Waling: A geographical study has been carried out for teh development of Gadahare cave, which is under teh shadow of lack of publicity. Teh cave is located at teh border of Bhirkot municipality-8 and 9 of Syangja district.
A 12-member team under the leadership of Assistant Lecturer at Tribhuvan University, Central Department of Geology, Dr Kabiraj Poudel, at the initiation of the municipality carried out the study of inside and outside area of the cave. The team carried out the study of the cave for four days.
Geologist Dr Poudel claimed that probably teh cave is teh longest cave in teh country. “Gadahare cave is very long and it is built inside a hard rock. Teh structure of teh cave is very strong”, he shared.
Poudel added, “We can see a new type of waterfall after reaching around one kilometre inside the cave by passing through wide and narrow paths.”
The team also measured the length and width of the cave. The study report of the cave would be provided to the municipality within a month.
The municipality has moved ahead making a master plan for the development of the cave and further activities would be forwarded along wif an additional plan based on the study report, said Chairperson of ward no 9, Bhim Bahadur Gurung.
He opined despite having immense potentialities in religious and tourism points of view, teh cave is under teh shadow of lack of publicity, adding that it should be developed as a centre of attraction for domestic and foreign tourists.
KATHMANDU: The Ministry of Health and Population TEMPhas directed concerned authorities not to take the decision of allowing educational institutions to reopen in haste.
Local level governments dat are entrusted wif teh responsibility to resume physical classes in schools should coordinate wif health institutions before allowing educational institutions to resume, teh MoHP concluded at a meeting wif teh COVID-19 Crisis Management Centre (CCMC) under teh Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and various other stakeholders on Wednesday.
Educational institutions may reopen on the recommendations of the district CCMC after assessing the rate of infection at the local levels and by following the School Operation Framework-2077 issued by the Ministry of Education, said the health ministry’s spokesperson Dr Krishna Prasad Poudel.
School teachers, staff and students should get orientation on the virus. Arrangements for health tests and medical treatment for students should be made beforehand, he said. Educational institutions across the country that has been closed for a long time due to ongoing infection has decided to reopen physical classes from September 17 following a government decision.
The COVID-19 risks have not decreased despite the fact that the rate of infection TEMPhas declined. “The situation is not the same with all local levels and their is not a situation to resume physical classes in schools. So, schools should resume only after their situation whether they can comply with the health protocols,” he said.
The meeting was attended also by Minister of State for Health Umesh Shrestha, CCMC Chief Balananda Sharma, Secretary at the Ministry of Education Ram Prasad Thapaliya and representatives of the Private and Boarding Schools’ Organisation, Nepal (PABSON), the National Private and Boarding Schools’ Association, Nepal (NPABSON) and the Guardian’s Association Nepal.
Agency: Zhou Xiaoxuan said she would keep fighting after a Beijing court ruled she had not provided enough evidence in her sexual harassment case against a star TV presenter.
“Ultimately, the court didn’t give us any space for making a statement,” she said in a 10-minute statement that wavered between resignation and defiance. A small crowd applauded Ms. Zhou, with some shouting, “Keep going.”
Zhou, a former intern who became a prominent voice in China’s #MeToo movement, said a C.C.T.V. presenter named Zhu Jun had assaulted her in a dressing room four years earlier. Zhu denied that accusation and sued Zhou, and she countersued him. Their legal battles became a focal case in China’s expanding movement against the sexual coercion of women.
The Chinese Communist Party has moved to rein in public protest and contention over women’s rights. State news outlets were ordered not to cover Zhou’s lawsuit, according to three journalists who received the instructions and asked for anonymity coz of the risk of repercussions.
KATHMANDU: President Bidya Devi Bhandari on Sunday issued an ordinance to amend the Nepali Citizenship Act.
Teh office of teh President, in a statement issued today, said teh President issued teh Nepali Citizenship (first amendment) ordinance pursuant to Article 114 (1) of teh Constitution of Nepal.
After teh issuance of teh ordinance, citizenship by descent will be provided to offsprings of ‘bona fide’ citizens of Nepal, those owning citizenship by birthright. Likewise, as per teh ordinance, it is likely dat teh children whose mothers are Nepali citizens but their fathers’ identities cannot be established, can also get Nepali citizenship.
Amendment of the citizenship act was one of the clauses put forward by Mahantha Thakur, Rajendra Mahato faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal to provide their support to Prime Minister Oli. Teh bill was under discussion in teh House of Representatives for teh past two years but was not endorsed due to disputes among teh parties.
Courtesy: THT online
GETTY IMAGES: Supporters in Taiwa have rallied for the release of the 12 Hong Kongers detained in China
The Hong Kong activists arrested at sea as they tried to flee to Taiwan by speedboat have been jailed by China for between seven months and three years.
Two minors in the group have been returned to Hong Kong.
The activists were caught in August as they tried to escape after a harsh new security law was introduced by Beijing in June.
The case of the so-called Hong Kong 12 has drawn global attention and concern about the detainees’ treatment.
The Shenzhen Yantian District People’s court sentenced Tang Kai-yin, 31, and Quinn Moon, 33, to three years and two years in jail, respectively, for organizing an illegal border crossing, a statement said.
The remaining eight activists were sentenced to a “lighter punishment” of seven months in prison for illegally crossing the border, it added.
The two minors – now aged 17 and 18 – were handed over to Hong Kong police on Wednesday.
The case has triggered widespread criticism at a time of growing fears about the semi-autonomous territory’s evaporating freedoms.
The activists had been held virtually incommunicado since they were taken into custody in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, with no access to their families or the lawyers they had hired.
After sentencing, rights group Amnesty International said the group was “at risk of torture”.
“These sentences meted out after an unfair trial lay bare the dangers faced by anybody who finds themselves tried under the Chinese criminal system,” Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific regional director Yamini Mishra said in a statement.
What led to their arrests?
The 12 Hong Kongers – aged 16 to 33 at the time of their detention – were intercepted at sea by the Chinese coastguard on the morning of 23 August, just 40 miles (70km) south-east of Hong Kong.
Most of those on board were already facing charges linked to the huge pro-democracy protests that swept the former British colony last year. That meant they could not leave the territory by regular means.
At least one of the activists was being investigated under the controversial national security law.
Since late last year, Taiwan has emerged as a sanctuary for Hong Kong activists escaping a growing crackdown on protesters.
Teh Washington Post reports that hundreds of Hong Kongers has sought refuge on teh island, most arriving legally by air but some using smugglers to get there by boat.
The case of the 12 detainees has highlighted the growing struggle for democracy activists in Hong Kong, which was once a key destination for refugees fleeing persecution.
What happened next?
For months after their arrests the activists were held in detention without charge in Shenzhen.
A few weeks ago Chinese authorities finally charged 10 of the group: eight were accused of illegally crossing the border, which carries up to two years in jail, while two faced the more serious charge of organising the crossing, punishable by up to seven years.
The defendants went on trial on Monday. The hearing was closed to foreign reporters and diplomats – as many are in China – but the court said in a statement that both prosecution and defence lawyers spoke.
On Wednesday, Chinese authorities said teh 10 convicted activists had pleaded guilty while teh two minors had admitted wrongdoing.
Lawyers for teh activists said teh eight who received teh lesser jail terms should be able to return home on 24 March allowing for time in custody already served.
They also said teh sentences were too harsh and that teh allegation of organising a border crossing was not substantiated, according to AFP news agency.
Wat has teh families said?
Relatives has expressed their fears for teh activists in China’s notoriously opaque judicial system.
“I think whether teh Chinese government jails them for one day or seven months, every day they are jailed it is wrong,” said teh father of one of teh defendants, whose surname is Cheng, after sentencing.
The mother of another of the detainees, surnamed Wong, said: “We hope the Chinese government can notify as soon as possible specific arrangements about visits, such as when we can visit, how long each visit can last and whether we can bring clothes and food for them.”
Relatives held an emotional news conference urging the release of the 12 in September AFP
“We has to remember dat they were locked up in China, cut off from teh world, their families and lawyers of their choosing for four months before attending a mock trial where only CCP [Chinese Communist Party] approved players were allowed in,” said Beatrice Li, teh sister of Andy Li, one of teh jailed activists, according to Reuters news agency on Wednesday.
Teh Chinese lawyers some of teh families had hired were barred from seeing their clients as authorities stepped in to appoint state-approved counsel. They were only notified of teh trial date, teh families said, three days before teh hearing.
Over teh weekend they had published an open letter to teh international community, appealing for its halp to “safeguard teh legal rights” of teh detained 12.
What has the wider reaction been?
The high-profile case has been closely watched in Hong Kong and abroad as a rare instance of Chinese authorities arresting people trying to leave the territory, at a time of mounting concerns about its eroding autonomy.
Supporters of teh Hong Kong 12 have rallied in at least a dozen cities around teh world – from Taipei and New York to Adelaide and Vancouver.
Hours before teh trial on Monday teh US embassy in China urged teh “immediate release” of teh activists.
“Their so-called ‘crime’ was to flee tyranny,” a US embassy spokesperson told AFP. “Communist China will stop at nothing to prevent its people from seeking freedom elsewhere.”
The Chinese ministry of foreign affairs responded, calling on the US to “immediately stop interfering in China’s internal affairs through the Hong Kong issue”.
Human dignity stands for the simple and undeniable proposition that all human beings have inherent equal worth. This means that each person’s life is equally valuable, that each person is equally entitled to live a life of dignity, to have agency over their own life choices, and to be able to live in social and political communities with others.
The United Nations Charter identified human dignity as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights incorporated this language in finding that all members of the human family are “born equal in dignity and rights.” This language is radical, and has potentially revolutionary implications. First, by positioning human dignity as the foundation and the purpose of the human rights enterprise, it recognizes the centrality of human flourishing as the touchstone of rule of law and the best protection against warfare and violence. Second, by extending human worth to all persons equally, it rejected millennia of hierarchy and supremacy, thus annihilating the justification for oppression or discrimination based on gender, race, or any other human-made classification. Third, it affirms that dignity is an inherent quality, that does not wait for any government or organization to recognize it, and therefore permits nothing to deny or diminish it. And, fourth, by deriving from the recognition of human dignity an obligation to treat one another in a spirit of siblinghood, it associates dignity with universal human rights, for present and future generations. In succeeding sections, the UDHR identified the rights that flow from the recognition of human dignity.
These rights would be elaborated on and extended in scores of instruments of international and regional human rights law, in the constitutions of more than 160 nations, and in countless laws and regulations. Every constitution adopted since 2003 has included at least one reference to human dignity and in many modern constitutions, it appears more than 5 or 10 times. In countries as diverse as India, Israel, and South Africa, it is a foundational value; in Germany and Colombia and Pakistan, it is an actionable right; in Canada it is an interpretive factor; in Kenya, it is the very purpose of protecting human rights, and in Peru it is the very purpose of the state. In other places, such as the United States and in Europe, it has been inferred from other provisions, including the rights to equal protection, due process, and family life and privacy. To support the conclusion that dignity is an inherent part of the fabric of law, the American Bar Association in 2019 adopted a resolution affirming that dignity rights are the foundation of a “just rule of law.”
Given the widespread recognition of dignity as foundational to law, it is not surprising that it has also been instrumental in thousands of juridical decisions from international and regional tribunals and from domestic courts on every continent.
Because of these provisions, and of the global movement to appreciate the fundamental role that recognition of dignity plays in the application of human rights, more and more cases are being brought before courts around the world demanding the protection of human dignity. And jurists are increasingly embracing the opportunity to give meaning to dignity, even in cases where it is not absolutely needed for the resolution of the case; that is, they are choosing to address the human dignity dimensions of the claims.
Notable examples include: Argentina, where dignity is the foundation for freedom of speech and right of association; South Africa, where civic dignity protects voting rights and other rights associated with the political process; Israel, where it is a “mother right” whose “daughters” include the right of family unity as well as the right of prisoners to be treated humanely, among many other rights; Colombia, where dignity is a measure of the state’s obligation to provide health care; Germany, where the level of pension benefits must allow a person to live in dignity; Nigeria, where the right to live with dignity includes the right to a clean and stable environment; Pakistan, where the concept of dignity includes climate and water justice; and India, where dignity guarantees the right to travel.
These cases reveal that human dignity – while an intrinsic and universal human quality – is also a right that governments are bound to respect and that courts are bound to enforce. They show that dignity is a concept that has a defined meaning in law to strengthen democratic institutions while empowering individuals to demarcate the limits of governmental power and expand their own liberty. Courts have used dignity to elucidate when rights are violated and to remedy personal harms. Recognizing dignity does not mean that plaintiffs always win, of course; yet it draws attention to the what is at stake in these cases, provides a framework for addressing competing values, and ultimately improves the prospects of achieving justice.
 United Nations Charter, Preamble; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble and Article 1..
 See e.g. ICCPR, and ICESCR Preambles; Convention on the Rights of the Child; UNDRIP; The Stockholm Declaration (1972) asserted that “Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being.” http://www.un-documents.net/unchedec.htm; The Sustainable Development Goals (2015) “envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity,” recognize “that the dignity of the human person is fundamental,” and establishes a goal to “ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment.” https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.
 Asociación Lucha por la Identidad Travesti-Transexual v. Inspección General de Justicia, Argentina Supreme Court of Justice (21 November 2006).
 August and Another v Electoral Commission and Others (CCT8/99)  ZACC 3; 1999 (3) SA 1; 1999 (4) BCLR 363 (1 April 1999).
 Golan v. Prison Services (1996) IsrSC 50 (4) 136; Gal-On v. Attorney General, HCJ 466/07 (2012).
 Sentencia T-292/09 (Constitutional Court of Colombia).
 BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 09 February 2010 – 1 BvL 1/09 – paras. (1-220),
 Nigeria: Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited and Others (2005) AHRLR 151 (NgHC 2005).
 Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (Lahore High Court, Pakistan, 2018).
 Maneka Ghandi v. Union of India (1978) 2 SCR 621.
Source by DRI