Thursday, July 30, 2020

Corona cases in Pakistan rose to 277,402, recovery rate rose to 246,131

Corona cases in Pakistan rose to 277,402 on Thursday after new infections were confirmed in the country
The number of confirmed Corona cases in Pakistan rose to 277,402 on Thursday after new infections were confirmed in the country.

Total: 277,402

• Sindh: 120,052

• Punjab: 92,655

• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: 33,845

• Balochistan: 11,708

• Islamabad Capital Territory: 14,987

• Gilgit-Baltistan: 2,090

• AJK: 2,065

Deaths:5,924

• Punjab: 2,138

• Sindh: 2,189

• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: 1,192

• Balochistan: 136

• Islamabad Capital Territory: 165

• Gilgit-Baltistan: 53

• AJK: 51

RECOVERED: 246,131



from Latest Pakistan News - SUCH TV https://ift.tt/3gbQp52

Corona cases in Pakistan rose to 277,402, recovery rate rose to 246,131

Corona cases in Pakistan rose to 277,402 on Thursday after new infections were confirmed in the country
The number of confirmed Corona cases in Pakistan rose to 277,402 on Thursday after new infections were confirmed in the country.

Total: 277,402

• Sindh: 120,052

• Punjab: 92,655

• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: 33,845

• Balochistan: 11,708

• Islamabad Capital Territory: 14,987

• Gilgit-Baltistan: 2,090

• AJK: 2,065

Deaths:5,924

• Punjab: 2,138

• Sindh: 2,189

• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: 1,192

• Balochistan: 136

• Islamabad Capital Territory: 165

• Gilgit-Baltistan: 53

• AJK: 51

RECOVERED: 246,131



from latest-news - SUCH TV https://ift.tt/3gbQp52

SC set pertaining case attack on APS on August 4

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Gulzar Ahmed will head the two-member bench.
The Supreme Court has set August 4 as the date to hear the case pertaining to the 2014 attack on Army Public School in Peshawar.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Gulzar Ahmed will head the two-member bench. A notice has been sent to the attorney general.

The judicial commission formed to investigate the 2014 attack on Peshawar’s Army Public School had already submitted its report in the Supreme Court.

The commission recorded the statements of 101 witnesses and 31 police and other officials of law enforcement agencies for its 3,000-page report.

It may be noted that the then chief justice of the Supreme Court Saqib Nisar had ordered judicial inquiry of the carnage in 2018.

On Dec 16, 2014 six terrorists stormed the school and martyred around 150 students and teachers.

After this tragic incident, the government chalked out the National Action Plan to eliminate terrorism from the country.



from Latest Pakistan News - SUCH TV https://ift.tt/2D514A6

SC set pertaining case attack on APS on August 4

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Gulzar Ahmed will head the two-member bench.
The Supreme Court has set August 4 as the date to hear the case pertaining to the 2014 attack on Army Public School in Peshawar.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Gulzar Ahmed will head the two-member bench. A notice has been sent to the attorney general.

The judicial commission formed to investigate the 2014 attack on Peshawar’s Army Public School had already submitted its report in the Supreme Court.

The commission recorded the statements of 101 witnesses and 31 police and other officials of law enforcement agencies for its 3,000-page report.

It may be noted that the then chief justice of the Supreme Court Saqib Nisar had ordered judicial inquiry of the carnage in 2018.

On Dec 16, 2014 six terrorists stormed the school and martyred around 150 students and teachers.

After this tragic incident, the government chalked out the National Action Plan to eliminate terrorism from the country.



from latest-news - SUCH TV https://ift.tt/2D514A6

Senate passes Anti-Terrorism Act (amendment) Bill, 2020

Senate of Pakistan
The Senate on Thursday passed the Anti-Terrorism Act (Amendment) Bill, 2020, which is required to fulfil certain requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to get the country off the grey list.

Earlier, the bill had been passed by the Senate Standing Committee on Law and Justice.

During the meeting chaired by Senator Javed Abbasi, the committee was told by government representatives that all the amendments in the bill were FATF’s demands.

To which the committee asked the government representatives to turn in a copy of the global watchdog's demands. Briefing the committee members on the UN Security Bill, the Special Secretary said that the Asia Pacific and the FATF were monitoring the situation and understood that some changes were needed in domestic law.

The National Assembly on Wednesday passed the Anti-terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2020 to get the country off the grey list.

Statement of Objects and Reasons of the anti-terrorism bill:

The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 though comprehensive in its scope lacked certain provisions concerning the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRS) 1267 and 1373. The UNSCRs 1267 and 1373 were adopted under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter making them obligatory for all members of the United Nations. Through UNSCR 1,267, member states of the United Nations implement the sanctions and take measures for assets freeze (targeted financial sections), arms embargo and impose travel ban on the entities and individuals who are designated on the sanction list. UNSCR 1373 requires member states to implement counter-terrorism measures, especially countering the financing of terrorism through their domestic laws.

The above obligation was implemented in Pakistan through the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The penalties already provided in the said Act were not dissuasive for violations of assets seizure provision in section 11-O and provided the amount of fine was insufficient.

The new bill defined 'Person' in section 2 as follows: 'Person' means any natural or legal person including government body, autonomous or semi-autonomous entity, regulatory authority, body corporate partnership association, trust, agency or any other undertaking responsible for carrying out the purpose of this Act.

The amendment bill proposed to enforce the decisions of United Nations Security Council's Resolutions (1267 and 1373) which were related to counter-terrorism measures to be taken by the member states to check terrorism financing by making and enforcing such provisions in the domestic laws.

As per the federal legislative list provided in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the federal government for compliance of international treaties, conventions and agreements and international arbitration can make legislations and rules to enforce such decisions.

The bill provided that any refusal or non-compliance of the orders of the federal government under section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) Act 1948 was a punishable offence under Section 1100. Violation of the UN Security Council Resolutions - and the person shall be:

a. Imprisoned for maximum 10 years or fine of 25 million rupees or both will be imposed.

b. Similarly, if a legal person as defined in the definition of 'person' under this bill commits an offence under this act, he will be fined for maximum of 50 million rupees and every director, officer or employee of such legal person if found guilty will be fined 25 million rupees and imprisonment of maximum ten years or both.

In addition to punishments under offences defined above, if any public servant was found negligent in complying with these provisions, the respective authority will take administrative actions against him under the respective service rules.



from Latest Pakistan News - SUCH TV https://ift.tt/2EyLu0d

Big Tech CEOs face onslaught criticism during antitrust hearing

 the stage for a battle royale over the next 6 to 9 months
Tim Cook of Apple, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google were grilled for more than five hours by US lawmakers over concerns of Big Tech dominance.

The executives faced an onslaught of criticism at a high-stakes antitrust hearing which could lay the groundwork for tougher regulation of the major internet platforms.

While the hearing was called to focus on whether the companies abuse their dominant positions in the market, it veered quickly into topics including political bias, privacy, dealings with China and how platforms deal with misinformation.

"Simply put, they have too much power," said Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island who chairs the panel conducting a year-long investigation into the business practices of the four companies.

Cicilline said the hearing made clear that the firms "have monopoly power some need to be broken up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable."

Congress has no formal role in antitrust enforcement, but several lawmakers appeared intent on revising US laws to deal with the extraordinary market power and dominance of large technology firms.

"The anti-trust storm clouds appear to be building in the Beltway against Big Tech," Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said in a note to investors.

"With today's hearings setting the stage for a battle royale over the next 6 to 9 months."

Pandemic strength

Cicilline said the coronavirus outbreak has strengthened the clout of the four, saying: "They are likely to emerge (from the pandemic) stronger and more powerful than ever before."

Some lawmakers sought to play down the competitive danger of the companies, which have won praise for innovating and introducing new technologies and offering lifelines during virus lockdowns.

"Being big is not inherently bad," said Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin. "Quite the opposite, in America you should be rewarded for success."

Abusing platforms?

Lawmakers also put spotlights on problems with tech companies operating platforms relied upon by rivals.

Pichai was pressed regarding whether Google's ad platform tactics hurt other internet players such as news outlets.

Apple's Cook faced tough questioning over the market power of the company´s App Store and its treatment of developers.

"We treat all app developers the same," Cook said. "We do not retaliate or bully people."

Bezos, in his first appearance before a congressional committee, defended Amazon's dealings with third-party sellers after a blistering attack from Cicilline.

"We've heard from third party sellers again and again during the course of our investigation that Amazon is the only game in town," the committee chair said to the company founder.

Bezos disputed the characterization while adding, "There are a lot of options for small firms.. I think we are the best one."

Playing politics

President Donald Trump, who has accused Facebook and Twitter of censoring his remarks and being biased against conservatives, weighed in with a tweet shortly before the hearing.

"If Congress doesn't bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders," Trump said.

Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, said during the hearing: "I'll just cut to the chase — Big Tech is out to get conservatives. That´s not a suspicion. That's not a hunch. That's a fact."

Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland rejected the argument, saying Facebook and other platforms have failed to contain misinformation from Trump and his supporters, including unverified COVID-19 claims.

"If Facebook is out there trying to repress conservative speech they're doing a terrible job," Raskin said. "I don't understand this endless whining" from Republicans.

Moving forward

Some analysts said the hearing could set the stage for revising US antitrust laws, which at present make it difficult for enforcers to target companies simply for being big.

"There was considerable skepticism toward the tech sector as legislators worry about unfair competition and unfair practices," said Darrell West, director of the center for technology innovation at the Brookings Institution.

"If Democrats gain control in the (November elections), this hearing will serve as a blueprint for enhanced regulatory oversight," West said.

Michael Carrier, a Rutgers University professor of antitrust law, said that while "the hearing showed that the representatives did their homework" he didn't think the hearing would lead to quick action.

Avery Gardiner, a former government antitrust lawyer who follows competition for the Center for Democracy & Technology, said the hearing failed to demonstrate specific anticompetitive actions, leaving the matter now to regulatory agencies.



from latest-news - SUCH TV https://ift.tt/3jWmTT2

Senate passes Anti-Terrorism Act (amendment) Bill, 2020

Senate of Pakistan
The Senate on Thursday passed the Anti-Terrorism Act (Amendment) Bill, 2020, which is required to fulfil certain requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to get the country off the grey list.

Earlier, the bill had been passed by the Senate Standing Committee on Law and Justice.

During the meeting chaired by Senator Javed Abbasi, the committee was told by government representatives that all the amendments in the bill were FATF’s demands.

To which the committee asked the government representatives to turn in a copy of the global watchdog's demands. Briefing the committee members on the UN Security Bill, the Special Secretary said that the Asia Pacific and the FATF were monitoring the situation and understood that some changes were needed in domestic law.

The National Assembly on Wednesday passed the Anti-terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2020 to get the country off the grey list.

Statement of Objects and Reasons of the anti-terrorism bill:

The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 though comprehensive in its scope lacked certain provisions concerning the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRS) 1267 and 1373. The UNSCRs 1267 and 1373 were adopted under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter making them obligatory for all members of the United Nations. Through UNSCR 1,267, member states of the United Nations implement the sanctions and take measures for assets freeze (targeted financial sections), arms embargo and impose travel ban on the entities and individuals who are designated on the sanction list. UNSCR 1373 requires member states to implement counter-terrorism measures, especially countering the financing of terrorism through their domestic laws.

The above obligation was implemented in Pakistan through the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The penalties already provided in the said Act were not dissuasive for violations of assets seizure provision in section 11-O and provided the amount of fine was insufficient.

The new bill defined 'Person' in section 2 as follows: 'Person' means any natural or legal person including government body, autonomous or semi-autonomous entity, regulatory authority, body corporate partnership association, trust, agency or any other undertaking responsible for carrying out the purpose of this Act.

The amendment bill proposed to enforce the decisions of United Nations Security Council's Resolutions (1267 and 1373) which were related to counter-terrorism measures to be taken by the member states to check terrorism financing by making and enforcing such provisions in the domestic laws.

As per the federal legislative list provided in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the federal government for compliance of international treaties, conventions and agreements and international arbitration can make legislations and rules to enforce such decisions.

The bill provided that any refusal or non-compliance of the orders of the federal government under section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) Act 1948 was a punishable offence under Section 1100. Violation of the UN Security Council Resolutions - and the person shall be:

a. Imprisoned for maximum 10 years or fine of 25 million rupees or both will be imposed.

b. Similarly, if a legal person as defined in the definition of 'person' under this bill commits an offence under this act, he will be fined for maximum of 50 million rupees and every director, officer or employee of such legal person if found guilty will be fined 25 million rupees and imprisonment of maximum ten years or both.

In addition to punishments under offences defined above, if any public servant was found negligent in complying with these provisions, the respective authority will take administrative actions against him under the respective service rules.



from latest-news - SUCH TV https://ift.tt/2EyLu0d

Islamabad court dismisses Gill’s bail plea in sedition case

A District and Sessions court of Islamabad dismissed the post arrest bail petition of PTI leader Shahbaz Gill on Tuesday. Additional Dist...