winph99 login

winph99 login The Proclaimers join mourners in paying tribute to 'political genius' Alex Salmond at Edinburgh memorial service - Sky News

(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Peiris, Secretary to the Prime Minister) In June 1975, the Prime Minister was honoured by the international community with two important assgnments. The first was by the International Labour Organization (ILO), where she was invited to make the keynote address to the new ILO sessions opening in Geneva. The second was by the United Nations where she was invited to make the keynote address at the First UN International Conference on Women to be held in Mexico City, Mexico. She was also due to address The Group of 77 in Geneva. Manel Abeysekera of the Foreign Ministry and I, accompanied the Prime Minister. We had three major speeches to work on. We already had drafts ready, which were the result of much work and many refinements. But we had decided to finalize them in Geneva after two of our ablest diplomats, Susantha de Alwis and Karen Breckenridge perused them. Gamani Corea was to go through the Group of 77 speech in particular. Geneva We left for Geneva on June 8, 1975 by Swissair. En route we landed at Karachi at 1 a.m. and were met at the airport by the Minister of Education and Planning of the Province of Sindh and Mr. Aga Shahi, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, who had been specially dispatched from Islamabad for the occasion. After an interesting conversation, we re-boarded and took-off. I worked through the Prime Minister’s Group of 77 speech on the plane. We couldn’t land in Geneva due to fog and were diverted to Zurich. That didn’t work either. Zurich was also fog bound. Finally, we landed at Basle. This of course meant hassle and delay. For me, this was a worry because we didn’t have much time to finalize the speeches. Susantha and his charming wife, Achala, put us all up in their official residence. Thanks to them, we were relaxed and comfortable. Breckenridge joined us later to work on the speeches. With so many important speeches, coming up so rapidly, work was hectic. Finally, by the time we finished working on the Group of 77 speech, It was 2.15 in the morning. On June10, at 10 a.m. the Prime Minister addressed the ILO and that afternoon at 3.45 p.m. the Group of 77. To our relief and satisfaction, both addresses were well received. There were several other appointments over the next couple of days, including meetings with the Director General of ILO and senior officials, as well as with various persons knowledgeable on issues of development. We had also to put the finishing touches on the Prime Minister’s address to the conference on Women. Manel and I worked on that. Mexico City We next left for Mexico. The journey took us through Houston where there was a refueling stop. Shirley Amerasinghe, our Permanent Representative at the UN was at the airport when we landed. I took the opportunity to show him the speech and inquired whether he had any views. Shirley thought the speech “excellent.” We were pleased that an experienced internationalist like Shirley had this opinion. At the airport at Mexico City, the Prime Minister and party were met by the Foreign Minister; Minister of the Interior; and the Minister for the Presidency and their wives. We were lodged at the Hotel Camino Real, which was both spacious and comfortable. On June 18 at 10.30 a.m. the Prime Minister called on President Ecchevaria. Talks between the two sides went on till I p.m. and encompassed both bilateral affairs and trade, as well as international affairs. The discussions were friendly and open. There was some delay due to translations. At 1.30 p.m. the President hosted the Prime Minister and delegation to lunch. The Mexican Cabinet; the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court; other local dignitaries and the diplomatic corps were present. After coming back to the hotel I telephoned Jayantha Dhanapala of the Foreign Service, at our Embassy in Washington and read out the text of a long statement, which I had drafted for the Sri Lanka newspapers. Since we didn’t have an embassy in Mexico, communications were a problem. The Prime Minister’s address itself to the conference went off very well and we believe that she received somewhat more than the customary compliments paid to speakers on such occasions. Our stay in Mexico, though brief was a crowded one with lunches, cultural shows and some sightseeing thrown in which included a visit to the excellent national museum. At one of these lunches hosted by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the Shah of Iran, and which included Ms. Imelda Marcos, I was one of the very few males present. The conversation was wide ranging and interesting with an emphasis on art, culture and social issues. Just before we left for home, Mr. Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden called on the Prime Minister in her hotel. The youthful looking Mr. Palme had a reputation for being a radical. He had participated in marches and demonstrations in Sweden against the American intervention in the Vietnam War. At the discussions, he displayed a quiet, soft-spoken style. The Mexican Minister of Trade called on the Prime Minister before her departure. At this discussion Mexico agreed to issue licenses for a larger quantity of Sri Lankan cinnamon. At the airport, Valentina Teresckova, the Soviet woman cosmonaut came to meet the Prime Minister. It was a meeting between the first woman in space and the first woman Prime Minister. Katchativu and the settlement of issues with India From, about 1973, the Prime Minister was turning her attention to solving the only two outstanding issues with India, that of the ownership of the Island of Katchativu off the Northern coast of Sri Lanka; and that of the remaining 150,000 settlers of Indian origin in the country, which had not been covered by the Sirima-Shastri Pact. Katchativu was a tiny barren island in a part of the sea between Sri Lanka and India where fishermen of both countries engaged in fishing. At certain times of the year, Indian fishermen used to dry their nets on this rocky island. There was also a Catholic festival held there annually by the Sri Lanka Church, attended mostly by fishermen and their families. Katchativu was therefore being used for different purposes by the fishermen of both countries. Traditionally, however, Sri Lanka always considered the tiny island hers. The difference of views with India lay in the fact that there was no legal resolution of ownership. The issue was most important to a small country like Sri Lanka. India was one of the largest countries in the World. To Sri Lanka, it was considered vital to demarcate her maritime boundary in the North, and for this too the status of Katchativu was important. This was furthermore an area, which due to fishing by people of both countries, it was very necessary to properly demarcate the maritime boundary in order to minimize disputes. The law of the Sea Conference and the proposed 200 mile limit of sea which was to come within the sovereignty of countries was a factor which added to the importance of the resolution of this issue. Official contacts were therefore made with India, and a process of discussions begun. To complicate matters for us, it was discovered that some vitally important papers on the subject were missing from the Foreign Ministry files. One would not however like to speculate on a matter such as this. However, papers available in the National Archives helped. The Prime Minister in her meetings and contacts with Mrs. Gandhi had broached the necessity of resolving the outstanding issues with India. The two Prime Ministers got on well together and had established considerable rapport, a relationship going back the good relations between the Bandaranaike and Nehru families. Mrs. Bandaranaike was therefore keen that the existing favourable political configuration in the two countries should be used without delay to resolve our common problems. The Indian Prime Minister agreed. She had enormous problems on her hands including political turmoil, separatist tendencies and guerilla action in several parts of the country. The problems with Sri Lanka were not intractable ones, and she herself obviously thought that the time had come to get them out of the way and have some degree of stability and peace on her Southern border. A friendly Sri Lanka was in India’s interest. The virulent anti-Indian rhetoric by the JVP during 1969-71 which included the holding of clandestine classes for its cadres where an important lesson was on “Indian domination”, was a recent demonstration of the potential to inspire fear and hatred. This was another factor taken into account by Mrs. Bandaranaike in developing a policy on the quick resolution of problems with India. The two sides therefore, engaged in a process of discussions. These discussions were ongoing in a quiet manner when in mid-1974 India exploded a nuclear device in the Rajasthan desert. A cacophony of condemnation arose all over the world. The shrill condemnation that followed could not be dignified with the word “chorus.” India was depicted in the world’s press, and particularly in the Western press as some kind of sanctimonious humbug which preached non-violence, Ahimsa and arms control on the one hand, but practiced something else on the other. It was at the height of this situation that one day I dropped in at Temple Trees in the morning to get some urgent letters signed by the Prime Minister. When I reached there, I found the Prime Minister seated at the large dining table attending to work with W T Jayasinghe. I was about to take a seat in the verandah, when she saw me and invited me in. I found that WT was also finishing his work. He asked me whether I could give him a lift back to the Ministry, since he had sent his car somewhere else. I said that it wouldn’t be a problem. Both of us finished soon thereafter and WT loaded a large number of files into my car. We set off soon thereafter for the five-minute run to Republic Square. During the trip, WT told me that the Prime minister was sending a tiff note about the testing of the nuclear device and that she had signed the letter. I was quite appalled. I told WT, that I did not know the content and tone of the letter, since I had not seen it, but that I hoped that the close relationship between the two Prime Ministers and the on-going discussions on Katchativu and other matters had been taken into account in drafting the letter. I ended by saying that I hoped that our overall national interest had been properly assessed in sending this communication at this time. W T became somewhat agitated by what I said. He had the objectivity to say, “No I don’t think we had thought about matters to that extent.” I shrugged. He then pulled out the file and showed me the letter. I took one look and said that we might as well abandon our on-going discussions with India. The letter was a typical foreign Ministry sectoral, one-dimensional draft, which had only a thought of the issues of non-proliferation and non-alignment. It was clear that no thought had been given to the course of bilateral relations, strategic considerations, or an assessment of Sri Lanka’s overall national interest. WT by now was considerably alarmed. We had now reached the end of our short journey. He said, he wanted to come to my room to discuss matters further. Indeed, by now, he was convinced that the letter was a mistake. He wanted me to do an alternate draft. I said that I would do so only if he would place both drafts before the Prime Minister, not telling her who drafted the alternative, until she had decided which one to send. This was too important a matter for any bias to creep in. I thereupon changed the whole tenor of the letter from one of protestations and criticism to what I thought was a more balanced approach. India was congratulated on her achievements in Science and Technology and our satisfaction at this record mentioned. But the Prime Minister urged caution on going the nuclear route and she said that she was encouraged by the Indian Prime Minister’s statement that India would not develop a nuclear arsenal. (The various reasons why India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons later would be a matter for study, debate and even controversy. But this was 1974, and we had to react at that time.) Suitable reference was also made to the issue of the Non-Aligned stance on nuclear proliferation. The whole tenor or the letter was an expression or admiration and recognition of India’s achievements in science and technology, but at the same time a friendly expression of concern about the prospect of nuclear proliferation. WT’ thought that my draft was much better. I soon forgot about it amidst other work. A few days later WT walked into my room. He had done what I had suggested and the two drafts had been placed before the Prime Minister. She had immediately reacted, and had angrily asked, who had done the first draft. She had stated that the second draft was the one that really reflected her views, and that she was misled into signing the first. It was only at this point that WT had mentioned who the author of the second draft was. This whole episode brings up some interesting points. In the first instance, it was by sheer accident that there was ever a second draft. The earlier letter would have been disastrous. This surmise indeed was subsequently proved by the Indian Prime Minister’s warm and lengthy response to the Prime Minister’s letter. This was a time, when Mrs. Gandhi was having serious internal problems in India too. The reply was an outpouring from the heart of a beleaguered leader to one whom she could trust. Amongst many candid and personal matters contained in the reply, there was gratitude expressed for Mrs. Bandaranaike’s understanding and vision. The relationship could have ended up being quite different.French Prime Minister Faces No-Confidence Vote After Austerity Budget

About 22,000 remain without power in Northern Ireland following Storm DarraghMarrakech Film Festival bestows Palestinian film 'Happy Holidays' with top award

Ukraine must be placed in the “strongest possible position for negotiations” to end the war with Russia, Sir Keir Starmer has said. The Prime Minister insisted the UK will back Ukraine “for as long as it takes” as he made a speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London, but for the first time acknowledged the conflict could move towards a negotiated end. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has in recent weeks suggested he is open to a possible ceasefire with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Kyiv and its European allies meanwhile fear the advent of Donald Trump’s return to the White House could result in American aid being halted. President-elect Trump has said he would prefer to move towards a peace deal, and has claimed he could end the conflict on “day one” of his time in power. As he attempts to strike up a good relationship with the incoming president, Sir Keir revealed he had told Mr Trump the UK “will invest more deeply than ever in this transatlantic bond with our American friends in the years to come”. In his speech at London’s Guildhall, the Prime Minister said there is “no question it is right we support Ukraine”, as the UK’s aid to Kyiv is “deeply in our self-interest”. Allowing Russia to win the war would mean “other autocrats would believe they can follow Putin’s example,” he warned. Sir Keir added: “So we must continue to back Ukraine and do what it takes to support their self-defence for as long as it takes. “To put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for negotiations so they can secure a just and lasting peace on their terms that guarantees their security, independence, and right to choose their own future.” Mr Zelensky told Sky News over the weekend he would be open to speaking with Mr Putin, but branded the Russian president a “terrorist”. He also suggested Ukrainian territory under his control should be taken under the “Nato umbrella” to try to stop the “hot stage” of the war with Russia. In a banquet speech focused on foreign affairs, the Prime Minister said it was “plain wrong” to suggest the UK must choose between its allies, adding: “I reject it utterly. “(Clement) Attlee did not choose between allies. (Winston) Churchill did not choose. “The national interest demands that we work with both.” Sir Keir said the UK and the US were “intertwined” when it came to commerce, technology and security. The Prime Minister added: “That’s why, when President Trump graciously hosted me for dinner in Trump Tower, I told him that we will invest more deeply than ever in this transatlantic bond with our American friends in the years to come.” He also repeated his commitment to “rebuild our ties with Europe” and insisted he was right to try to build closer links with China. “It is remarkable that until I met President Xi last month there had been no face-to-face meeting between British and Chinese leaders for six years,” the Prime Minister said. “We can’t simply look the other way. We need to engage. To co-operate, to compete and to challenge on growth, on security concerns, on climate as well as addressing our differences in a full and frank way on issues like Hong Kong, human rights, and sanctions on our parliamentarians,” he added. The Prime Minister said he wants Britain’s role in the world to be that of “a constant and responsible actor in turbulent times”. He added: “To be the soundest ally and to be determined, always, in everything we do. “Every exchange we have with other nations, every agreement we enter into to deliver for the British people and show, beyond doubt, that Britain is back.” Ahead of Sir Keir’s speech, Lord Mayor Alastair King urged the Prime Minister and his Government to loosen regulations on the City of London to help it maintain its competitive edge. In an echo of Sir Keir’s commitment to drive the UK’s economic growth, the Lord Mayor said: “The idealist will dream of growth, but the pragmatist understands that our most effective machinery to drive growth is here in the City, in the hands of some of the brightest and most committed people that you will find anywhere in the world.”

'One of the most difficult seasons' ends for transgender player, San José State volleyball teamNorthwestern hopes hot streak continues vs. Northeastern

The Prime Minister insisted the UK will back Ukraine “for as long as it takes” as he made a speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London, but for the first time acknowledged the conflict could move towards a negotiated end. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has in recent weeks suggested he is open to a possible ceasefire with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Kyiv and its European allies meanwhile fear the advent of Donald Trump’s return to the White House could result in American aid being halted. President-elect Trump has said he would prefer to move towards a peace deal, and has claimed he could end the conflict on “day one” of his time in power. As he attempts to strike up a good relationship with the incoming president, Sir Keir revealed he had told Mr Trump the UK “will invest more deeply than ever in this transatlantic bond with our American friends in the years to come”. In his speech at London’s Guildhall, the Prime Minister said there is “no question it is right we support Ukraine”, as the UK’s aid to Kyiv is “deeply in our self-interest”. Allowing Russia to win the war would mean “other autocrats would believe they can follow Putin’s example,” he warned. Sir Keir added: “So we must continue to back Ukraine and do what it takes to support their self-defence for as long as it takes. “To put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for negotiations so they can secure a just and lasting peace on their terms that guarantees their security, independence, and right to choose their own future.” Mr Zelensky told Sky News over the weekend he would be open to speaking with Mr Putin, but branded the Russian president a “terrorist”. He also suggested Ukrainian territory under his control should be taken under the “Nato umbrella” to try to stop the “hot stage” of the war with Russia. In a banquet speech focused on foreign affairs, the Prime Minister said it was “plain wrong” to suggest the UK must choose between its allies, adding: “I reject it utterly. “(Clement) Attlee did not choose between allies. (Winston) Churchill did not choose. “The national interest demands that we work with both.” Sir Keir said the UK and the US were “intertwined” when it came to commerce, technology and security. The Prime Minister added: “That’s why, when President Trump graciously hosted me for dinner in Trump Tower, I told him that we will invest more deeply than ever in this transatlantic bond with our American friends in the years to come.” He also repeated his commitment to “rebuild our ties with Europe” and insisted he was right to try to build closer links with China. “It is remarkable that until I met President Xi last month there had been no face-to-face meeting between British and Chinese leaders for six years,” the Prime Minister said. “We can’t simply look the other way. We need to engage. To co-operate, to compete and to challenge on growth, on security concerns, on climate as well as addressing our differences in a full and frank way on issues like Hong Kong, human rights, and sanctions on our parliamentarians,” he added. The Prime Minister said he wants Britain’s role in the world to be that of “a constant and responsible actor in turbulent times”. He added: “To be the soundest ally and to be determined, always, in everything we do. “Every exchange we have with other nations, every agreement we enter into to deliver for the British people and show, beyond doubt, that Britain is back.” Ahead of Sir Keir’s speech, Lord Mayor Alastair King urged the Prime Minister and his Government to loosen regulations on the City of London to help it maintain its competitive edge. In an echo of Sir Keir’s commitment to drive the UK’s economic growth, the Lord Mayor said: “The idealist will dream of growth, but the pragmatist understands that our most effective machinery to drive growth is here in the City, in the hands of some of the brightest and most committed people that you will find anywhere in the world.”Manitoba on pace to see record substance use deaths in 2024

Firepower Showcased At Joint Military Exercise Of Indian Army, Singapore Armed ForcesCurrent President Chan Santokhi "has decided, based on his powers and advice received, that there will be no state funeral... No period of national mourning," Foreign Minister Albert Ramdin told a press conference. Bouterse was a former military man who twice mounted coups, in 1980 and again in 1990, to take charge as a dictator. He eventually returned to power after being elected president in 2010 and governed for a decade. He died Tuesday in the unknown location where he had been holed up as a fugitive, with in-absentia convictions for cocaine trafficking and murder. Bouterse's body was dropped off at his residence in the capital Paramaribo. An autopsy was ordered, though police said there were "no signs of criminal activity." Bouterse had been sentenced to 20 years in prison in December 2023 for the 1982 execution of political opponents, including lawyers, journalists, businessmen and military prisoners. He remained a popular figure with the poor and working class in the former Dutch colony. The foreign minister said that, out of respect for Bouterse's status as an elected former president, flags would be flown at half-staff on government buildings on the day of his funeral, whose date has not yet been given. str-jt/rmb/acb

PARIS — Howling winds couldn’t stop Notre Dame Cathedral ’s heart from beating again. People stand outside Notre-Dame Cathedral on Nov. 29 in Paris. With three resounding knocks on its doors by Paris Archbishop Laurent Ulrich, wielding a specially designed crosier carved from fire-scorched beams, the monument roared back to life Saturday evening. For the first time since a devastating blaze nearly destroyed it in 2019, the towering Gothic masterpiece reopened for worship, its rebirth marked by song, prayer, and awe beneath its soaring arches. The ceremony, initially planned to begin on the forecourt, was moved entirely inside due to unusually fierce December winds sweeping across the Île de la Cité, flanked by the River Seine. Yet the occasion lost none of its splendor. Inside the luminous nave, choirs sang psalms, and the cathedral’s mighty organ, silent for nearly five years, thundered to life in a triumphant interplay of melodies. The vaulted ceiling of the Notre-Dame cathedral is seen Nov. 29 in Paris. The restoration, a spectacular achievement in just five years for a structure that took nearly two centuries to build, is seen as a moment of triumph for French President Emmanuel Macron, who championed the ambitious timeline — and a welcome respite from his domestic political woes. The evening’s celebration, attended by 1,500 dignitaries, including President-elect Donald Trump, US first lady Jill Biden, Britain’s Prince William, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, underscored Notre Dame’s enduring role as both a spiritual and cultural beacon. Observers see the event as Macron's, and his intention to pivot it into a fully fledged diplomatic gathering, while highlighting France’s ability to unite on the global stage despite internal political crises. France's iconic Notre Dame Cathedral is formally reopening its doors on Saturday for the first time since a devastating fire nearly destroyed ... As the cathedral’s largest bell, the 13-ton Emmanuel — which was not named after the French leader — tolled into the Paris night, signaling the start of the ceremony, the crowd inside Notre Dame fell into an expectant hush. Emmanuel, a legacy of King Louis XIV, had rung through centuries of French history, and its peal now resonated as a call to witness another epochal moment. Outside the cathedral’s monumental doors, Ulrich raised his fire-scarred crosier. “Brothers and sisters, let us enter now into Notre Dame,” he declared. “It is she who accompanies us on our path to peace.” With the congregation of over 2,500 people watching in silence, Ulrich struck the floodlit doors, the base of his crosier reverberating against the wood. Inside, the choir answered with soaring hymns, their voices filling the nave. Illuminations on the cathedral facade heightened the drama. On the final strike, the heavy doors swung open, revealing the glowing interior of restored blond Lutetian limestone. Adding to the ceremony’s visual splendor, Ulrich and the clergy wore vibrant liturgical garments designed by French fashion designer Jean-Charles de Castelbajac. Known for his signature pop-art aesthetic, Castelbajac created 2,000 colorful pieces for 700 celebrants, blending modern elements with medieval touches. Flooded with light and song, the cathedral came alive in a moment of breathtaking spectacle. What had been a silent, soot-blackened ruin five years ago now blazed with renewed vitality, marking the culmination of a nearly $1 billion global effort to resurrect it. Speaking inside the cathedral, Macron expressed “gratitude” Saturday to those who saved, helped, and rebuilt Notre Dame, his voice reverberating through the nave. People gather near France's iconic Notre Dame Cathedral, hours before formally reopening its doors for the first time since a devastating fire nearly destroyed the 861-year-old landmark in 2019, on Saturday in Paris. “I stand before you ... to express the gratitude of the French nation,” he said, before voices flooded the space with song, harmonies not heard in over five years. “Tonight, the bells of Notre Dame are ringing again. And in a moment, the organ will awaken,” sending the “music of hope” cascading through the luminous interior to Parisians, France, and the world beyond, he said. The celebration is expected to give a much-needed boost to the embattled French leader, whose prime minister was ousted this week, plunging the nation’s politics into more turmoil. Macron has called Notre Dame’s reopening “a jolt of hope.” Observers say he hoped the occasion would briefly silence his critics and showcase France’s unity and resilience under his leadership — a rare moment of grace in a presidency now facing a grave crisis. Inside Notre Dame, 42,000 square meters of stonework—equivalent to six soccer pitches—gleamed anew, revealing intricate carvings and luminous limestone. Above, 2,000 oak beams, nicknamed “the forest,” restored the cathedral’s iconic spire and roof. The great organ, dormant for over five years, roared back to life like a slumbering giant. With its 7,952 pipes—ranging from pen-sized to torso-wide—and a renovated console featuring five keyboards, 115 stops, and 30 foot pedals, it responded to Archbishop Laurent Ulrich’s command: “Wake up, organ, sacred instrument.” Notre Dame's thunderous great organ was heard in public for the first time since 2019 at the cathedral's reopening ceremony Saturday night. The first low rumble grew into a triumphant symphony as four organists pulled out the stops, weaving improvised responses to the archbishop’s invocations. Eight times, Ulrich addressed the organ; eight times, its voice filled the nave with breathtaking sound. Guests marveled at the spectacle, many capturing the moment on their phones. “It’s a sense of perfection,” said François Le Page of the Notre Dame Foundation, who last saw the cathedral cloaked in scaffolding in 2021. “It was somber then. Now, it’s night and day.” The Rev. Andriy Morkvas, a Ukrainian priest who leads the Volodymyr Le Grand church in Paris, reflected on his first visit to Notre Dame in over a decade. “I didn’t recognize it,” he said. “God is very powerful; He can change things.” He expressed hope that the cathedral’s revival could inspire peace in his homeland, drawing strength from the presence of Ukraine’s president. “I think that will have a big impact,” he said. “I hope Notre Dame and Mary will help us resolve this conflict.” The reopening of Notre Dame comes at a time of profound global unrest, with wars raging in Ukraine and the Middle East. For Catholics, Notre Dame’s rector said the cathedral “carries the enveloping presence of the Virgin Mary, a maternal and embracing presence.′′ “It is a magnificent symbol of unity,” Olivier Ribadeau Dumas said. “Notre Dame is not just a French monument — it is a magnificent sign of hope.” The international range of dignitaries coming to Paris underline the cathedral’s significance as a symbol of shared heritage and peace. Canadian visitor Noelle Alexandria, who had traveled to Paris for the reopening, was struck by the cathedral’s ability to inspire. “She’s been nearly ruined before, but she always comes back,” Alexandria said. “Not many of us could say the same after such tragedy, but Notre Dame can.” Guests entered through Notre Dame’s iconic western façade, whose arched portals adorned with biblical carvings were once a visual guide for medieval believers. Above the central Portal of the Last Judgment, the Archangel Michael is depicted weighing souls, as demons attempt to tip the scales. These stone figures, designed to inspire both awe and fear, set the stage for a ceremony steeped in history. Inside, the hum of hundreds of guests awaiting the service filled the cathedral with human sounds once more — a stark contrast to the construction din that echoed there for years. Tuners restoring the great organ often worked through the night to find the silence needed to perfect its 7,952 pipes, ranging from pen-sized to torso-wide. Notre Dame echoed to the sound of a sustained standing ovation after the showing of a short movie that documented the gargantuan rebuilding effort. Outside, the word “MERCI” — thank you — was projected against the cathedral’s iconic western facade. The movie showed the terrible wounds left by the inferno — the gaping holes torn into its vaulted ceilings and the burned roof. But that was followed by images of all types of artisans, many using traditional handicraft techniques, who collectively restored Notre Dame to look better now than ever. "We went from night to light," said one of the workers in the movie. Security will be high through the weekend, echoing measures taken during the Paris Olympics earlier this year. The Île de la Cité — the small island in the River Seine that is home to Notre Dame and the historic heart of Paris— is closed to tourists and non-residents. Police vans and barriers blocked cobblestoned streets in a large perimeter around the island, while soldiers in thick body armor and sniffer dogs patrolled embankments. A special security detail followed Trump. For many, Notre Dame’s rebirth is not just a French achievement but a global one — after the reopening, the cathedral is set to welcome 15 million visitors annually, up from 12 million before the fire. People stand outside Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, Friday Nov. 29 2024 before French President Emmanuel Macron's final visit to the construction site to see the restored interiors before the iconic monument's reopening for worship on Dec. 8. (Sarah Meyssonnier, Pool via AP) The tabernacle of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral is seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the monument, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) The vaulted ceiling of the Notre-Dame cathedral is seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the monument, Friday, Nov. 29, 2024 in Paris. (Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool via AP) Windows in the heart of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral are seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the monument, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) People stroll in Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors the monument, Friday, Nov.29, 2024 in Paris. (Christophe Petit Tesson, Pool via AP) French President Emmanuel Macron, center, and his wife Brigitte Macron visit the restored interiors of the Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral, Friday, Nov.29, 2024 in Paris. (Christophe Petit Tesson, Pool via AP) French President Emmanuel Macron, third right, and his wife Brigitte Macron visit the restored interiors of the Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral, Friday, Nov.29, 2024 in Paris. (Christophe Petit Tesson, Pool via AP) People gather as French President Emmanuel Macron visits the renovated Notre Dame Cathedral Friday, Nov. 29, 2024 in Paris. (AP Photo/Michel Euler) French President Emmanuel Macron gestures as he visits the restored interiors of the Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral, Friday, Nov.29, 2024 in Paris. (Christophe Petit Tesson, Pool via AP) The nave, the western Rose window and the organ of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral are seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the monument, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) A man takes a picture of Notre Dame Cathedral as French President Emmanuel Macron visits the renovated cathedral, Friday, Nov. 29, 2024 in Paris. (AP Photo/Michel Euler) The nave of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral is seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the cathedral, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) People stroll in Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors the monument, Friday, Nov.29, 2024 in Paris. (Christophe Petit Tesson, Pool via AP) The South Rose stainglass window of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral is seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the cathedral, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) The South Rose stainglass window of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral is seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the cathedral, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) The nave of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral is seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the cathedral, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) Part of the nave and the organ of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral are seen while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the cathedral, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) The altar designed by French artist and designer Guillaume Bardet is seen in the heart of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the monument, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) The altar designed by French artist and designer Guillaume Bardet is seen in the heart of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral while French President Emmanuel Macron visits the restored interiors of the monument, Friday Nov. 29, 2024, in Paris. (Stephane de Sakutin, Pool via AP) The facade of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral in Paris, is seen Friday Nov. 29, 2024, ahead of French President Emmanuel Macron’s final visit to the construction site to see the restored interiors. The facade of Notre-Dame Cathedral is seen in Paris, Friday Nov., 29 2024 ahead of French President Emmanuel Macron's final visit to the construction site to see the restored interiors before the iconic monument's reopening for worship on Dec. 8. (Christophe Petit Tesson, Pool via AP) Part of the facade of Notre-Dame Cathedral is seen in Paris, Friday Nov., 29 2024 ahead of French President Emmanuel Macron's final visit to the construction site to see the restored interiors before the iconic monument's reopening for worship on Dec. 8. (Christophe Petit Tesson, Pool via AP) People stand inside Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, Friday Nov. 29 2024 before French President Emmanuel Macron's final visit to the construction site to see the restored interiors before the iconic monument's reopening for worship on Dec. 8. (Sarah Meyssonnier, Pool via AP) Get local news delivered to your inbox!DOVER, Del. (AP) — A Delaware judge has reaffirmed her ruling that Tesla must revoke Elon Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick on Monday denied a request by attorneys for Musk and Tesla’s corporate directors to vacate her ruling earlier this year requiring the company to rescind the unprecedented pay package. McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys , who argued that they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than $5 billion. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of $345 million. The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk’s 2018 compensation package. McCormick concluded in January that Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. The compensation package initially carried a potential maximum value of about $56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla’s stock price. Following the court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time, again by an overwhelming margin. Defense attorneys then argued that the second vote makes clear that Tesla shareholders, with full knowledge of the flaws in the 2018 process that McCormick pointed out, were adamant that Musk is entitled to the pay package. They asked the judge to vacate her order directing Tesla to rescind the pay package. McCormick, who seemed skeptical of the defense arguments during an August hearing, said in Monday’s ruling that those arguments were fatally flawed. “The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick wrote in a 103-page opinion. The judge noted, among other things, that a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction. “Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement,” she added. Meanwhile, McCormick found that the $5.6 billion fee request by the shareholder’s attorneys, which at one time approached $7 billion based on Tesla’s trading price, went too far. “In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask,” McCormick wrote. Attorneys for the Tesla shareholder argue that their work resulted in the “massive” benefit of returning shares to Tesla that otherwise would have gone to Musk and diluted the stock held by other Tesla investors. They value that benefit at $51.4 billion, using the difference between the stock price at the time of McCormick’s January ruling and the strike price of some 304 million stock options granted to Musk. While finding that the methodology used to calculate the fee request was sound, the judge noted that the Delaware’s Supreme Court has noted that fee award guidelines “must yield to the greater policy concern of preventing windfalls to counsel.” “The fee award here must yield in this way, because $5.6 billion is a windfall no matter the methodology used to justify it,” McCormick wrote. A fee award of $345 million, she said, was “an appropriate sum to reward a total victory.” The fee award amounts to almost exactly half the current record $688 million in legal fees awarded in 2008 in litigation stemming from the collapse of Enron. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Archer Daniels Midland Co. stock underperforms Friday when compared to competitorsSince its introduction into the Islamic world, philosophy has faced relentless opposition and negative criticism throughout its history. This opposition, arising from disparate intellectual and theological concerns, was primarily expressed by three prominent groups: the religious scholars engaged in the study of jurisprudence (fiqh) and its foundational principles (usul), theologians, especially the Ash’arite school, and some mystics (Sufis). The intensity of this opposition was such that some equated the study of philosophy with apostasy and atheism, arguing that its core principles were fundamentally incompatible with the foundational tenets of Islam. While opponents of philosophy have been many, al-Ghazali emerged as the most significant among them. With intellectual rigour and theological acumen, he effectively dismantled the secular intellectual environment within the Islamic world that had once allowed Muslims to engage with diverse scientific and philosophical debates. The culmination of this intellectual rupture was epitomised in his seminal work Tahafut al-Falasifah ( The Incoherence of the Philosophers ), in which al-Ghazali challenged the ideas of prominent peripatetic philosophers like Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina (Avicenna), exposing the contradictions and limitations of their philosophical systems. Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali, an Ash’arite theologian and scholar of the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence, stands as one of the most influential figures in Islamic intellectual history. Well-versed in jurisprudence, theology, and dialectics, he is often criticised for contributing to the decline of philosophical inquiry within the Muslim intellectual tradition, especially in Sunni thought. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a distinguished Iranian-American philosopher and theologian, maintains that al-Ghazali’s Tahafut al-Falasifah (The Incoherence of the Philosophers) decisively undermined rationalistic philosophy, and, in fact, brought an end to the philosophical tradition in the Arabic-speaking regions of the Islamic world. Frank Griffel, a respected scholar of Islamic studies at Yale University, offers a divergent view. He argues that although Al- Ghazali’s influence was undoubtedly significant, it did not lead to the complete obliteration of philosophy. Griffel contends that the existence of philosophers and philosophical works after Al-Ghazali—albeit in the minority—demonstrates that philosophy did not die entirely. There were those who continued to follow the teachings of Avicenna without engaging with Ghazali’s criticisms. From Khudi To Crisis: How Pakistan Strayed From Iqbal's Philosophy? Critics argue that al-Ghazali’s influence led to a decline in the regard for rational thought in Islamic scholarship. However, this claim cannot be easily accepted or dismissed; it requires a careful examination of the broader historical context. A deeper inquiry into the three primary factors—the theological, methodological, and socio-political—will provide a clearer understanding of the reasons behind Al-Ghazali’s staunch opposition to philosophy. First, with the fall of the Mu'tazilites, the Ash'arites emerged as the dominant orthodox school of Islamic theology. However, their doctrines did not achieve widespread acceptance until they were championed by scholars such as al-Juwayni and al-Ghazali, who is credited with refining and completing Ash'arite metaphysics. The Ash’arite school not only facilitated an independent critique of philosophy—especially Greek or Peripatetic philosophy—but also paved the way for intellectual contributions from figures like al-Ghazali and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Al- Ghazali's systematic refutation of philosophy, most notably in his celebrated work The Incoherence of the Philosophers , significantly diminished the apprehension toward intellectualism that had long prevailed among the orthodox. Some scholars, such as Ibn Rushd (Averroes), argued that Ash'arism, which they regarded as having evolved into the orthodox form of Islam, stifled the development of philosophy and science due to its emphasis on occasionalism. Critics often attribute the ascendancy of Ash'arism to al-Ghazali’s influence, as his works popularised Ash'arite theology to such an extent that it became the predominant theological framework of the Muslim community, a status it largely retains to this day. While the Ash'arites do not reject reason outright, they consider intellect (‘aql) secondary to Tradition (naql), prioritising the latter, in contrast to the Mu'tazilites. As Allama Iqal notes in The Development of Metaphysics in Persia , “Al-Ghazali was the first to write a systematic refutation of philosophy, and completely to annihilate that dread of intellectualism which had characterised the orthodox.” Sirbaz Khan Makes History As First Pakistani To Summit All 14 Peaks Above 8,000 Metres In his pursuit of truth, al-Ghazali embarked on a rigorous spiritual journey, eschewing intellectual rationalism in favour of a more direct, experiential path. Ultimately, he found refuge in Sufism Second, al-Ghazali’s critique of rationalism centres on the overreliance on reason and discursive philosophy. While he does not oppose or discredit intellect (aql) entirely, he argues that, although important, reason and intellect are insufficient for understanding absolute truth. His opposition to philosophy is articulated through two primary paradigms. First, al-Ghazali criticised Muslim peripatetic philosophers, particularly Ibn Sina and al-Farabi, for failing to meet the rigorous standards of demonstrative proof (burhan) and logic (mantiq), while elevating rational inquiry above the authority of Sharia and divine revelation. He contended that this elevation led to heretical and apostate views that undermined religious duties and deviated from core Islamic principles. In his The Incoherence of the Philosophers , al-Ghazali argued that the Aristotelian philosophy and logic transmitted by these philosophers were corrupt, often misinterpreted, and inadequate for addressing key theological matters. His critique focused on three central issues: the pre-eternity of the world, God’s knowledge of particulars, and bodily resurrection, among others. Secondly, as an Ash'arite theologian, al-Ghazali emphasised the epistemological primacy of Sharia over intellect. He believed that reason alone was insufficient to distinguish between good and evil or truth and falsehood. According to al-Ghazali, intellect must be subordinated to Sharia and divine revelation. Al-Ghazali not only undermined the dominance of philosophy in the Islamic world, particularly within Sunni Islam, but also reinforced the centrality of Sharia in shaping both theological and moral understanding. Dr Fazlur Rahman Malik, a modernist scholar and Islamic philosopher, stated, "Having failed to satisfy orthodox requirements, [philosophy] was denied the passport to survival." Third, al-Ghazali’s existential crisis, which began at the age of 38, precipitated a profound intellectual and spiritual turmoil, compelling him to abandon his prestigious career at Nizamiyyah Baghdad and personal life in search of the absolute truth and certitude. This crisis set him on a transformative, decade-long journey of epistemic inquiry. In his spiritual autobiography Deliverance from Error , he reflects on how the multiplicity of religious sects and conflicting doctrines within Islam fuelled his growing doubt. This realisation led him to reject conformist belief systems (taqlid), recognising religious adherence as more a result of social conditioning than rational conviction. Shehroze Kashif Becomes Youngest Pakistani To Summit All 8,000M Mountains In his pursuit of truth, al-Ghazali embarked on a rigorous spiritual journey, eschewing intellectual rationalism in favour of a more direct, experiential path. Ultimately, he found refuge in Sufism, which he regarded as the only true path to absolute truth, transcending the limitations of reason and sensory perception, while rejecting all other intellectual and spiritual avenues, including philosophy. Al-Ghazali's immersion in Sufism led him to embrace an intuitive (shuhudi) methodology. In his view, philosophy was an intellectual exercise dependent upon sensory experience and reason—tools he deemed insufficient for attaining truth and certitude. Al-Ghazali's intuitive methodology, as articulated in his writings, particularly in Ihya Ulum al- Din , emphasises the primacy of direct, experiential knowledge over abstract reasoning or intellectual debate. He contended that intuition (shuhud), being deeply subjective experience, could not be effectively communicated through traditional educational methods. In this regard, philosophy, with its reliance on rational analysis and logical constructs, appeared to al-Ghazali as a mere approximation of truth—incapable of guiding one to the deepest realities of existence, which could only be accessed through direct, mystical experience. It is equally important to mention that al-Ghazali’s embrace of Sufism was not only the outcome of his intellectual and spiritual quest but also a response to the political climate of his time, which increasingly opposed philosophical inquiry. In particular, peripatetic philosophy came under severe criticism from traditional Sunni scholars. Due to various socio-political factors, the teaching of rational sciences in madrassahs was restricted, as exemplified by the Nizamiyyah in Baghdad, founded by Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk, where Ghazali both studied and later taught. Nizam al-Mulk, the Persian vizier of the Seljuk Empire, was a strong supporter of Shafi'i jurisprudence and Ash'ari scholars, and nearly all the teachers at the Nizamiyya were Shafi'i scholars. Furthermore, religious conflicts within the Islamic world were on the rise. In this context, the promotion and patronage of Sufism by the political elites, including Seljuk rulers such as Sultan Tughril Bey, his brother Ibrahim Yinal, and Nizam al-Mulk, can be seen as a response to both the political needs of the time and the intellectual turmoil within the Muslim world. BankIslami Redefines Pakistan’s Financial Landscape With Riba-Free Banking For All According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ghazali's attacks on philosophy, as the leading Ash'ari theologian, Shafi'i scholar, and teacher at the Nizamiyya, played an important role in consolidating the political position and stabilising the Seljuk government.Quest Partners LLC Decreases Stake in BancFirst Co. (NASDAQ:BANF)