Norway, Finland, and Sweden worried that E.T. film portrays adults in such a bad light that if children were allowed to see it, it would provoke a full-scale revolt. The Swedish Board of Film Censorship banned anyone under the age of 12 from seeing the film in cinemas when it was released. 2. Back to the Future The much loved time travel romp is beloved around the world, not least of all because Michael J Fox is just so damn fun to watch. Unless you’re in China, that is, where any kind of time travel plot is outright banned from the country. 3. The Interview Written by Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg (the same guys who wrote comedy hits Superbad, This Is the End, and Pineapple Express) The Interview was always going to be edgy and hilarious. Little did anyone realise just how much trouble the film would prove to be as it neared release. The film is about a TV talk show host and his producer who are recruited by the US government to travel to North Korea and assassinate Kim Jong-un. Strangely, the North Korean dictator and his government didn’t see the humour in the film’s plot, and had hackers break into Sony’s computer networks. The regime also threatened violence against any American movie theatre screening the film, which worried most theatre chain enough that the film was shunted sideways into an unglamorous video-on-demand release. 4. Wonder Woman Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was the superhero 2017 desperately needed, and the worldwide box office and reviews reflected how joyously she was welcomed in just about every corner of the globe. One notable exception to this was Lebanon, where the film was officially banned by the nation’s government. The reason? Because of the war between the two countries, Lebanon bans its residents from having contact with Israel’s people or products. Star Gal Gadot is Israeli, meaning that the film was a no-show. 5. Beauty and the Beast (2017 version) While there are those of us who could have done without this (perfectly fine) remake, some Disney fans (and professional angry-about-everything-ers) balked when director Bill Condon announced that the film would feature Disney’s first “exclusively gay moment” in a feature film. The news was met with mixed reactions from the LGBTQI community (which we won’t go into here), but with pure venom from some conservatives who believe that this constituted a direct attack on their right to see a young white woman fall in love with a violent beast without being exposed to gayness at the same time. As a result, at least one cinema, in Alabama, refused to screen the film when it was released. Image credit: Getty / Instagram

Movies

Dog lovers rejoice after "greedy" serial puppy farmer handed life ban

A serial puppy offender has faced sentencing over 17 charges of animal cruelty, with both a lifetime ban and thousands of dollars in fees included in her punishment. The 51-year-old woman from Bullsbrook, a northern suburb in Perth, had been breeding sick dogs in squalid conditions while charging their potential new owners thousands of dollars, and has now been banned from owning or breeding any more dogs for the rest of her life. For her cruel actions, the Perth Magistrates Court handed her a “10-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, $25,000 in fines and an 18-month Intensive Supervision Order.” Additionally, the repeat offender - who has been in custody since April 14 after breaching the conditions of her bail - was also ordered to pay $24,279.11 in legal costs, as well as care and treatment costs totalling $18,241.01. The charges were in relation to 23 dogs who were seized from her property in June 2020 - with sought-after breeds including the likes of Maltese, shih-tzus, poodles, and cavalier King Charles spaniels among them. It wasn’t her first offence - instead her fourth - but her most recent was in 2014 when the RSPCA found 50 dogs at her former home, with 12 of the animals “hidden in a bunker three metres underground”. This time around, she had been trying to conceal her crimes. As the court heard in December, she has been moving the dogs between three different Bullbrook addresses in a bid to avoid detection. It was a display of “callous disregard or at least wilful blindness,” Magistrate Janie Gibbs said. RSPCA WA had launched their investigation into her after a member of the public reported their concerns - they had been trying to purchase a puppy through Gumtree, and had grown suspicious when they were informed they couldn’t visit the dog at home. From there, RSPCA WA seized 32 dogs from the woman’s property - of which there were four adult males, 19 adult females, and nine puppies - with the majority of them showing signs of being “underweight, unkempt, or unwell”, and nearly all of them suffering from “ear infections and/or dental disease and … matted, overgrown hair”. Two did not survive, and five of them were pregnant, giving birth to 22 more puppies in the weeks to follow. All have been in the foster care of RSPCA WA while the case went on. As RSPCA WA Executive Manager Animal and Enforcement Operations Hannah Dreaver explained, the woman responsible had been operating a profit-driven business, and had been placing her income well above the welfare of the dogs in her care. “This included using several locations to hide this operation from both authorities and potential puppy buyers,” she added. “All were popular breeds selling for thousands of dollars. These dogs were making her a fortune and she was treating them as nothing more than money-making machines, having litter after litter without proper care. “Please, if you want to get a dog, consider adoption from the RSPCA or another reputable rescue organisation first. If you do decide to buy a puppy, never buy online and never buy sight unseen. “Always meet your new puppy and its mum in the home where it’s being raised.” Images: RSPCA WA

Family & Pets

Florida’s plan to ban ‘period talk’

Politicians in Florida are considering a draft law to strengthen state control over sex education in students. This would ban any lessons in schools teaching students about menstrual cycles before high school. The proposal comes after Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature, backed by Governor Ron DeSantis, passed various laws limiting discussion in schools of gender and sexuality, reducing the emphasis on diversity in public schools across the state. The latest proposal came from Republican Stan McClain which would allow instruction "acquired immune deficiency syndrome, sexually transmitted diseases, or health education” only from sixth grade through to 12, typically children aged 12-18. Girls generally have their first period between the ages of 10 and 15, but some do as young as eight. "Imagine a little girl in fourth grade, going to the bathroom and finding blood in her panties and thinking that she is dying," state representative Ashley Gantt, a Democrat, said in a social media post. "She doesn't actually know what's going on. And her teacher does not even have the ability to tell her that this is a part of life.” However, the bill passed the subcommittee by a 13-to-5 vote. Planned Parenthood said the legislation would take "total control from local school districts in approving sex ed curriculum and give it to the State Department of Education", in turn presenting a "reductive and binary view of sex" and stigmatising LGBTQIA+ students. Critics say conservative legislatures in the USA are trying to impose their own views on others, preventing students from having a well-rounded education. Image credit: Shutterstock

Legal

The one food King Charles just banned from all royal residences

King Charles III has banned a classic French delicacy from his royal residence. The ban comes following animal cruelty concerns, PETA have confirmed. The animal rights group said the King removed "foie gras" which is a traditional delacy made from the fattened liver of a duck or goose. It has been off the royal menu for quite some time now, both at Buckingham Palace and all other residences owned by the royal family. The food product was banned around 2008, while Charles was the Prince of Wales. PETA have more recently confirmed the King has issued a blanket ban on the product which was described as “torture in a tin”. The foie gras ban extends to Balmoral, Sandringham, Windsor Castle, Hillsborough Castle and Buckingham Palace, reports claim. "As Prince of Wales, King Charles removed foie gras – a despicable product for which ducks and geese are force-fed until their livers swell up to 10 times their natural size before the animals are slaughtered – from his royal residences," a PETA spokesperson said. The group made public a letter they received from royal officials confirming the ban. "I can confirm that foie gras is not purchased by the Royal Household nor served in Royal Residences, and there are no plans for this policy to change," the letter reads. The letter was signed by the Master of the King's Household, Tony Johnstone-Burt and dated November 10, 2022. Elisa Allen, PETA's vice president, said she hoped Charles' move would encourage other people to ditch foie gras from their diet. There is a ban on the production of foie gras in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. However, it can be imported and sold within those countries. Images: Getty

Food & Wine

James Corden banned from restaurant over "abusive" behaviour

James Corden has been called out by renowned restaurateur Keith McNally for his “abusive” behaviour in a well-known New York restaurant. The talk show host was reportedly “extremely nasty” to staff, with McNally calling Corden a “tiny cretin of a man” over his actions. In a lengthy Instagram post, McNally recounted instances of Corden behaving inappropriately at his former restaurant, Cafe Luxembourg, on several occasions which left one server “shaken”. He started by calling Corden a “hugely gifted comedian”, before ripping into the Tony winner for his unacceptable restaurant behaviours. He said, “James Corden is a Hugely gifted comedian, but a tiny Cretin of a man. And the most abusive customer to my Balthazar servers since the restaurant opened 25 years ago." "I don't often 86 a customer, to today I 86'd Corden. It did not make me laugh.” In two manager's reports, McNally shared that Corden had demanded free drinks, threatened to leave bad reviews, verbally abused staff and berated restaurant chefs. Corden, a big-time foodie, has not yet responded to the allegations. McNally’s post racked up over 18,000 likes in just six hours, as the comment section was flooded with people condemning Corden’s alleged behaviour. One person said, “One can tell the true character of a person based on how they treat their server.” Another commented, “I’m always astounded (and impressed) by the lengths you and your staff go to appease, what I deem to be, extremely high maintenance (and sometimes unreasonable) clientele.” “I’ve often wondered if there’s a limit to that tolerance and appeasement. I’m really glad to see that there is. No staff should be treated like this, no matter how fine an establishment.” Another called out McNally’s allegations, saying, “Come on Keith, you know this isn’t true. James Corden is NOT a ‘hugely gifted’ comedian.” Image credits: Getty Images

Food & Wine

5 actors who are banned from China

China carefully decides which American movies make their way into Chinese mainstream media. While the Chinese Government is more open to American movies now, there are still a few Hollywood stars who have gotten on the government’s bad side. 1. Brad Pitt Brad Pitt featured in the 1997 film Seven Years in Tibet as the 14th Dalai Lama’s tutor. Due to how the film portrayed the Chinese occupation of Tibet, officials took offense to the movie and decided they would bar the main people involved in the film from China. Pitt was banned from the country for 19 years and was only allowed back in 2016. 2. Richard Gere During the 1993 Academy Awards, Richard Gere made an impromptu speech about the human rights abuses that China had inflicted on Tibet. Gere was presenting the award for best art direction but skipped the pre-arranged comments to highlight the issue in Tibet. The Academy Award producers were furious and vowed to ban Gere from any future awards shows. Chinese officials also banned him from the country. Many major studios won’t cast Gere anymore as they want Chinese distribution to increase their profit. Gere has now focused his career on appearing in independent films and has received great reviews for his performances. 3. Sharon Stone In 2008, Sharon Stone commented on the Sichuan Earthquake at the Cannes Film Festival. Stone said she believed the disaster, which killed 90,000 people, was the result of a bad karma built up by the Chinese for oppressing the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government responded to her remarks by banning all her movies from China. It appears as if she didn’t receive an actual ban herself to enter but it’s most likely she wouldn’t be warmly welcomed. 4. Harrison Ford Harrison Ford has been a long-time advocate for human rights and in 1992 he was involved in Tibetan issues. His wife at the time, Melissa Matheson, worked with Martin Scorsese on the script for film Kundun which focused on the story of the 14th Dalai Lama. Ford had the opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama and he became an advocate for Tibet. In 1995, Ford testified before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the need for Tibetan independence and highlighted all of China’s human rights abuses. Ford and Matheson were banned from the country but he still continues to advocate for Tibet. 5. Miley Cyrus The Disney star turned controversial popstar offended the Chinese government when she took a photo of herself imitating Asians by pulling back the skin around her eyes. The Organisation for Chinese Americans had strong words about the photo and the Chinese Foreign Minister said, “Miss Cyrus has made it clear she is no friend of China or anyone of East Asian descent. We have no interest in further polluting our children's minds with her American ignorance." Cyrus apologised and blamed the press for taking things out of context and attacking her and then later apologised again after her first one was criticised for not being genuine. The ban still remains in place. Image credits: Getty Images

Movies

The countries banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral

Three controversial countries have been banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral. A senior British government source confirmed to CNN that dignitaries from Russia, Belarus and Myanmar would be excluded from Her Majesty's funeral, although a final guest list has not been released. In the case of Russia and Belarus, the source said they have been banned due to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which Belarus has supported. The source also claimed that Myanmar's exclusion is because of the treatment of the Rohingya people. The Palace tradition is to send invitations to state funerals on the advice of the government, after members of the civil and diplomatic services have considered the political implications of inviting certain leaders. Palace protocol also stipulates that the guest list of family events is not released until the day, and has not yet commented on the invitees. Typically, every country that the United Kingdom has normal diplomatic relations with would be invited to a state funeral, such as the one which will be held for the late monarch in London on September 19th. Such nations are usually represented by their political leader, head of state, a senior member of the government or their ambassador to the United Kingdom. A second UK government source also told CNN that up to 500 foreign dignitaries are expected to attend the funeral. The UK has been one of the strongest opponents to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, by enforcing sanctions on Russia and sending aid to Ukraine. As for Myanmar, the UK placed sanctions on military officials and businesses over what it has described as the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim group in the country's majority Buddhist state which has suffered decades of persecution. Image credits: Getty Images

International Travel

"Time to ban viagra": Bette Midler gets fired up

Bette Midler has responded to the US Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v Wade in an equally hilarious and furious reaction. The 76-year-old actress took aim at the justices whose decision allowed individual states to decide whether to make abortion illegal. In a fiery post to social media, she said, "Time to ban Viagra. Because if pregnancy is 'God's will', then so is your limp d**k." The post racked up nearly 250,000 likes amid the huge wave of opposition to the controversial SCOTUS ruling. Midler has been vocal with her criticism of the decision since last week, calling Justice Clarence Thomas an "a**hole" and branding Justice Samuel Alito a "villain". In her first reaction to the news, she wrote, "They did it. THEY DID IT TO US! #SCOTUS has overturned #RoevWade, enshrined in the Constitution as settled law for over 50 years." "How dare they? This #SCOTUS is absolutely tone-deaf to the will and even the actual needs of the American people. #WakeUpAmerica." Bette Midler is far from the only celebrity to weigh in on the devastating decision. Many <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">high-profile women</a>, including former First Lady Michelle Obama, have made moving and poignant statements about the controversial ruling which have garnered international attention. In a post on Instagram, Michelle Obama said, "I am heartbroken that we may now be destined to learn the painful lessons of a time before Roe was made law of the land - a time when women risked their lives getting illegal abortions." "That is what our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers lived through, and now we are here again." Image credits: Getty Images

Body

“Sick beyond belief”: Burger chain slammed for Maddy McCann Mother’s Day ad

The Otley Burger Company in the UK has been met with a furious response after posting an ad to social media that made light of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann ahead of Mother’s Day – although the owner of the company has defended the post, claiming it was “just a meme”. Shared to social media by the Leeds-based chain, the ads depict McCann and her mother, along with a small edited image of a masked man escaping with the child, plus a caption: “With burgers this good, you’ll leave your kids at home. What’s the worst that could happen?”. The ad then concludes with the phrase “Happy Mother’s Day to all the mums out there”. Such was the fury the ads were met with that they were quickly banned by Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority, which deemed the posts likely to cause offence and distress after several complaints were made. The ASA stated that the ads made light of the circumstances surrounding McCann’s disappearance. “Any reference to a missing child was likely to be distressing, and that in the context of an ad promoting a burger company, the distress caused was unjustified,” the statement read. The ASA then asked Twitter, Instagram and Facebook to remove the posts and suspend the account pending investigation. Meta said it had reviewed the Instagram post and removed it for violating policies, while Twitter said the post had also been deleted. The burger company’s takeaway service page was quickly flooded with furious comments over the “disgusting” behaviour. “Sick beyond belief, I hope the company goes broke,” one person wrote. “Hang your heads in shame,” wrote another. Owner Joe Scholey, 29, told Metro UK: “I’m not taking the mick out of a missing toddler. I’m basically putting, ‘Happy Mother’s Day’ to all the mums,” he said. “She [Kate McCann] is a mum. Not the world’s greatest mum and not the world’s worst. She’s a mum, there’s one there.” Image: Otley Burger Company

Legal

Vietnam bans Hollywood blockbuster

Hollywood’s big movie release Uncharted has been banned from being shown in Vietnam because it shows China’s nine-dash line map. The film, which stars Antonio Banderas, Mark Wahlberg and Tom Holland, has caused controversy in Vietnam over historical claims. The nine-dash line map shows what islands within the South China Sea that China claims to control including Paracel, Spratly, Shongsha and Pratas. Vietnam and the Philippines express consistent and vocal disagreement about the boundary which they say is illegal and endangers the sovereignty of multiple nations with economic zones within the South China Sea. Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei also oppose the nine-dash-line claim but aren’t as vocal about it. “The film was banned from distribution after we watched it and found it contained an illegal image of the infamous nine-dash line,” Vi Kien Thanh, the head of the Department of Cinema told state-run Vietnam News Agency. Image: YouTube

Movies

Why banning men from leaving Ukraine violates their human rights

As Ukraine scrambles to defend itself from Russia’s illegal invasion, men aged 18 to 60 have been <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-24-22-intl/h_4309a4916d57670f85519210a07fb2c9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">banned</a> from leaving the country. The declaration of <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/martial-law-in-ukraine-what-you-need-to-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener">martial law</a> in Ukraine gives the government power to enact this ban, but it is not in keeping with human rights or humanitarian norms. So, what is actually happening in Ukraine and what does the law say? What the Ukrainian government says When Russia invaded last month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on Ukrainian civilians to defend their country. As the Ukrainian interior ministry also <a href="https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220225-thousands-of-ukrainians-sign-up-to-fight-for-their-country-as-russia-invasion-continues" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> on Telegram: <blockquote> Today is the moment when every Ukrainian who can protect his home must take up arms. Not just to help our soldiers, but to cleanse Ukraine of the enemy once and for all. </blockquote> But if you are a man between 18 and 60, this call to arms may seem more like a compulsory requirement. As Ukraine’s border guard service <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3ng45/males-banned-from-leaving-ukraine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explains</a>, the ban on adult men leaving is aimed at guaranteeing “Ukraine’s defence and the organisation of timely mobilisation’”. What does self-defence look like? Given the illegality of Russia’s invasion, Ukraine is entitled to defend itself under the <a href="https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">United Nations Charter</a>. Of course, a country will rely on all available military resources to exercise this right of self-defence. Ukraine already has a sizeable <a href="https://en.as.com/en/2022/02/27/latest_news/1645988584_607115.html#:%7E:text=Ukraine%20has%20a%20sizeable%20force,and%20paramilitary%20forces%20are%20included." target="_blank" rel="noopener">army</a>, with 200,000 active personnel and 300,000 reservists, as well as paramilitary forces who are now being mobilised under the general mobilisation decree. But Ukraine’s military resources pale in comparison to Russia’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-01/russian-military-remade-itself-modern-deadly-fighting-machine/100868776" target="_blank" rel="noopener">modern, professional</a> army built up through <a href="https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/russias-military-spending-frequently-asked-questions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">massive investment</a> over the past decade. It has about 900,000 active personnel and about two million reservists. Given the obvious <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/25/infographic-military-capabilities-of-russia-and-ukraine-interactive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">imbalance</a>, it is not surprising Ukraine is now desperate to mobilise every eligible individual. But there is an important distinction between people who are conscripted into military service and people who are banned from leaving, but not then formally mobilised or equipped to fight. Conscientious objection With their country facing armed attack by a major military power with the aim of <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-calls-on-ukraine-military-to-overthrow-government-agree-peace-deal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overthrowing their government</a>, some Ukrainians have felt compelled to stay and potentially fight. Some have enlisted in the wake of Russia’s invasion. These brand new soldiers have been called both <a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-invasion-conscription/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">conscripts</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/ukrainian-volunteers-united-front-against-russia-invasion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">volunteers</a>. Others have felt compelled to leave. The very nature of the conflict puts civilians at risk - it is playing out in densely populated cities, through shelling and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60585603" target="_blank" rel="noopener">aerial bombardment</a>. Already more than <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2022/3/62206a824/news-comment-1-million-refugees-fled-ukraine-week.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one million people</a> have fled. However, for men aged 18 to 60, the ban on leaving Ukraine means they have no choice to flee the attack and the risks they face as civilians in the theatre of war. A New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/podcasts/the-daily/ukraine-russia-kyiv-civilian-military.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">podcast</a> tells the story of an animator named Tyhran, who unsuccessfully tried to cross the border into Poland. <blockquote> I can’t imagine myself doing military stuff […] I have no experience in it. I’m afraid of holding a gun […] I cannot imagine myself holding a gun. </blockquote> Tyhran says he was shamed at the border by guards and others seeking to cross, but may try again to cross illegally. <blockquote> They are bombing and people are dying. Everyone is running […] They are not going to stop. They just want to destroy. </blockquote> Meanwhile, there are <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-03-03/lgbt-ukrainians-are-terrified-of-a-life-under-russia-where-homophobia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> LGBTQI+ Ukrainians are terrified of being targeted, given Russia’s <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/12/12/no-support/russias-gay-propaganda-law-imperils-lgbt-youth" target="_blank" rel="noopener">program</a> of <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/article/dismantling-lgbt-rights-means-control-russia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discrimination</a> against gay and transgender people in Russia. What international law says The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/ConscientiousObjection.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">guarantees</a> freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. Although it does not specifically guarantee a right to conscientious objection to military service, the UN Human Rights Committee has <a href="https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4&Lang=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confirmed</a> this right derives from the protection under the convention. This means that if a person’s conscience, religion or beliefs conflict with an obligation to use lethal force against other people, their right to conscientious objection to military service must be protected. Some human rights <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1323238X.2021.1995123?journalCode=rjhu20#.YfsmG3scCLA.twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">can be suspended or limited</a> during a public emergency. But the right to freedom of conscience is specifically <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-thought-conscience-and-religion-or-belief#can-the-right-to-freedom-of-thought-conscience-and-religion-or-belief-be-limited" target="_blank" rel="noopener">excluded</a> from this category. What should Ukraine do? The government of Ukraine should cancel its ban on men leaving the country. To maintain it will violate the freedom of conscience of any man who wishes to flee due to a conscientious objection to killing others. In relation to LGBTQI+ people, the ban could also be regarded as preventing people with a well founded fear of persecution from fleeing to seek <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/3b66c2aa10" target="_blank" rel="noopener">refuge</a> outside Ukraine. More broadly, repealing the departure ban would protect Ukraine from allegations it is failing to <a href="https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/protected-persons/civilians/overview-civilians-protected.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">protect civilians</a>, as required by international humanitarian law. It is one thing to conscript men into military service, providing training and appropriate equipment (although, even in that case, a right to conscientious objection must be respected). It is another thing entirely to prevent civilians from escaping a war zone. The international context Ukraine must also consider how its actions reflect on parallel efforts to hold Russia accountable for its illegal aggression and potential violations of human rights. For example, Ukraine has requested the <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/182" target="_blank" rel="noopener">International Court of Justice</a> to intervene with the international law equivalent of an injunction against Russia. Ukraine alleges Russia is using false accusations of genocide to justify an illegal invasion that is, in turn, inflicting human rights violations on the people of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor has initiated an investigation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The prosecutor has identified a reasonable basis to believe that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/06/leave-no-stone-unturned-how-investigators-gather-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-ukraine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">alleged war crimes</a> and crimes against humanity are underway in Ukraine. In this context, Ukraine must remain mindful of the legality of its own practice. The ban on men leaving Ukraine ought to be lifted, because it is legally and ethically wrong to force civilians to stay in harm’s way when they have the opportunity and desire to escape.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178411/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amy Maguire</a>, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of Newcastle</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-banning-men-from-leaving-ukraine-violates-their-human-rights-178411" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Health experts call for government ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products

Image: Getty Australia’s state governments must set an end date for the sale of cigarettes through retailers including supermarkets, according to public health experts. In an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday, researchers from the University of Queensland said anti-smoking measures such as plain-packaging laws and health warnings were no longer enough, insisting Australia now needed to address the supply side of tobacco consumption. The researchers said a product as harmful as cigarettes should not be available for purchase in supermarkets. “Despite tobacco’s legal status, it fails to meet consumer safety standards,” the authors wrote. “Consumer and drug regulatory systems would prohibit the sale of cigarettes as a new consumer product today. “Governments should set target end dates for tobacco sales and support retailers to transition to a smoke‐free society.” Lead author of the article and tobacco health expert Coral Gartner said Australia’s state governments were falling behind the general public in anti-smoking sentiment. “Most international governments, including Australia, are lagging behind the significant public support for ending tobacco retailing,” Dr Gartner said. “Research shows half of all adults in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and Hong Kong want tobacco sales phased out.” Last November, the Netherlands passed laws preventing supermarkets from selling cigarettes from 2024 and in April, the New Zealand government proposed several new measures that would significantly reduce the number of tobacco retail outlets. Dr Gartner said that setting a specific date for when the sale of cigarettes would end in Australian would provide tobacco retailers with certainty and assistance in future planning, make it easier for people to quit smoking, and assist the government to plan for reductions in tobacco tax revenue.

Caring

"Doctor" banned after claims he can reverse autism

A health practitioner in Sydney's eastern suburb has been permanently banned for prescribing medication that he believed could reverse autism. Bondi-based Rama Prasad prescribed pills that contained elevated levels of mercury, lead and arsenic to a three-year-old, which quantities are unacceptable by Australian standards. The Health Care Complaints Commission has found there was no evidence for this treatment. It's also said that he has misrepresented being a doctor as a "non-health practitioner". Mr Prasad provided the "care" to the toddler without the necessary qualifications, and prescribed Ayurvedic medicine for his own financial gain without disclosing his motives. Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific alternative medical system with roots in India. "Sadly, this is not uncommon, there are a lot of these types of quack practitioners out there that are really preying of families, particularly of young children who have just been diagnosed with autism," Nicole Rogerson, CEO of Autism Awareness Australia said. The Commission has deemed that Mr Prasad "poses a risk to the health and safety of members of the public". Mr Prasad has now "permanently prohibited from providing, or causing to be provided, any health services, either in paid employment or voluntarily, to any member of the public". Image credits: Nine News

Legal

Travel bans aren’t the answer to stopping new COVID variant Omicron

There is global concern and widespread alarm at the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.529, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has called Omicron. The <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern">WHO classified Omicron</a> as a “variant of concern” because it has a wide range of mutations. This suggests vaccines and treatments could be less effective. Although early days, Omicron appears to be able to reinfect people more easily than other strains. Australia has followed other countries and regions – including the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and the European Union – and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-27/new-quarantine-rules-omicron-covid-variant-australia/100656016">banned travellers</a> from nine southern African countries. Australians <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-27/new-quarantine-rules-omicron-covid-variant-australia/100656016">seeking to return home from southern Africa</a> will still be able to do so. But they will enter hotel quarantine and be tested. Those who have returned from the nine countries – South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Eswatini, the Seychelles, Malawi and Mozambique – in the past 14 days will have to isolate. But Omicron has already been detected in other regions, including the UK, Germany, Israel, Hong Kong and Belgium. So while a travel ban on southern African countries may slow the spread and buy limited time, it’s unlikely to stop it. As the Australian government and others act to protect their own citizens, this should be accompanied by additional resources to support countries in southern Africa and elsewhere that take prompt action. <h2>When was Omicron detected?</h2> The variant was identified on November 22 in South Africa, from a sample collected from a patient on <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern">November 9</a>. South African virologists took prompt action, conferred with colleagues through the <a href="https://www.ngs-sa.org/ngs-sa_network_for_genomic_surveillance_south_africa/">Network of Genomic Surveillance in South Africa</a>, liaised with government, and notified the World Health Organization on November 24. This is in keeping with the <a href="https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1">International Health Regulations</a> that guide how countries should respond. The behaviour of this new variant is still unclear. Some have claimed the rate of growth of Omicron infections, which reflects its transmissibility, may be even higher than those of the Delta variant. This “growth advantage” is yet to be proven but is concerning. <h2>‘Kneejerk’ response vs WHO recommendations</h2> African scientists and politicians <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/26/south-africa-b11529-covid-variant-vaccination">have been disappointed</a> in what they see as a “kneejerk” response from countries imposing travel bans. They argue the bans will have significant negative effects for the South African economy, which traditionally welcomes global tourists over the summer year-end period. They note it is still unclear whether the new variant originated in South Africa, even if it was first identified there. As Omicron has already been detected in several other countries, it may already be circulating in regions not included in the travel bans. Travel bans on countries detecting new variants, and the subsequent economic costs, may also act as a disincentive for countries to reveal variants of concern in future. The WHO <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak">does not generally recommend</a> flight bans or other forms of travel embargoes. Instead, it argues interventions of proven value should be prioritised: vaccination, hand hygiene, physical distancing, well-fitted masks, and good ventilation. In response to variants of concern, the WHO calls on all countries to enhance surveillance and sequencing, report initial cases or clusters, and undertake investigations to improve understanding of the variant’s behaviour. Omicron must be taken seriously. Its features are worrying, but there are large gaps in our current knowledge. While further analyses are undertaken, the variant should be controlled with testing, tracing, isolation, applying known public health measures, and ongoing surveillance. <h2>What can wealthier countries do to help?</h2> Wealthy countries such as Australia should support African nations and others to share early alerts of potentially serious communicable disease threats, and help mitigate these threats. As the <a href="https://theindependentpanel.org/mainreport/">Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response</a> noted in May: <blockquote> […] public health actors only see downsides from drawing attention to an outbreak that has the potential to spread. </blockquote> The panel recommended creating incentives to reward early response action. This could include support to: <ul> <li>establish research and educational partnerships</li> <li>strengthen health systems and communicable disease surveillance</li> <li>greatly improve vaccine availability, distribution, and equity</li> <li>consider financial compensation, through some form of solidarity fund against pandemic risk.</li> </ul> <h2>Boosting vaccine coverage is key</h2> Vaccines remain the mainstay of protection against the most severe effects of COVID-19. It’s unclear how effective vaccines will be against Omicron, but some degree of protection is presumed likely. Pfizer has also indicated it could develop an effective vaccine against a new variant such as <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/omicron-variant-covid-vaccine-tweaked-b1965155.html">Omicron within 100 days or so</a>. COVID’s persistence is partly attributable to patchy immunisation coverage across many parts of the world, notably those least developed. South Africa itself is better off than most countries on the continent, yet only <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations">24% of the adult population are currently fully vaccinated</a>. For the whole of Africa, this drops to only 7.2%. Greater global support is urgently needed to boost these vaccination rates. African institutions and leaders, supported by global health and vaccine experts, have argued for mRNA vaccine manufacturing facilities on the African continent. These would prioritise regional populations, overcome supply-chain problems, and respond in real time to emerging disease threats. Yet developing nations face <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/25/australian-government-trying-to-have-it-both-ways-on-covid-vaccine-ip-waiver">significant barriers</a> to obtaining intellectual property around COVID-19 vaccine development and production. While there is still much to learn about the behaviour and impact of Omicron, the global community must demonstrate and commit real support to countries that do the right thing by promptly and transparently sharing information.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172736/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anthony-zwi-144612">Anthony Zwi</a>, Professor of Global Health and Development, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414">UNSW</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/travel-bans-arent-the-answer-to-stopping-new-covid-variant-omicron-172736">original article</a>. Image: Shuttershock

International Travel

Travel bans and event cancellations: how the art market is suffering from coronavirus

The recently released <a href="https://www.artbasel.com/about/initiatives/the-art-market">The Art Market 2020</a> report provides a timely insight into how COVID-19-related disruptions are likely to impact growth and sales in the global art market. The report estimates global art market sales in 2019 were worth US$64.1 billion (A$97 billion), down 5% on 2018. This drop reflects the <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/world-economic-situation-and-prospects-september-2019-briefing-no-130/">decline in global economic growth</a> driven by increasing geopolitical tensions and the trend toward trade protectionism led by the United States. In 2020, measures to control the spread of coronavirus through government restrictions on travel and large social events are already having a dramatic impact on the international art market. In the last six weeks, multiple art fairs have announced either <a href="https://news.artnet.com/market/miart-2020-1795875">postponement or cancellation</a>, including Jingart Beijing, Art Basel Hong Kong, Miaart Milan, Art Paris, Art Berlin and Art Dubai. The European Fine Art Fair in Maastricht went ahead, but reported <a href="https://news.artnet.com/market/tefaf-fair-quiet-coronavirus-fears-1795797">a 27% drop</a> in attendance of VIPs at the opening, when many major sales are traditionally made. <h2>The growing art fair market</h2> As in previous years, 2019 art market sales were highly concentrated in three major hubs. The United States, the United Kingdom and China collectively accounted for 82% of the total value of sales. The Art Market report identified a growing shift away from public auctions toward private sales. The overall auction sector (including public auctions and private sales by auction houses, online and offline) represented 42% of total market sales in 2019. The overall dealer sector (including dealer, gallery and online retail sales) represented 58% of total art market sales in 2019, with the value of sales increasing by 2%. Within this sector, dealers with turnover of more than US$1 million (A$1.5 million) experienced a much larger growth of 20%. These dealers are the fastest-growing sector and the most reliant on art fair sales. Almost half of all sales in the dealer sector were made at art fairs in 2019, amounting to US$16.5 billion (A$25 billion) – 26% of all sales made in the global art market. This concentration of sales at the top end of the dealer market is perhaps the art market’s Achilles heel when considering potential fallout from the impending COVID-19 pandemic. Dealers in this turnover bracket attended twice as many art fairs as smaller dealers, with international fairs (as opposed to local fairs) contributing to more than half their total art fair sales. For dealers with turnover of more than US$10 million (A$15.1 million), international art fairs represented a staggering 70% of their art fair sales. <h2>An unwelcome ‘distraction’</h2> Besides the sales generated at art fairs, dealers have become increasingly dependent on fairs for expanding client lists and developing their businesses. The unfolding COVID-19 pandemic represents an immediate threat to this business model. One dealer quoted in The Art Market report noted the undesirable impact disruptions from outside the art world can have on art market demand: "2020 will be a challenging year, but rather than major political dramas having a direct financial impact, their main danger for us is to distract people’s attention. Distractions and anxieties can take people away from buying art, even if the economy is booming and they’re still in a position to spend." While this dealer was more likely referring to topical political issues, such as Brexit or trade sanctions, the COVID-19 outbreak has the potential to provide a far greater “distraction” for art buyers. The impact of COVID-19 on the long-term health of the art market remains to be seen. Art fairs <a href="https://news.artnet.com/market/art-fair-saturation-1484986">had already been struggling</a> due to multiple economic headwinds in the latter part of 2019, with increasing numbers of retractions and cancellations worldwide. In 2019, Art Basel Hong Kong featured 242 galleries from 35 countries and was attended by 88,000 visitors over five days. This was a pivotal event on the regional calendar and its loss to the 2020 art market will be sorely felt. The global footprints and nimble business structures of international auction houses may help these businesses weather this storm, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/arts/christies-sothebys-auctions.html">they have done in the past</a>. But the picture is worrying for commercial galleries. Artists and galleries <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/art-and-design/australian-galleries-count-cost-as-coronavirus-shutters-hk-art-fair-20200207-p53yts.html">prepare for months</a> in advance of fairs and exhibitions. In a survey of the <a href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/analysis/behind-closed-doors-how-museums-in-china-are-coping-with-coronavirus">impact of the coronavirus</a> on the art market in China, 73.8% of respondents in the visual arts industry reported their businesses will not survive for longer than three months if the current containment situation continues. <a href="https://news.artnet.com/art-world/coronavirus-hong-kong-online-gallery-platform-1794369">Creative initiatives</a> are emerging, such as Art Basel Hong Kong’s online viewing platform. But with uncertainty about how long it will be until this pandemic is under control, the future health of the global art industry is yet to be determined. Image credits: Getty Images This article was first published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/travel-bans-and-event-cancellations-how-the-art-market-is-suffering-from-coronavirus-133161" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.

Art

Dolly Parton drops first TikTok video, immediately banned

Dolly Parton has made her debut on TikTok in the sweetest way, sharing an inspiring message with her fans. The country-music star is the latest to join the popular video-sharing platform after posting her first video on Sunday. In the clip, the 75-year-old bounces onto screen dressed in a yellow shirt with matching blue-and-yellow patterned flared pants before sharing a message with her fans. “Why hello, I guess I’m on TikTok!” Parton said. “I just dropped in to say that it will be okay. You keep the faith.” Parton then launched into a song, singing to her followers, “If I can do it, so can you … I believe in you.” But, the singer’s video and account soon <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@itsdollyparton/" target="_blank">disappeared</a>, and fans took to Twitter to <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.justjared.com/2021/09/27/dolly-parton-fans-put-tiktok-on-blast-after-her-account-was-banned/" target="_blank">call out</a> the platform for banning her account. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Tiktok banned Dolly Parton?!?!??!! <a href="https://t.co/Ep7mBQkxWc">pic.twitter.com/Ep7mBQkxWc</a> — Grāinne 🌻🦔 (@grainnemquirke) <a href="https://twitter.com/grainnemquirke/status/1442598990512627712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2021</a></blockquote> Others shared images suggesting that Parton’s account was banned “due to multiple Community Guidelines violations”. With <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.makeuseof.com/things-that-will-get-you-banned-tiktok/" target="_blank">reasons</a> for banning an account including sharing graphic, sexual, or violent content, promoting illegal activity, blackmail threats, and impersonation and misinformation, it seems unclear as to why Parton was banned. In the original clip, Parton told fans she would be reading a story later that night, but fans reported they couldn’t find her doing so. <img style="width: 255.126953125px; height: 500px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7844445/faur28mvuaifbnr.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/6ec61f3aff2b4b1286c2c9803ba50d39" /> Image: @lorellxislegit / Twitter A <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@itsdollypartton">new account</a> has since been made claiming to be Parton’s official account and has posted a shorter version of the original clip. Fans flocked to the new video and shared their joy over the star returning to the platform. “TikTok just got brighter with Dolly joining!!!” one TikTok user said. “I love you and your positive attitude!” another commented. “TikTok just got a whole lot better now that you’re here Ms Dolly,” one fan wrote. “So glad to see your beautiful face here. Woohoo!” After OverSixty reached out to TikTok for a comment on Parton’s ban, a representative clarified that Parton's account was removed for violating rules around impersonation. At the time of writing, the platform did not have an on-the-record statement about the ban. Image: @itsdollyparton / TikTok

Music

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Grandma banned from babysitting after ignoring daughter's simple request

Bride sparks feud for banning her niece from her big day

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

Woman receives lifetime ban from cruise line over "illegal" item

5 times movies were banned for the silliest reasons