Sadly they have not issued them yet. The prosecutor recently requested them and the court has yet to decide.

The story of the Tree That Owns Itself is widely known and is almost always presented as fact. Only one person—the anonymous author of “Deeded to Itself”—has ever claimed to have seen Jackson’s deed to the tree. Most writers acknowledge that the deed is lost or no longer exists—if in fact it ever did exist. Such a deed would have no legal effect. Under common law, the recipient of a piece of property must have the legal capacity to receive it, and the property must be delivered to—and accepted by—the recipient.[6] Both are impossible for a tree to do, as it isn’t a legal person.

[…]

“However defective this title may be in law, the public recognized it.”[11] In that spirit, it is the stated position of the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government that the tree, in spite of the law, does indeed own itself.[12] It is the policy of the city of Athens to maintain it as a public street tree.[13]

[…]

Although the story of the Tree That Owns Itself is more legend than history, the tree has become, along with the University Arch and the Double-Barreled Cannon, one of the most recognized and well-loved symbols of Athens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself

In reality, the tree is not protected by law, but by the will of the people. Kind of symbolic if you ask me.

I think most country’s police would be pulling out warrants to search your house when you’re advocating for violent terrorism.

I would certainly hope so

First: fuck Israel’s Genocide in Gaza.

Second: this article is extremely biased, to the point that it is basically misinformation. The people they are talking about are Yasemin Acar and Salah Said, infamous protesters in Berlin. Here is a translated part of a german newspaper, video evidence is linked in the article:

Speaking at a demonstration in January, she literally threatened: “If violence is the only option, we will use it.” She then celebrated the attacks by the Islamist Houthi militia: “Yemen, Yemen we are proud, turn another ship around.”

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/die-stimme-des-israelhasses-wenn-gewalt-die-einzige-option-ist-werden-wir-sie-anwenden-11284348.html

Of course the police is searching the homes of people that threaten violence themselves and encourage terrorist attacks on civilian ships.

deleted by creator

I can’t speak for the rest of Europe, but in Germany there was a major reform in sexual assault laws in 2016. You cannot compare before and after at all, because the laws are much stricter now. Things that were not considered rape or sexual assault before, are now. I would assume the same happened elsewhere, too. In 2017 “Me Too” started, which also led to much more awareness on the subject, so more people report on it since then.

Violent crime in Germany, while being higher than in the last few years, is still lower now than in 2010 or any year before. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153880/umfrage/faelle-von-gewaltkriminalitaet/

Theft is roughly on the level of 2019 in Germany and way lower than 2016 and any year before that. Grand theft is lower than ever (excluding 2021).

Source: German Federal Criminal Police (page 36), https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/PolizeilicheKriminalstatistik/2022/FachlicheBroschueren/IMK-Bericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5

The “increase in crime” is only really there if you compare today to the unusually low pandemic numbers. In general, we are just back to the normal (higher) pre-pandemic crime rates.

They did in fact do that in the English translation of some Arabic bios:

He had written in his bio that he was Palestinian, followed by a Palestinian flag and the word “alhamdulillah” in Arabic - which translates to “praise be to God” in English. However, upon clicking “see translation”, viewers were given an English translation reading: “Praise be to God, Palestinian terrorists are fighting for their freedom”.

The linked article in this post is a cut down version of the original BBC article below, except it somehow lost all of the important content in the process: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67169228

If you are in a EU country, then the local agriculture sector is also heavily subsidized by the EU. Agriculture subsidies is the single largest part of the entire EU’s budget.

My question was more specific than that. I absolutely understand why it is important to sanction high-tech products and stop Russia from exporting their goods.

But western companies selling non-critical goods inside Russia felt more like russian economic dependancy to western companies to me, which (for me as a layman when it comes to economy) seemed preferable to Russia having an independent economy. Thats where my question came from.

Now I realized that rather than “dependant economy” or “independant economy” the intended goal in this case is “no economy”, although i am doubtful whether that will really work.

Good point. Thanks for your insights.

If they imported some ingredients before and then had to switch to local suppliers after the pullout … doesn’t this also benefit Russia, since now all of the production is national and they require less imports?

It is not like making food or soft drinks is really high tech. At worst, it is just going to taste a bit different if the ingredients are different. Or other, already local companies might gain market share.

Maybe, but not without startup investment and knowledge. All of that isn’t free, and if an economy is unstable, no-one is going to commit money into it.

At least the knowledge is already there. Pepsi is not going to take the workers in Russia away with them. And as far as I know the investment is mostly the cost of buying the assets from the western company. For example the russian McDonalds branch just reopened with a new name at the same locations.

I have a genuine question that maybe somebody with more economic knowledge can educate me in:

How is continuing the sale in Russia helping Russia? As I understand Russia is gaining money on the sales taxes, etc. but the rest of the earnings will go to the US parent company, which cannot be taxed directly by Russia. If Pepsi backs out, wouldn’t operations just be replaced by a rebranded russian company, where all of the earnings would be under russian “sphere of influence”?

I genuinely do not understand why Pepsi backing out is considered bad for Russia. I thought countries generally prefer national companies over foreign ones.

So not only did the original article quote the wrong study, they also completely misread the content of the actual study.

@0x815@feddit.de you might want to edit the title of your post to prevent spreading misinformation.

I read through the mentioned study that is quoted in the article as the source for that number with a translator, but I cannot find anything relating to the number. On the contrary, the mentioned rates of abuse seem to be way lower.

In general, 24% of respondents are aware of the use of physical force (beatings, blows) in families among their environment, including their own. Every fourteenth resident of Russia (7%) witnessed domestic assault in the parental family, and every twentieth (5%) practices or is the object of violence in their own. Given the sensitivity of the topic of violence for the interview format, we can assume that this share in both cases may be higher.

(Translated)

https://www-levada-ru.translate.goog/2019/09/13/domashnee-nasilie/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

At the end it talks about which acts are generally considered domestic violence by married people, but it does not even talk about the rate of abused married woman in particular.

Maybe someone who can read russian can find something here that I cannot? But as of now I see no source for the claim.

Edit: Just to be clear: I am not supporting Russia’s War. I am merely pointing out that the source for the claim does not actually support the claim.

I don’t think the article is trying to claim that labor exploitation is new.

This part directly admits that it is a very old phenomenon:

It’s been noted, and correctly so, that entertainment industry labor disputes often erupt when there’s a change in technology — from theaters screening projected films to the cathode ray tube of the home television, say, or the rise of YouTube and other online content in the 2000s — and that happens for a reason. Historically, executives and management use a disorienting new technology to try to justify lowering wages of their workers, and they have done so since the days of the Industrial Revolution.

As I understood it, the article just wants to explain why this is happening now, because historically it seems to happen in waves.