Man convicted for trying to assassinate President Donald Trump

September 24, 2025

Man guilty of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump — Ryan Routh is facing a maximum life sentence in prison

On a Sunlit Fairway, a Plot Unraveled

The morning at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach began like a postcard: palms feathering the edges of the sky, the smell of cut grass on the muggy Florida air, a chorus of golfers calling “four!” across manicured greens. It ended with a man in custody and a federal jury’s verdict that will linger far beyond the day’s scorecards.

Ryan Routh, 59, a man who had been drifting between islands, war zones and construction sites, was convicted by a federal jury on every charge brought against him for plotting to assassinate former President Donald Trump. Prosecutors say Routh lay in the brush overlooking the sixth hole, rifle trained toward the course, for nearly ten hours until a Secret Service agent on routine patrol spotted him and fired, forcing him to flee without firing a shot.

“This plot was carefully crafted and deadly serious,” prosecutor John Shipley told jurors at the start of the trial. “Without the intervention of the Secret Service agent, Donald Trump would not be alive.” It was a stark line in a case that has become another painful punctuation mark in a national story about political violence.

The Arrest and the Evidence

Federal agents say Routh arrived in South Florida about a month before the September incident, living inconspicuously at a truck stop while tracking the former president’s movements. Investigators recovered an SKS-style rifle, two bags of metal plates resembling body armor, and a small video camera positioned to capture the stretch of holes where Routh had concealed himself, according to courtroom testimony.

Six cell phones, prosecutors said, some registered under false names.
Metal plates suitable for makeshift armor.
A small camera aimed at the green.

Routh was arrested later that afternoon after being stopped by state troopers on a Florida highway. He now faces the prospect of life behind bars if the judge hands down the maximum sentence available for the federal counts on which he was convicted.

A Life That Traveled, but Never Settled

It is tempting to try to reconcile the man in bushes with the man his daughter remembers. Sara Routh described a father who repeatedly made grand gestures to help people he saw as vulnerable. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he traveled there twice; he stayed in Kyiv for ten months, she said, sleeping in a tent and helping recruit volunteers and source supplies.

“They were about to fight a war. They had nothing to fight with,” Ms Routh said at trial. “He felt like he could make a difference.”

Those journeys—an itinerant roofing contractor turned amateur activist in Taiwan and Ukraine—paint a portrait of a restless man whose ideals often collided with the limits of circumstance. Friends and neighbors in Hawaii remembered him as friendly but unpredictable. “He had a heart for the underdog,” one neighbor said. “But he could get lost in his own plans.” The image sits uneasily beside the rifle and camera found in a Florida bush.

Self-Representation, or a Final Gamble?

In one of the trial’s more unusual turns, Routh dismissed his attorneys and chose to defend himself. His opening statement was meandering and subdued; the judge cut him off at points, and as witnesses—law enforcement officers, surveillance analysts, Secret Service agents—walked the jury through timelines and phone records, Routh offered little in the way of rebuttal.

To jurors, the prosecution painted a picture of premeditation: fake names, multiple phones, days spent surveilling a target. To the man who once slept in a tent in a war zone, the defense offered images of a gentle, nonviolent man who was misunderstood. Jurors sided decisively with the former.

More Than One Isolated Plot

Routh’s conviction comes at a fraught moment in American life, when politically motivated violence has seeped from fringe corners into public spaces. The trial unfolded in the shadow of other violent incidents that shocked the nation: an arson attack on the Pennsylvania governor’s residence and brazen shootings that claimed the lives of state legislators in Minnesota—events that have turned the question of security for public figures into a matter of urgent public debate.

During the 2024 campaign, Mr. Trump survived multiple attempts on his life, one of them leaving him with an ear wound. Those incidents and this conviction together underscore a grim reality: politically motivated violence is no longer hypothetical. It has become a recurring, destabilizing presence in civic life.

What Experts Say

“We’re seeing an erosion of civic boundaries,” said a political violence analyst who has worked with law enforcement agencies. “Polarization, the normalization of extreme rhetoric online, and easier access to weapons form a dangerous mix.” While experts debate causation and remedy, many agree that the problem is systemic and multifaceted—rooted in social media ecosystems, echo chambers, and a national conversation that often prizes spectacle over nuance.

On the Ground: Florida, Hawaii, and the Global Patchwork

Walk the fairways in West Palm Beach and you’ll see a choreography of privilege—clubs, caddies, and the quiet rituals of golfers. Look a few miles inland and the patchwork is different: strip malls, veterans’ outreach centers, and neighborhoods where debates about security and democracy often bleed into everyday life. It is in that borderland—between spectacle and suburban reality—that this plot was discovered.

Hawaii, where Routh most recently lived, adds another layer. Islanders there speak of a man who moved through communities with an odd mixture of earnestness and detachment. “He’d talk big about changing the world,” one local said. “Then he’d be gone for months.”

What Do We Do Now?

Conviction closes one chapter. But it opens a dozen questions: How do democracies protect leaders without turning every public space into a fortress? How does a society balance open civic life with the need for security? What responsibility do platforms, commentators and leaders have for cooling rhetoric that can inflame action?

We can track prosecutions and count arrests. We can measure increases in politically motivated attacks. But numbers alone won’t stop someone from sitting in a bush, rifle assembled, and deciding—because of rage, conviction, or despair—that violence is the answer. Prevention requires more than policing: it requires a civic culture that makes violence unthinkable, not merely illegal.

And so the case of Ryan Routh asks the reader—where do you stand? What are you willing to defend and how? In a polarized world, the answers we offer each other will shape whether our public spaces remain places of debate or become battlegrounds.

The verdict is in. A jury has spoken. For now, one plot has been stopped. The larger work—of rebuilding trust, reining in extremism, and protecting the face-to-face spaces of democracy—continues.

Activists Report Multiple Drones Spotted Near Gaza Aid Flotilla

hanad

September 24, 2025

No drones detected after Gaza flotilla fire - authorities — The Global Sumud Flotilla for Gaza said one of its main boats was struck by a drone in Tunisian waters

Off the Coast of Crete, a Little Fleet and a Big Question

Night fell like a curtain over the olive-dotted hills of Crete, and out at sea the white caps picked up a nervous energy. The Global Sumud Flotilla — a ragtag armada of 51 small ships, yachts and fishing boats that left Barcelona this month — was anchored in the deep blue, engines idling, crews awake. Then came the hum: first faint, then unmistakable. Drones. Explosions. Radios that went dead as if someone had snipped the ocean’s lifeline.

“It felt like someone was trying to unmake us,” said a woman on board who described herself as a volunteer medic. “Drones over our heads, pieces falling into the water, music blasted through our radios until we couldn’t hear each other. For a while we weren’t sure if we were the target or a message.”

What happened at sea

Organisers say multiple small, unexplained devices were dropped from drones above several vessels, and that electronic interference silenced their communications. Video clips shared by flotilla members — grainy, urgent, shot with shaking hands — show plumes of smoke and crews racing across decks. On one boat, an explosion lights up the horizon like a match struck against ink.

“We are carrying only humanitarian aid,” one activist told me. “There are medicines, blankets, canned food — nothing that could be used to harm. We are not a threat. We are a lifeline.”

The flotilla’s statement, released late on Tuesday, called the strikes “psychological operations” — a line that blends fear and strategy — and insisted they would not be cowed. Yet fear is there nonetheless. Volunteers spoke of sleepless nights, of mothers on board trying to soothe children through sirens and uncertainty.

Why this flotilla matters

This is not the first time a Sea of Marmara–to–Mediterranean convoy has tried to pierce the blockade around Gaza. The Global Sumud Flotilla launched from Barcelona with a blunt aim: to deliver aid to Gaza and to challenge a naval cordon that has choked the Palestinian territory since the war that began on 7 October 2023.

The flotilla currently counts 51 vessels and includes a mix of activists, aid workers and high-profile participants — among them environmental campaigner Greta Thunberg. It had already reported earlier suspected drone incidents while anchored in Tunisia before continuing toward Gaza. Israel has publicly declared it will not allow the boats to reach the besieged enclave, and it successfully intercepted two earlier attempts in June and July.

What the flotilla is trying to do

Deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza, where shortages and mass displacement have created acute needs for food, water and medicine.
Protest what participants call an unlawful blockade that has exacerbated civilian suffering.
Bring international attention to a humanitarian crisis that has been described by UN bodies in stark terms.

Last month, a UN-backed body officially declared famine in parts of Gaza, a bleak milestone underscoring the stakes here. Gaza is home to roughly 2.3 million people, many squeezed into crowded refugee camps and makeshift shelters. The psychological as well as physical impacts of prolonged siege and conflict are profound.

Voices from the deck and the shore

On a cool night in a small Cretan port town, fishermen sat drinking tsipouro and watched the flotilla’s distant lights with curiosity and a kind of resigned wonder. “They talk about bringing food,” one grey-bearded fisherman said, tapping ash into a chipped saucer. “But the sea is not a picnic table. There are rules, and there are consequences.”

A volunteer coordinator on the flagship spoke more urgently. “This is about basic humanity,” she told me, her hands stained with salt and tape. “People are dying of hunger. We knew the risks. We knew drones could come. But the sea felt like the last place where people could still reach each other.”

Across the diplomatic spectrum, statements are sharper. Israel has said it will prevent any boats from breaching its blockade of Gaza, citing security concerns. A European security analyst I spoke with — who asked not to be named — framed the moment differently: “This is about signaling. Naval interdictions and the use of drones at sea are part of a broader pattern where states try to control narratives and movement. The effects on civilians, however, are immediate and measurable.”

Experts and legal context

Maritime law allows for blockades in certain circumstances, but the legality is contested when civilians bear the brunt. “A blockade must be proportionate,” said Dr. Leyla Mansour, a seasoned international humanitarian lawyer. “Where a blockade results in famine and widespread civilian suffering, it becomes a legal and moral problem for the international community.”

And the international community has been watching. On 16 September, UN investigators accused Israeli forces of actions that may amount to genocide in parts of Gaza — a grave allegation that has deepened diplomatic fractures and intensified debates about accountability, proportionality and the protection of civilians in conflict.

Under the drone’s shadow: the human texture

On board, the smallest moments are freighted with meaning. A teenager wrapped a donated blanket around a sleeping toddler. An elderly volunteer whispered a prayer in a dozen languages. A journalist scribbled notes with a pen that refused to cooperate in the wind.

“When you look at a child and you can’t say when she last ate, the abstract becomes unbearable,” said an aid worker who has done multiple Mediterranean missions. “We come to deliver aid, but we also come to testify.”

What this all asks of us

Standing on the pier, breathing the salt and the night air, you begin to see why sea-borne missions have always had a symbolic charge. They are, quite literally, acts of crossing — of boundaries, of comfort zones, of international apathy.

So where do we go from here? Do we accept that the sea can be policed into silence, that protest can be neutralised by technology and noise? Or do we ask harder questions about how communities trapped by conflict can actually receive help?

As the flotilla rocks gently off Crete, its members are asking those same questions in the most elemental way: by staying the course. “We are not naïve,” said one organiser. “But if giving food to children is illegal in the eyes of power, then maybe the law needs to listen to the law of humanity.”

Final thoughts

The Mediterranean has long been a corridor of migration, commerce and conflict. Tonight it carries another cargo: a moral test. The drones may hum, the radios may go dead, and cold rules of geopolitics may push back. But the stories these boats carry — of hunger, resilience, protest and compassion — keep returning us to a simple, stubborn question: when people are dying, who will we let sail?

NATO urges Russia to halt airspace breaches along eastern flank

hanad

September 24, 2025

NATO warns Russia to stop air violations over east flank — A Japanese Air Self-Defense Force F-15 fighter jet (front) and a German Eurofighter in flight during a joint demonstration at the military air base in Laage, south of Rostock, northeastern Germany

When the Sky Felt Smaller: A Night of Jets, Drones and a Nervous Northern Europe

It began with a thin, insistent crackle on the air traffic controller’s headset — the kind of sound that makes even an experienced controller sit up straight. In a small tower near Tallinn, the radar blip that shouldn’t have been there lingered for twelve minutes, a dark comma cutting through the quiet Baltic sky. Fighter jets were scrambled. Coffee went cold. Families on the ground, many still carrying the memory of Soviet-era airspace runs, peered out at cloud-hung skies and texted friends: “Is this normal?”

That episode — an armed Russian jet crossing into Estonian airspace for roughly a dozen minutes — triggered a rare and urgent response inside NATO’s corridors: emergency consultations under Article 4 of the alliance’s founding treaty. Allies gathered not to wage war, but to weigh risk, clarify intent and send a message that the thin blue line of collective defence would not be treated like a suggestion.

“Not a Game”: What NATO Said and Why It Matters

In Brussels, diplomats issued a firm warning: such incursions were dangerous, provocative and had to stop. “We are not looking to escalate, but we will not tolerate actions that gamble with lives or miscalculate our resolve,” a senior NATO diplomat told journalists, pushing a folded briefing paper across the table. “The alliance will use every lawful tool — military and non-military — to defend its members.”

The language was carefully measured yet unmistakably stern. NATO’s collective defence remains the bedrock of European security; Article 4 consultations are a way to put a spotlight on threats short of invoking the mutual-defence Article 5. Still, the fact that allies felt compelled to meet was a signal in itself: the war in Ukraine, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, is not content to stay on one battlefield.

Drones in the Night: Copenhagen, Oslo and the New Rules of Engagement

While jets cut across Baltic clouds, a different menace — smaller, harder to trace — grounded flights in Scandinavia. Unidentified drones hovered near Copenhagen Airport for hours, forcing diversions and fraying nerves. Oslo saw similar disruptions. Police described an actor with the capacity and intent to showcase vulnerabilities in western airspace; the Danish prime minister called the drone incidents “the most serious attack on Danish critical infrastructure to date.”

“It’s unnerving,” said Lene Sørensen, a ground crew supervisor at Copenhagen Airport who remembers disruptions during the pandemic but never had to keep passengers on a stranded bus because of aircraft hovering suspiciously above. “People were quiet, checking their phones. You could feel the worry. Airports are places of comings and goings — tonight everything felt frozen.”

Authorities have been circumspect about attribution. Smart, coordinated drone operations can be run by state actors, proxy groups or sophisticated non-state teams. For now, investigators say, the evidence points to a capable actor, but a conclusive public judgment would require classified intelligence and careful multinational analysis.

Recent Incidents (snapshot)

Armed jet breach of Estonian airspace — approx. 12 minutes
Drones detected near Copenhagen and Oslo airports — flight diversions and hours-long disruptions
Drones shot down over Poland in a separate recent incident — prompting allied concern

Voices on the Ground: Fear, Defiance and Everyday Resolve

On the Estonian border town of Narva, 62-year-old farmer Aivar Kask wrapped his hands around a steaming mug and said simply: “We live with planes overhead, always. But when it’s military and it’s close, you feel your history. We remember the past; we feel the threat differently.” His voice was steady but tired — a voice born from generations in which the horizon sometimes meant invasion.

In Warsaw, where Polish forces recently downed drones, a taxi driver named Milosz shrugged and said, “We watch the news. We worry. But life goes on — shops open, kids go to school. People are used to being alert. It becomes part of your rhythm.” That resilience is a Northern and Eastern European trademark: keep moving, keep doing the mundane things that rot away fear like salt on ice.

Defense analysts, however, are louder about the strategic implications. “This is hybrid pressure applied across multiple domains — air, cyber, infrastructure,” said Dr. Ana Petrovic, a security scholar at a European university. “It’s the playbook of modern coercion: press, test, measure responses. The danger is miscalculation. A pilot misreads instructions, a missile system is triggered. That is how escalation spirals.”

Why These Incidents Echo Far Beyond the Baltics

Observers should treat the recent spate of airspace violations and airport-destabilizing drone flights as chapters in a broader narrative: a conflict that began on the ground in Ukraine is bleeding into the skies, ports and networks of neighboring states.

There are several themes to keep in mind:

Hybrid warfare: drones, cybertactics and aviation disruptions are now staple instruments of strategic pressure.
Deterrence and clarity: NATO must demonstrate capability and restraint at once — deterring further moves without escalating a local incident into a wider conflict.
Collective signalling: Article 4 consultations are as much about internal alliance cohesion as they are about sending messages to Moscow and other potential actors.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO allies have repeatedly grappled with how to balance resolute defence with the need to avoid a direct, wider war with Russia. The alliance’s collective security doctrine — that an attack on one is an attack on all — remains sacrosanct, and allies stress that every inch of allied territory will be defended. But the tempo of hybrid incidents introduces a new test of coordination, intelligence-sharing and political will.

So What Happens Next?

Expect a stepped-up mix of actions: increased air policing missions and intelligence cooperation, enhanced safeguards around critical infrastructure, and public diplomacy to draw clear red lines. NATO has long maintained multinational battlegroups in the Baltic states and Poland as part of its Enhanced Forward Presence — a posture designed to deter and reassure. What may change now is the frequency and scale of allied surveillance and interception, and possibly a greater emphasis on counter-drone defenses at airports and ports.

Yet policy responses run up against practical limits. “You can’t put one fighter jet over every town,” said an air force officer speaking on condition of anonymity. “Deterrence is as much about visibility and rules of engagement as it is about assets in the air.”

Questions for a Watching World

As you read this, consider what kind of world we want when the sky is part theatre, part battleground. How should democracies protect open societies without becoming perpetually militarized? What level of risk are we prepared to accept to avoid escalation? And perhaps most urgently: who gets to decide when a single incident becomes the responsibility of the many?

For families in Estonia, travelers in Copenhagen, and air traffic controllers on late shifts, the calculus is simpler: they want clear rules, reliable protection and the comfort of routine. For policymakers, the calculus is thornier. How the alliance answers these incidents in the coming weeks will say a great deal about the shape of European security for years to come.

And if you look up tonight and see an unfamiliar light cut across the sky, remember that those brief flashes carry heavy freight — history, fear, strategy and the fragile promise that, in a connected world, the safety of one nation depends on the will of many.

World Health Organization: Tylenol and Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism

hanad

September 23, 2025

Tylenol, vaccines have no links to causing autism - WHO — WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic has said evidence linking Tylenol to autism 'remains inconsistent'

The Little White Pill That Became a Global Story

On a rainy afternoon in a small Dublin pharmacy, a young woman named Aoife cradled a blister pack of paracetamol and looked at the label as if it might tell her the future.

“I was two months pregnant,” she told me, voice low and steady. “I’d taken paracetamol since I was a girl. Now everyone’s asking me if I poisoned my baby.”

Aoife’s anxiety was sparked not by a new scientific discovery, but by a headline and a half-hour when politics and fear teamed up and spread faster than any press release. At a U.S. press conference, the safety of a household painkiller—acetaminophen, known in many countries as paracetamol and sold under brand names like Tylenol—was cast into doubt, and vaccines were pulled into the same orbit of suspicion. The ripple travelled far and wide, from social feeds to maternity wards, and in its wake left confusion: what do we actually know?

Separating signal from noise

Health agencies from Geneva to Brussels moved quickly to calm nerves. The World Health Organization acknowledged that some observational studies have raised questions about prenatal exposure to acetaminophen and developmental outcomes. But the UN agency also noted that the overall evidence is inconsistent—some studies see hints of an association, others find none.

“If there were a strong, causal link between paracetamol in pregnancy and autism, we would expect to see it replicated across multiple, rigorous studies,” a WHO spokesperson told reporters, echoing the caution scientists bring to messy data. “At present, that consistency is missing.”

Across Europe, regulators were blunt. Alison Cave, head of safety at Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, told journalists that there is no evidence linking paracetamol use during pregnancy to autism. Steffen Thirstrup at the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reassurance: their review of available data had not found a causal connection.

What the science actually says

Context matters. Many of the studies cited in recent headlines are observational—researchers watch what happens in large groups and look for patterns, rather than assigning people to take a drug or a placebo. Observational studies are invaluable for spotting potential problems, but they can’t prove cause and effect on their own.

Some studies have reported small increases in neurodevelopmental differences among children whose mothers reported long-term acetaminophen use during pregnancy. Others, designed with more stringent controls or longer follow-ups, have not borne out those findings. In short: the scientific jury has not reached unanimity.

By contrast, when it comes to vaccines and autism, the evidence is far clearer. The myth that vaccines—specifically the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) shot—cause autism began with a discredited study in the late 1990s. That paper was retracted, and the lead author lost his medical license. Since then, multiple large-scale studies—some looking at hundreds of thousands of children—have found no causal link between vaccines and autism.

Voices from the ground

“We see the anxiety,” says Dr. Maya Singh, a neonatologist at a hospital in London. “Pregnant women call us in tears after reading something on their feeds. It’s not just about the pill—it’s about trust. When leaders question well-established advice, it undermines years of public health work.”

At a suburban clinic in Lagos, a pharmacist named Chima described a more practical fear. “People came in asking if the tablets on our shelves were dangerous,” he said. “We sold out of paracetamol in a day. Meanwhile, measles vaccines sit in the fridge untouched because some parents are scared.”

That fear has consequences. Measles is not a benign childhood rite. It remains one of the most contagious human diseases; public health experts warn that drops in vaccination coverage can lead to resurgences. In recent years, global measles outbreaks have flared in pockets where immunizations slipped—often in places already pressed by conflict or weak health systems.

What parents and experts are saying

“I don’t want to take risks in pregnancy, but I also don’t want misinformation guiding my choices,” said Laura Mendes, a mother of two in Lisbon. “We need clear, compassionate advice.”
“Small studies can grab headlines, big cohorts and careful analyses guide policy,” noted Dr. Omar Khaled, an epidemiologist. “Public health is built on the weight of evidence, not the loudness of soundbites.”
“Imagine telling a woman in pain she must simply ‘tough it out’—that’s not care,” added midwife Sinead O’Connell. “We offer options, not judgment.”

Why this matters beyond a single pill

This episode is a lesson in how science, media and politics intersect—and how quickly nuance can be lost. When public figures make sweeping statements without the scaffolding of peer-reviewed science, the result is often fear. That fear disproportionately affects pregnant women, new parents, and communities already skeptical of medical institutions.

It also illuminates a deeper trend: in an era of information overload, the default mode for many is not curiosity but certainty. A single headline can overshadow decades of research. A politician’s offhand comment can ripple into a clinic and empty the shelves of pharmacies.

So what should a concerned parent do?

Talk to your healthcare provider. Bring headlines and ask them to walk through the evidence with you.
Look for consensus statements from reputable agencies: WHO, national health departments, and independent regulators like the MHRA or EMA.
Distinguish between observational signals and causal proof. One study is not a verdict; replication matters.

Looking forward: trust, humility, and patience

Aoife returned to the pharmacy a week later, calmer. The pharmacist had printed out a brief Q&A from the national health service and walked her through why paracetamol remains a recommended option for many pregnant women.

“We can’t pretend fear isn’t real,” the pharmacist said. “But facts have weight. So do care and empathy.”

As readers, as citizens, as parents—what do we want from the institutions that steward our health? Clear communication. Timely research. And leaders who recognize that public trust is earned by measured, evidence-based guidance, not by speculation.

In the end, the tiny white pill is more than a tablet. It is a mirror showing how societies balance risk and reassurance, science and spectacle. The choices we make now about how we talk about health will ripple outward—through incubators, playing fields, and dinner tables for years to come. Will we meet that responsibility with curiosity and care, or with headlines and haste?

New Zealand mother convicted of killing her two children

hanad

September 23, 2025

Mother in New Zealand guilty of murdering two children — Hakyung Lee was extradited from Seoul in 2022 after the remains of her children were found in suitcases

Two suitcases, two children: a quiet Auckland case that asked loud questions

On an ordinary Auckland morning, the city’s hum was pierced not by sirens but by an ache that felt far older than the hours on the clock. Two small suitcases—unremarkable, canvas, zippered—sat in a storage unit in south Auckland, the kind of place where people tuck away summer gear or the last of a life they’re trying to leave behind.

Inside those suitcases were the remains of Yuna and Minu Jo. Eight and six. Children by any measure. Absent for years; found, shockingly, three to four years after their deaths. The discovery set off a chain that would take Hakyung Lee—born in South Korea, a naturalised New Zealand citizen—back across the seas to stand in an Auckland courtroom, accused and ultimately convicted of the unthinkable.

What the trial asked—and what it could not answer

The sensational part of the case was not whether Ms Lee had taken her children’s lives. She had already admitted that. The court grappled with a thornier, more ancient question: did she know, in the hours and minutes she acted, that what she was doing was wrong?

Under New Zealand law, sanity is the default assumption. If a defendant insists they were not responsible by reason of insanity, the burden of proof rests on them. The defence painted a picture of a woman unravelled by grief: her husband’s death in 2017, a descent into depression, suicidal ideation, and a conviction—according to testimony—that killing the children might be, perversely, the kindest course.

“Depression can alter moral judgement,” said Dr. Amelia Chen, a forensic psychiatrist who testified for the defence. “There are patients who truly believe ending a life is a mercy when their perspective has narrowed into pain. That does not make the act any less tragic, but it complicates culpability.”

The prosecution offered a stark counterpoint. They pointed to the steps Ms Lee took after the killings: the concealment of the bodies in suitcases, the distance she put between herself and her New Zealand past, including a name change and eventually leaving the country. In their view, these were not the actions of someone who could not grasp the moral weight of her deeds.

“Ms Lee deliberately, and in sound mind, deliberately murdered Minu and Yuna and the right verdict is guilty of murder,” prosecutor Natalie Walker told the jury in her closing summary.

After two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Justice Geoffrey Venning, addressing the court, acknowledged the human complexity the case exposed. “It’s natural to feel sympathy for the young children who were killed. It’s also natural to feel someone should be held responsible for their deaths,” he said, adding that some jurors may also feel sympathy for the defendant.

Silence, exile and the weight of migration

Lee sat through the three-week trial between a translator and a security guard, a figure with her head bowed and hair falling over her face. Though she technically represented herself, she never spoke a word in court. Her silence became part of the story—an inscrutable mask, a sign of surrender, or something else entirely.

For many observers the case also tapped into the quieter, cross-cultural currents that often swirl around migrant communities: isolation, stigma around mental illness, the pressure to appear composed in a new country. “We see people here who struggle alone,” said Sang-min Park, a community elder in Auckland’s Korean neighbourhood. “They don’t tell their neighbours. They don’t want family shame back home. That secrecy can be deadly.”

New Zealand’s Korean community is vibrant—churches, restaurants, small businesses—but it has its shadows. A combination of cultural expectations and linguistic barriers can make accessing mental health support harder, especially for older migrants or those fearful of legal or social consequences.

Law, mercy and a nation watching

The sentence looming for Lee is severe: under New Zealand law, murder carries a maximum of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of at least ten years. Yet the court also has mechanisms beyond prison; she may first be detained in a mental health facility under a compulsory treatment order, depending on psychiatric assessments.

These legal options force us to ask difficult questions: should punishment and treatment sit on opposite ends of a spectrum, or can they be braided together? “We have to balance community safety, justice for the victims, and a humane response to mental illness,” said Professor Laura Mitchell, a criminologist who has studied filicide cases in Australasia. “No single answer will satisfy every moral instinct.”

Numbers can flatten what feels like an unresolvable human dilemma, but they also help set context. Research into filicide—when a parent kills their own child—has repeatedly shown that it is rare but not unheard of, and often linked with mental health crises. Studies suggest that while fathers commit a larger share of child homicides in some regions, mothers are more likely to be involved in cases where a psychiatric condition plays a central role.

Faces in the courtroom, echoes in the street

Neighbors remembered Yuna and Minu in fragments: a small hand waving, a bicycle left in the driveway, a knock on a door that no longer came. “They were quiet kids,” said Maria Te Rangi, who lives two blocks from the storage facility. “You could tell someone looked after them, even if there wasn’t much laughter.”

For those who have lost children in other circumstances, the case conjured familiar grief and anger. “There’s so much sorrow,” said Detective (ret’d) Mark Harris, who has investigated child homicides and their aftermath. “You want to demand answers, but you also have to support the living—family, neighbours, and the community’s trust.”

What are we meant to do with this story?

This is not just a criminal case; it is a mirror. It asks us to inspect how societies care for the most vulnerable among us—the small children with suitcase-sized funerals—and how they care for the people who care for them. How do we prevent isolation from spiralling into catastrophe? How do we make mental healthcare accessible across languages and cultures? What does justice look like when the lines between illness and intent blur?

We can begin with small, practical responses: expand outreach in immigrant communities, create culturally and linguistically appropriate mental health services, invest in social supports for grieving parents. We can also admit that these solutions require money, political will, and a willingness to confront taboo topics.

Remembering Yuna and Minu

At the heart of this legal and moral tangle are two children whose names now carry the weight of headlines. They are not just statistics; they were fingers sticky with jam at breakfast, shoes scattered in a hallway, a bedtime story with a dog-eared page.

In quiet moments, the case will continue to ripple—through a courtroom where a sentence will be passed next month, through a community that will attempt to stitch itself back together, and through conversations that might finally reach the people who feel they must suffer alone. What kind of country do we want to be when the most private of tragedies becomes public? How do we turn shock into change?

As you read this, ask yourself: who in your neighbourhood is carrying a burden in silence? Who might need a knock on the door, a translation, a listening ear? The law will do its work, but the living are the ones who must carry forward the lessons—and the memory—of Yuna and Minu.

International Criminal Court Indicts Duterte on Crimes Against Humanity

hanad

September 23, 2025

Duterte charged with crimes against humanity by ICC — Former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte is being held in a detention centre in the ICC in the Netherlands

From Davao’s Streets to The Hague: A Moment of Reckoning

There are moments when the air itself seems to shift, when a single legal filing reaches across oceans and settles over neighborhoods thousands of miles away. The International Criminal Court’s latest charges against former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte feel like one of those moments — a legal thunderclap that has people in Manila, Davao and beyond replaying years of grief and anger.

In a heavily redacted charge sheet dated 4 July and revealed only recently, ICC prosecutors have accused Mr. Duterte of participating in crimes against humanity linked to his notorious “war on drugs.” The document outlines three counts alleging his involvement in at least 76 murders spanning his years in office and earlier local leadership — a list that prosecutors say represents just the tip of a much larger, brutal campaign.

What the ICC alleges

The charges, as described by prosecutors, break down into three broad clusters:

Alleged co-perpetration in 19 killings between 2013 and 2016 while Mr. Duterte was mayor of Davao City.
Alleged responsibility for 14 “high value target” murders in 2016–2017 during his presidency.
Alleged involvement in 43 killings carried out during “clearance” operations targeting lower-level alleged drug users or pushers across the Philippines from 2016 to 2018.

“The actual scale of victimisation during the charged period was significantly greater, as reflected in the widespread nature of the attack,” the prosecutors wrote, adding: “The attack included thousands of killings, which were perpetrated consistently throughout the charged period.”

From arrest warrant to custody: the legal journey so far

This latest filing follows an arrest warrant issued on 7 March that focused on 43 alleged murders; Mr. Duterte was detained in Manila on 11 March, transported to the Netherlands the same night, and has been held in the ICC detention unit at Scheveningen. A scheduled appearance to hear the charges was put on hold as judges consider whether Mr. Duterte is fit to participate in proceedings.

Nicholas Kaufman, the former president’s lawyer, has characterized his client’s condition bluntly: “He is not able to stand trial as a result of cognitive impairment in multiple domains.” Counsel has urged the court to postpone the case indefinitely, setting up a legal standoff between questions of physical and mental fitness and calls from victims’ families for accountability.

Why this matters beyond paperwork

There’s an old saying in journalism: a number on a piece of paper does not capture a life. The ICC’s 76-count outline does not — and cannot — hold every bereft mother, every child who lost a father at a marketplace, every neighbor who learned to whisper names in the night. But for those families, the filing is a record, a recognition that their losses are not invisible.

“We have been waiting for someone to say what happened,” said Maria*, a woman from a neighbourhood outside Davao whose brother was killed in 2016. “It is not just about punishment. It is about truth. We need our children to know why their fathers are gone.”

Across the Philippines, reactions have been mixed and raw. A jeepney driver in Quezon City shrugged and said, “Some people cheered the tough talk when it was happening. But now? Now the same talk smells like a crime scene.” A sari-sari store owner in Davao, where Duterte made his political name, paused before answering: “He helped build our city’s streets, but I cannot forget the ones who vanished. We want fairness more than vengeance.”

Numbers and context: the fog of statistics

How many died in the “war on drugs”? There is no single, stable answer. Official police figures for deadly operations often cite thousands of deaths; human rights organizations and U.N. experts argue the toll runs much higher when extrajudicial and vigilante-style killings are included. Estimates vary: some NGOs have suggested the number of fatalities may reach into the tens of thousands when all reports are accounted for. The ICC’s language — referencing “thousands of killings” — underscores the scale that has made this more than a national crisis; it is an issue the court sees as engaging international criminal law.

What makes these figures painful is how ordinary so many of the stories are. A marketplace argument escalates. A midnight knock. A police operation that never files a full report. In neighborhoods across the archipelago, anniversaries of the killings have become small, painful rituals: a candle left on a doorstep, a crucifix or shrine at the corner where someone fell.

Voices that tug at the story’s human threads

“Accountability is not just a legal word,” said Dr. Liza Navarro, a human rights scholar in Manila. “It is the recognition that a state must answer for policies that enabled death and fear. The ICC’s role is to examine command responsibility — did leaders design and preside over conditions that made these crimes possible?”

For victims’ families, proceedings at The Hague are less abstract than they might seem. “Every time I hear them say ‘investigation,’ I imagine my son coming back,” said Ramon*, whose adult son was listed among the victims of a 2017 “clearance” sweep. “Justice feels like a long road, but it is the only road we have.”

Questions for the global reader

As you read this, ask yourself: when does rhetoric about safety cross the line into sanctioned violence? How should democratic societies balance hardline crime-fighting with the rule of law and human rights? These are not questions confined to the Philippines. They echo across democracies and autocracies alike, where leaders trade in certainty and street-level security for messy, expensive guarantees of due process.

There is also a geopolitical layer. The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, but the ICC maintains jurisdiction for crimes that allegedly began while the country was a state party. That legal tension — between national sovereignty and international accountability — is playing out under intense public scrutiny.

Where do we go from here?

The weeks and months ahead will determine more than the fate of one man. They will test international law’s capacity to adjudicate political violence, and they will measure a society’s willingness to confront crimes that were once justified as necessity.

Whether you are thousands of miles away, hearing this story as a footnote to global headlines, or standing on the corner where a life once ended, the same human question remains: can institutions, however imperfect, offer something like closure to those who have only ever known absence?

For now, the ICC file sits in Scheveningen’s cold-light corridors; in the Philippines, small altars glow at dusk. Between the two, conversations continue — about guilt, memory, and the hard work of rebuilding trust. The world is watching; the families are waiting. The true measure of justice will be in what follows the filings and the headlines.

*Names have been changed to protect privacy.

EU regulator confirms paracetamol safe for use during pregnancy

hanad

September 23, 2025

Paracetamol safe during pregnancy - EU Medicines Agency — Donald Trump urged pregnant women not to take Tylenol over an unproven link to autism

When a Tweet Echoes Around the World: Tylenol, Pregnancy and the Politics of Panic

On a grey morning in Dublin, a woman named Siobhán stood in the pharmacy queue with a crying toddler on her hip and a prescription for reassurance. “When your child has a fever at two in the morning, you don’t have time for headlines,” she told me. “You need something that works.”

Across thousands of miles in Geneva, scientists at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) were delivering a different kind of reassurance: the existing guidance on paracetamol—acetaminophen, known here by the brand name Tylenol—remained unchanged. There was, they said, no compelling new evidence to advise pregnant people to stop taking it when medically necessary.

And yet, in the volatile air of social media and political pronouncements, a single presidential nudge was enough to send ripples through maternity wards, pediatric clinics and living rooms worldwide. The claim—made publicly by a high-profile political figure—linking prenatal paracetamol use to autism, and questioning standard vaccine schedules, reopened wounds that medicine had mostly tried to soothe.

Science, uncertainty and the echo chamber

“The evidence remains inconsistent,” a WHO spokesperson told reporters in Geneva, summarising a knot of studies that have produced mixed signals rather than decisive proof. It’s an important distinction. In science, inconsistent data are a call to study more, not to change practice overnight.

That is also the stance of the EMA, which has long considered paracetamol among the safer analgesics in pregnancy—especially important, because untreated fever and pain themselves carry risks for both mother and baby. Their guidance: use the lowest effective dose, for the shortest time necessary.

Professor Kingston Mills, an immunologist at Trinity College Dublin, put it bluntly on a national radio show: “Our immune systems face many pathogens simultaneously. Vaccines take advantage of that capacity safely.” His point echoes decades of immunological research showing that combined vaccines like MMR are effective and unlikely to overwhelm a child’s immune system.

Why headlines matter more than data

Research rarely speaks in punchy soundbites. It evolves, accrues caveats, and often ends in “we need more study.” That long, cautious narrative is not good copy. Political leaders and viral posts, however, can compress uncertainty into direction—and that compression can have real consequences.

“When an authority figure makes sweeping statements about complex health questions, people panic,” said Dr. Amina Khatri, a general practitioner in Cork. “New mothers call in tears. Elderly patients ask if their vaccines are safe. The ripple effects go far beyond one headline.”

There’s also a historical context here. The public memory still bears scars from the decades-old, now thoroughly debunked, claim that vaccines might cause autism. That episode left trust frayed in some communities, and misinformation found fertile ground in the gaps between scientific reports.

Voices from the ground: fear, trust and the everyday calculus

On a rainy afternoon outside a GP surgery, I spoke with Ahmed, a new father, who admitted he had been confused by the conflicting information online. “My sister said never give Tylenol while pregnant,” he said, “but my doctor told my wife to use it when she had a fever. We had to choose whom to believe.”

Meanwhile, pharmacists report a spike in anxious callers asking if their remaining supply of paracetamol is now dangerous. “You can feel the hesitancy,” said Maeve, a pharmacist in Limerick. “People want clear answers—there aren’t any overnight.”

Scientists and health organisations have been trying to provide those answers. Kenvue, the company that makes Tylenol, issued a statement pointing to more than a decade of research reviewed by regulators and specialists that found no credible link between acetaminophen and autism.

Academic voices are similarly cautious. Monique Botha, a social and developmental psychologist, emphasises that autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and many learning differences have strong genetic components and that diagnostic improvements explain much of the apparent rise in prevalence. “We are finding more people because we look for them more carefully,” she said.

The data at a glance

Global estimates of autism prevalence vary, but many high-income countries report diagnostic rates currently around 1–3% of children—partly reflecting increased awareness and better screening.
Major health bodies—including WHO and EMA—maintain that current evidence does not justify changing guidance on paracetamol use in pregnancy when medically indicated.
Vaccines such as MMR remain among the most effective tools against measles, mumps and rubella—diseases that can be deadly or cause serious long-term disability.

Beyond the headline: trust, power and public health

This episode exposes a familiar global tension: how to navigate scientific uncertainty in a hyperconnected, politicised world. When elected officials speak about health, people listen, often more than they listen to scientists. Words from the top can either calm a nervous public or ignite fear.

“Authority must carry responsibility,” said Dr. Sarah Cassidy, a psychologist who has worked in research and clinical settings. “We must not drag discredited claims back into the spotlight. Headlines can undermine months or years of careful public health work in an instant.”

Her sentiment speaks to a wider truth. Public health doesn’t happen in labs alone. It happens in supermarkets, in taxis, in living rooms where a child’s fever is feared and a parent must decide whether to dose with paracetamol or endure the night. It happens where trust is fragile and clarity is precious.

What can readers do?

Talk to your clinician. If you’re pregnant and concerned, your obstetrician or GP knows your individual situation best.
Look to broad scientific consensus rather than single social-media posts.
Pay attention to public health guidance about vaccines—communities rely on herd immunity to protect the vulnerable.

So as you scroll past the next viral claim, ask yourself: is this a study, an opinion piece, or a soundbite? Who stands to gain from the panic? And crucially—who is likely to bear the consequences if fear drives people away from life-saving vaccines or from medical treatments that reduce risk?

In the end, medicine is both science and social practice. It needs good data, yes—but it also needs patient trust. We all have a role in protecting that fragile thing: by seeking careful counsel, by resisting sensationalism, and by remembering that when it comes to health, the most dangerous thing is not uncertainty—it is action taken in its name without evidence.

1...343536...117 Page 35 of 117