We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE US FEDERAL judge who halted President Donald Trump’s revised ban on refugee resettlement and arrivals of people from six mainly Muslim countries has extended his order blocking its implementation.
US District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii said yesterday he had turned his original temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction.
Such an injunction generally has no set expiration date, said Hawaii state Attorney General Doug Chin.
This means Trump will be barred from enforcing the ban while it is contested in court.
The US Justice Department is expected to appeal to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the ruling.
Watson’s first order suspending enforcement of Trump’s amended ban was issued 15 March – a day before the measure was to go into effect.
Trump’s first ban and the revised one have both been criticised as amounting to a ban on entry of Muslims into the US.
Hawaii’s attorney general Chin praised the court ruling.
“With a preliminary injunction in place, people in Hawaii with family in the six affected Muslim-majority countries – as well as Hawaii students, travelers, and refugees across the world – face less uncertainty,” he said.
“While we understand that the President may appeal, we believe the court’s well-reasoned decision will be affirmed,” he added in a statement.
In his first order, Watson ruled it was plausible “to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam” given their Muslim populations ranging from 90.7 percent to 99.8 percent.
Trump has said a travel ban is needed to preserve US national security and keep out extremists.
If the Justice Department appeals the latest ruling it will be heard in the same San Francisco-based court that upheld a halt to Trump’s first travel ban in February after a judge in Seattle ruled against it.
The ban aims to close US borders to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and all refugees for at least 120 days. Iraq was on the original ban but removed in the revision.
The White House said the six countries were targeted because their screening and information capabilities could not meet US security requirements.
Well we can all sleep peacefully now that that’s sorted.
Not the best comparison really considering he retorted with a figure for the domestic market rather than all operated markets combined.
The greed of the music companies is line one endless stream. The artists complaints are a joke. Plays on Spotify are like having your ads paid for
Streams on Spotify are a pittance and a poor source of income for musicians. More power to her if she wants to remove her music from Spotify. She clearly doesn’t need it as she’s by far the best selling artist this year.
Taylor Swift and her record company are just in it for the prestige of record breaking sales and the history books, not people who listen to the music. Nowhere is questioned what is better for the consumer (or fans as they used to be known)?
Spotify has obviously not cannibalised the album buying public, as her album has one of the highest number of record sales, which is in addition to any income from streaming and video services.. Spotify replaces the radio, not albums sales, and it gives people to opportunity to spend a small amount to listen (not own) music for a low cost. But not low enough that If all you wanted to listen to was taylor swift, then you could buy her back catalogue for less than a few months of spotify.
What the record company don’t get is that the spotify income, small as it is compared to if everyone who listened to a track bought the album instead, is a top up from people who would just download it from a torrent, or listen to it on the radio. It is never about being paid for their work, as she has the highest income per effort in the world, but instead just making sure parents pay what a record company exec told her each fan was worth.
She is probably the most popular pop artist out there at the moment and she would only make €400k/year on Spotify? Most artists must only be making pennies on it
I like her songs.
don’t know why. but her and her songs really annoy me, even more than Cheryl cole
Oooooh no, she only earned €398,000 in the last 12 months. Boo focking Hoo.
Taylor Swift and music in the same sentence . . . ? Jaysus.
Nope.
Maybe?
Depends!
On?
have your say