Category: Uncategorized

Bathroom bans targeting transgender people have been spreading rapidly across the United States. In previous years, adult bathroom bans in public buildings were limited to a handful of states with extreme laws. This year, they have become one of the primary vehicles for anti-trans legislation nationwide. Kansas was the first to act, passing a bathroom bounty hunter system and invalidating transgender people’s IDs. Idaho and Missouri began advancing their own bills. Now, the New Hampshire House of Representatives has passed its own version — one of the most extreme in the United States, which states that a trans person using the bathroom of their gender identity is a crime under the state civil rights act, violations of which carries hefty penalties. The bill passed 181-164 on Wednesday night, just weeks after Governor Kelly Ayotte vetoed a separate bathroom ban. Republicans are now sending her something far more aggressive — raising the question of whether they are trying to move the goalposts or simply daring her to veto again.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with the exception of RSA 21:3, RSA 21:54, and paragraph II below, all multi-user facilities, including bathrooms, restrooms, and locker rooms located in buildings owned, leased, or operated by any municipality shall be used based on the individual’s biological sex,” reads the new bill. This prohibition is expansive: it applies to parks, rest stops, airports, civic buildings, and more, and could leave transgender people struggling to find a public place to use the restroom across the state.

The bill contains a novel enforcement mechanism not seen in any other state. It declares that a transgender person “asserting” that their gender identity allows them to use the bathroom is against the law under the state civil rights act, turning civil rights protections that were meant to be protective of transgender people into a weapon against them. “It shall be unlawful for any person to assert that their gender identity is a sex other than that defined in RSA 21:3 for the purposes of accessing places or services restricted on the basis of sex,” reads the bill. Such violations could result in fines of up to $5,000 per incident and even jail time if a person violates a resulting court injunction by continuing to use the restroom.

The bill also contains provisions for private businesses. It permits any owner or operator of a “place of public accommodation” — a category that under New Hampshire law includes hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, bars, and concert venues — to restrict bathrooms by assigned sex at birth. The bill then immunizes those businesses from discrimination claims: “Adoption or enforcement of a policy pursuant to this section shall not be deemed discrimination under RSA 354-A or any other state law,” it reads.

A separate bill, HB 1217, also passed on Wednesday. That bill permits governmental buildings and businesses to classify bathrooms and locker rooms by assigned sex at birth — similar to the bathroom bans Ayotte has already vetoed. It passed by an even wider margin, 187-163. It contains no enforcement mechanism, but rather, states that bathroom bans and sports bans are not discriminatory towards transgender people under New Hampshire law.

The bills are part of a larger movement towards bathroom bans for transgender people. Just last month, Kansas passed a bathroom ban that allows every citizen in the state to become a bounty hunter, where reporting transgender people in bathrooms can net them $1,000 per trans person caught. This law also invalidated trans people’s drivers licenses in the state. Meanwhile, Idaho and Missouri are both advancing extreme anti-trans bathroom bans of their own, with Idaho’s ban even applying to private businesses, making it against the law for a private business to allow a trans person to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

The bills are substantially more extreme than the one vetoed by Governor Ayotte just weeks ago. In a veto statement of a bathroom ban last month, Ayotte stated, “I believe there are important and legitimate privacy and safety concerns raised by biological males using places such as female locker rooms and being placed in female correctional facilities… At the same time, I see that House Bill 148 is overly broad and impractical to enforce, potentially creating an exclusionary environment for some of our citizens.”

It remains unclear why Republicans are pushing an even more extreme version of a bill their own governor has already vetoed three times. The bill still needs to pass the New Hampshire Senate and be signed by Ayotte to become law. One possibility is that the more extreme HB 1442 is designed as cover for HB 1217 — making that bill appear moderate by comparison and improving its chances of earning a signature. Another is that Republicans believe they can pressure Ayotte into signing, or are simply laying the groundwork for an override attempt down the line. Regardless, HB 1442 is one of the most extreme bathroom bans moving through any state legislature in the country, and transgender people across New England will be watching closely as it advances to the Senate.

By Samia Nakhoul and Parisa Hafezi

March 7 (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia has told Tehran that while it favours a diplomatic settlement to Iran’s conflict with the United States, continued attacks on the kingdom and its energy sector could push Riyadh to respond in kind, four sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The ‌message was conveyed before a speech on Saturday in which Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian apologised to neighbouring Gulf states for Tehran’s actions — an apparent attempt to defuse ‌regional anger over Iranian strikes that hit civilian targets.

Two days earlier, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan spoke to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and set out Riyadh’s position with clarity, the sources said.

Saudi Arabia is ​open to any form of mediation aimed at de‑escalation and a negotiated settlement, the sources quoted the minister as saying, underlining that neither Riyadh nor other Gulf states had let the U.S. use their airspace or territory to launch airstrikes on Iran.

But Prince Faisal was also quoted by the sources as saying that if Iranian attacks persisted against Saudi territory or energy infrastructure, Saudi Arabia would be forced to permit U.S. forces to use their bases there for military operations. Riyadh would retaliate if attacks on the kingdom’s critical energy facilities continued, he said.

The sources said the ‌kingdom had remained in regular contact with Tehran through its ambassador ⁠since the U.S. and Israeli military campaign against Iran began on February 28 following the collapse of talks on Iran’s nuclear programme.

The Saudi and Iranian foreign ministries did not respond to requests for comment.

DRONE AND MISSILE ATTACKS ON GULF STATES

The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi ⁠Arabia have all come under heavy drone and missile fire from Iran over the past week.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed on the first day of the war. Tehran responded by hitting Israel and Gulf Arab states hosting U.S. military installations, and Israel has attacked Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah armed group.

Araqchi said in an interview on Saturday that he remained in constant contact with his Saudi ​counterpart ​and other Saudi officials, adding that Riyadh had assured Tehran it was fully committed to not allowing its ​territory, waters or airspace to be used for attacks against Iran.

Pezeshkian ‌said Iran’s temporary leadership council had approved suspending attacks on nearby countries – unless an attack on Iran came from those nations.

“I personally apologise to neighbouring countries that were affected by Iran’s actions,” he said.

To what extent Pezeshkian’s remarks signal a change is unclear. There were further reports of strikes directed at Gulf states on Saturday.

Also, in a sign of possible divisions within Iran’s leadership, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters – the unified combatant command of the Iranian armed forces – said in a statement afterwards that U.S. and Israeli bases and interests across the region would remain targets.

The command said Iran’s armed forces respected the sovereignty and interests of neighbouring states and had not taken action against them so far. But it said U.S. and Israeli military ‌bases and assets on land, at sea and in the air across the region would be treated ​as primary targets and face “powerful and heavy” strikes by Iran’s forces.

U.S. President Donald Trump said in a social ​media post that Iran had “apologized and surrendered to its Middle East neighbours, and promised that ​it will not shoot at them anymore. This promise was only made because of the relentless U.S. and Israeli attack.”

Two Iranian sources confirmed that ‌a call had taken place in which Riyadh warned Tehran to halt ​attacks on Saudi Arabia and neighbouring Gulf states. ​Iran, they said, reiterated its position that the strikes were not aimed at Gulf countries themselves but at U.S. interests and military bases hosted on their territory.

One Iranian source said that Tehran had in response demanded that U.S. bases in the region be closed and some Gulf states stop sharing intelligence with Washington that Iran believes ​is being used to carry out attacks against it.

Another Iranian source ‌said some military commanders were pressing to continue the strikes, accusing the U.S. of using bases in Gulf states and these countries’ airspace to conduct operations ​against Iran.

Iran had in recent years mended fences with its Gulf neighbours, including former regional arch-rival Saudi Arabia. The diplomatic campaign imploded in the blitz of ​drones and missiles launched by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in the past week.

(Editing by Timothy Heritage)