. . . . . . . . . this is al jazeera. > this is al jazeera. heavy fighting across yemen on the sixth day of the saudi-led offensive. elections results from nigeria as nigerians wait to see who will run their country. and a last-minute agreement on iran's nuclear future plus out of africa and into the philippines. how a private zoo built by a

former dictator is somehow surviving as an safari park. heavy fighting is being reported across yemen on the sixth day of the saudi-led offensive against houthi rebels. witnesses are telling al jazeera that cement workers have been killed injured, and trapped after houthis shelled their factory. they have also exchanged fire with saudi forces along the border. residents and tribal leaders say saudi helicopters were seen flying overhead. overhead.

>> 5 million people in yemen rely on handouts from the international community. this fighting is not going to go to those people. more starvation. more hunger. and the possibility for violence and instability is just going to go on. >> and the longer this goes on

what is it like -- you're looking at a live picture of indiana governor mike pence. he is at the indiana state library about to speak about a controversial religious freedom law. he's been defending all week. there's been a lot of opposition to this law particularly in the lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender community let's listen in. >> it's been a tough week here in the hoosier state. but we're going to move forward. as governor i have the great privilege of serving the greatest people on earth, the people of indiana. let me say i was proud to sign the religious freedom act last week. i believe religious liberty as president clinton said in 1993, i believe religious liberty is our first freedom and it is

vital to millions of americans who cherish faith as i and my family do. but it's also vital to the framework of freedom in our nation. and this legislation was design designed insure the vitality of religious liberty in the hoosier state. i believe hoosiers are excitaled to the same protections in our federal court for the last 20-plus years. clearly, clearly there's been misunderstanding and confusion and mischaracterization of this law. and i come before you today to say how we're going to address it. we've been working over the last several days around the clock. been talking with people across the state of indiana. talking to business leaders. talking to organizations around

the country who have spent time in indiana and enjoyed the hospitality of the people of indiana. and we've been listening. let me say first and foremost as i've said to each one of them the religious freedom restoration act

-- i hate discrimination. the way i was raised was like most, with the golden rule. that you should do unto others as you should have them do unto you. i believe in my heart of hearts that no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, love or what they

believe. and i believe every hoosier shares that conviction. but as i said we've got a perception problem here because some have a different view. and we intend to correct that. after much reflection and in consultation with leadership of the general assembly i've come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. let me say that again. i think it would be helpful and i'd like to see on my desk before the end of this week legislation that is added to the religious freedom restore ration act in indiana that makes it clear that this does not give

businesses the right to deny services to just anyone. we want to make it clear that indiana is open for business. we want to make it clear that hoosier hospitality is not a slogan. it's our way of life. it's the reason why people come here from around the world and come back over and over again. because hoosiers are the kindest, most generous, most decent people in the world. let me say i believe this is a clarification but it's also a fix. it's a fix of a bill that through mischaracterization and confusion has come to be greatly misunderstood. i'm determined to address this this week. and to move forward as a state. and i know we will. indiana has come under the harsh glare of criticism from around

the country. and some of us get paid to be under that harsh glare and criticism so we don't complain about it. but the things that have been said about our state have been at times deeply offensive to me. i will continue to use every effort to defend the good and decent people of indiana. i think it's important that we take this action this week. i've spoken to legislative leaders all the way through the last hour and we're going to be working to make that happen. with w that i'm happy to take questions. got ahead.

this law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples. and, look i could have handled that better this weekend. but going into that interview this weekend, i was just determined to set the record straight about what this law really is. i'm very pleased that the reporting about the religious freedom restoration act as significantly improved over the last several days. i think there is a growing public understanding that indiana has passed a law here that mirrors the federal law that president clinton signed and of some 30 dates. i'm grateful for that. but on sunday my intention was to set that record straight but i want to be clear on that

point. thank you for the opportunity. absolutely not. religious liberty is vitally important in the life of our nation. and to ensure that hoosiers have the same level of scrutiny when they believe their religious liberty is intrudeing upon in our state courts and that 30 other states have already had for some time is simply the right thing to do. it's that important. and i was pleased to have signed it and i stand by the law. jim, i've never supported that. and i want to be clear. it's not on my agenda. but i think it's completely a separate question. we are talking about the

religious freedom restoration act which is about restoring the highest level of scrutiny in our state courts when matters of government action intrude upon the religious liberty of hoosiers. that's where i want to stay focused. but i do believe that moving legislation this week that would make it clear this law does not give businesses the right to deny businesses to anyone would be appropriate. that's still under discussion and consideration. but that's the direction. yes, please. was i expecting this kind of backlash? heavens no.

to be candid with you, you know when i first heard about the legislation, heard that it was already federal law for more than 20 years heard that it was the law through statute and court decisions in 30 jurisdictions, in the wake of last year's supreme court case the hobby lobby case i just thought it was an appropriate addition to indiana statutes. it moved through the legislative process with good debate but not a considerable amount of controversy. so candidly when this erupted last week even though i'd made my position clear weeks ago that i would sign the bill without much discussion, i was taken aback. and i have to tell you that the gross mischaracterizations about

this bill early on and some of the reckless reporting by some in the media about what this bill was all about was deeply disappointing to me and to millions of hoosiers. but we're making progress on that. i think we're turning back. i'm grateful for the expressions of support that are being given from around the country including many in the media that are articulating what this is all about and we'll continue to move forward on that.

let me say the smear here against this bill is that it is a license to discriminate. or a license to deny services. that's just completely false. baseless. professor conkill who i quoted this morning said it well this is not a license to discriminate. so i think the proper legislative remedy is to focus on the perception created by the mischaracterization and to make it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone.

i would leave it -- i think the -- you mean the public reaction? i think it's explained by the fact that this was grossly mischaracterized by advocates who oppose the bill and also some very sloppily pi reporting for the first several days. i really do believe that. look if i read some of the stuff about this bill i would have had the same concern that millions of hoosiers and others across the country have had. it just didn't so. i mean when president clinton signed this bill in 1993 the american civil liberties union said this that the religious freedom restoration act was the

most important legislation considered by congress since the first amendment was aprofed. okay. when then state senator barack obama voted for this bill in illinois it was with broad and bipartisan support. one of the great pieces of the legislative history of the religious freedom restoration act is a way of bringing people together consensus. this has been broadly supported on a bipartisan basis. so i would suggest to you that what explains the concerns that have been expressed across our state and this nation is the mischaracterization and in a very real sense that's why i think we need to focus specifically on this perception that this creates some license to discriminate and that's what i'm calling on the legislature

to do. i think that the language is still being worked out. okay. what i want to make sure is that it is clear to hoosier, the people that i serve, and clear to anyone who would come to visit our state that there is in this legislation no license to discriminate. no right to deny services. and i think we can -- i think we can develop that language.

this law does not give anyone a license to discriminate. this law that i signed last week does not give anyone the right to deny services. the language that i'm talking about adding i believe would be consistent with what the general assembly intended and certainly what i intended in this case. i'm calling on the general assembly to send me a bill that focuses on the issue here the smear levelled against this law and the people of indiana. and that is that somehow through our legislative process, we enacted legislation that created

a license to discriminate. that is so offensive to me as a hoosier and i know it's offensive -- and i know it's offensive to people across the state of indiana. we have to correct that first just because it's not true. and secondly we have to correct that perception because it has to do with the perception of our state and our businesses. eric. i just think we need to make it very clear regardless of whether

thosard ordinances remain in the community or not that this law gives no business the right to discriminate against anyone. that's what i have to say about that. the intent of the law, well the intent of the law when president clinton signed it the intent of the law when i signed it was to give the courts in our state the highest level of scrutiny in cases where people feel that their religious liberty is being infridge fringed upon by government action.

first, the state of indiana has a good name. this law has been smeared. but, look we're going to mark our 200th anniversary next year and the name and reputation of the people of indiana is strong and secure. but the reputation of this law and the intentions of our legislature have been called into question and i believe we need to deal with it and i believe we need to deal with it this week we will. we will fix this and we will move forward. that's what hoosiers do.

no comment. tom. well, i want to make it clear in the law that the religious freedoms are restoration act does not give businesses the right to discriminate against anyone. i've said before and i want to stipulate the coverage on this has gotten better and more fair but early on there was really reckless and irresponsible reporting about this. i just would submit to you that it's important that we address the principle allegation here with legislation in this law that makes it clear that it does

not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. i wasn't talking about you and i don't want to let the indiana press off the hook here but i will anyway. i think the indiana press has had this right from early on but some of the national reporting on this has been ridiculous. i encourage you to do a quick google search on this license to discriminate business. you'll find all of it.

i've been on the phone talking to business leaders, reaching out to the leaders of associations and corporations around the country just setting the record straight about what this law actually does and what our intention is in passing it and our determination to correct the perception that's taken hold. the supreme court case is a case in point of the value of the religious freedom restoration act.

it really is. the obamacare was passed into law and it included mandates on healthcare coverage for businesses and hobby lobby and i also might add the university of notre dame among others filed federal lawsuits to challenge obamacare under the religious freedom restoration act. the supreme court in a majority opinion last year upheld the right of a private business owner under the religious freedom restoration act, citing the act. but here's the background. in 1993 the federal law was signed by president clinton. in 1997 the supreme court of the united states ruled that the act did not apply to states that did not have their own statute. and that's why you had 19 states that have adopted statutes.

you have about 11 other states that have adopted it in their case law, this balancing test this standard. indiana never did. and so in the wake of the hobby lobby decision to ensure that hoosiers in our state courts had the same level of scrutiny when their religious liberty, they believe, is infringed upon the general assembly moved this legislation and that was the precipitating event. people are entitled to their opinions. but this law does not create a license to discriminate and this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to

anyone. i think it would be helpful if the general assembly were to get legislation to my desk that made that clear and made that clear in the statute. the purpose of the religious freedom restoration act is to give the people of this country the opportunity to go into our courts, state now and federal for more than 20 years, where they believe that government action has imposed and impinged upon their private liberty. that's the foundation of this

idea. this is about restraining government overreach and i want to say again the reason why this was such a broad and bipartisan measure over much of the last two decades is because every american cherishes religious liberty. we all understand the importance of the freedom of conscience. it's enshrined in our constitution as well as the constitution of the state of indiana. that's what this is about. but, look i understand that the perception of this has, you know, has gone far afield from what the law really is. we've be doing our level best to correct that perception however, imperfectly. we'll continue to do that. i am extremely grateful for voices who stepped up and stood by indiana as we stand by this

law but that being said as governor of the state of indiana, i believe it would be the right thing to do to move legislation that would make it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. those conversations are ongoing but i remain very hopeful that if we focus on the principle misperception that we will garner support, restore confidence and we'll be able to move forward.

well i think a number of the 30 states that have this standard in their courts are also in the same position indiana is in and the same position the federal government's in in terms of protected status. but let me say with great respect, i think that's a separate issue. all right. it's not my position. i'm not advocating for it. i understand some people are. but that's a separate question that ought to be considered separate from this idea of religious liberty and that we will give our courts in indiana and have given our courts in indiana the ability to discern with the highest level of scrutiny where the people of our state believe the government has intruded upon their religious liberty.

you would have to speak to the indiana general assembly and the members who drafted the legislation. i was pleased to support it. i believe it would be appropriate to make it clear that this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone.

no one should be hahrassed because of who they are, who they love or what they believe. this issue of discrimination has been an anthem throughout my life. i was -- i started out in politics as a democrat when i was in high school. and was the youth democrat party coordinator in my hometown. not exactly a community organizer but we worked door to door. the reverend martin luther king jr., was a hero of my youth and a hero today. five weeks ago, john lewis approached me on the floor and asked if i would cohost the

annual pilgrimage to selma with him and it was one of the greatest honors that i had during my 12 years in congress. we felt so strongly about it that not only did my wife go with me but our three teenaged kids went with us. it was the 45th anniversary of bloody sunday. the night before in montgomery we sat in dr. king's church. we talked to people who been there. we were deeply moved by the courage and the faith of the people who were there. i will always count it one of the greatest privileges of my life that on the 45th anniversary of bloody sunday i was walking across the edmund pettus bridge with john lewis. i'm very typical in indiana. hoosiers are a loving kind generous decent, and tolerant

people. we are known all over the world for that and i'm just one of them. and so the suggestion that because we passed a law to strength the foundation of religious liberty in our state courts that we had in some way created a license to discriminate. it's deeply offensive to me deeply offensive to millions of hoosiers, and we're going to correct it and move forward. the difference in what?

i don't want to talk about private conversations or interactions but i think we all understand that this is a perception problem and we need to deal with it. and we need to deal with it because it's the right thing to do and we need to deal with it so that everybody around the country and the the world know that indiana is a welcoming place to everybody and we need to correct that perception. and the whole debate about how we got here you know we are where we are and i'm determined to bring people together figure it out, solve it and move

forward. this law does not give a license to discriminate. it does not give a license to deny services. i don't support discrimination against anyone. the question that you posed though, i believe is -- it's -- we're dealing here in a free

society with always a careful balancing of interests. the facts and circumstances of each case determine the outcome. what this legislation does, what it did when president clinton signed it into law in 1993 and what it served in some 30 states where it's been the law is provide a framework for determining whether or not government action puts a substantial burden on a person's religious liberty. it is counterbalanced against whether there is a compelling interest. okay. so first -- the first question is in any case does the government action place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. under this standard as it's been applied for decades, the next question is is there a

compelling state interest and what courts have found without exception over the last 20-plus years is that the state has a compelling interest in combatting discrimination and i support that interpretation. >> okay. you have been watching a press conference with the governor of indiana, governor pence, just wrapping that up. he simultaneously defended his state's new religious freedom law and said he would fix it. the governor says he wants to see new legislation this week that prohibits businesses from refusing service to gay and lesbian couples. he said this would be a clarification but also defended the intent of the religious freedom law. he signed the law last week and said this is all a matter of perception due to what he characterized as sloppy reporting especially from what he says is the national media.

i want to go live to indianapolis outside at the indiana state library where the governor just spoke to the was this announcement by governor pence a real concession or is this just more of the clarification of the law that he's been talking about in recent days? >>reporter: governor pence continued to defend that law as he's done since thursday when he signed that bill into law here at. state capitol. yeah he is defending the law and saying it is a good law, does not dis-nate -- discriminate against people. he does say there is a lot of confusion about the bill and it needs to be clarified. we heard he wants language added to the bill within the week. we heard concerns from law makers, we heard that the law needed to be changed, but we didn't know when.

do law makers have a consensus on how the actually clarify this law to do what the governor says he wants to do. he says he doesn't want businesses to be able to refuse a service on the basis of sexual orientation. >> the general assembly here in indiana is largely republican so it probably will pass but this also does not address concerns that democrats and other critics have had which is they wanted this entire bill the religious freedom restoration act repealed entirely. republicans say that is not going to happen and there's a second issue here and that is making people who identify by their sexual orientation or gender identity a protected class within indiana. right now, they are not that and

that's raised a lot of concern among critics, activists that that needs to be changed and that would send the clearest message of all that indiana does not allow discrimination. >> now, pence does point out there are dozens of states with similar laws at least he says they are similar and of course there is the federal law protecting religious freedom. jonathan, why has indiana's law garnered so much attention? >> it's because activists say this law goes further than those other laws. there's the issue of timing. this comes a year after the state was forced to allow same-sex marriage so a lot of people feel that the indiana law goes further than the other state laws and that times have changed and public opinion is

shifting across the country and that the law simple was sending the wrong message they felt. >> jonathan he blamed the national press but the fact is have you the head of apple, tim cook who wrote an editorial in the "washington post" against the law almost as soon as it was passed. you have angie's list freezing a $40 million development project in indiana. is he saying all those business leaders misunderstood the intent of the law? >> he's certainly saying he's surprised by the reaction and backlash here and is standing by this law and saying a lot of people are taking it out of contest and that the only point of the law was to protect the religious liberties of people from being forced to do something that violated their religious beliefs.

thank you very much jonathan. the governor saying he wants to see new legislation added to his state's religious freedom law that would protect gays andless lesbians. thanks for watching. thanks for watching. defending champion is through to the miami masters. aiming to win this title for a fifth time. the world number one won the

first set in just 21 minutes. it elevated the intensity and started playing a little bit more with depth. he's got variety. slices pretty well. so i was handling it really good for the first 30 minutes and then started to make some unforced errors and started to play slower and he got into the match. he complicated my second set. but it's a win at the end of the day. serena williams is in the quarter finals in miami defeat

defeating the 2006 champion. never qualified before and they lost against wales last time each. >> they gave everything against wales. it happens. we lift our heads and look forward. now we play a team ranked fourth in the world. when i saw them during the world

checkup, i thought they were better than argentina in the finals tunisia has avoided being banned from the cup of nations. the football federation there accused match officials of being biased following the team's 2-1 defeat against new guinea. algeria went out in this year's cup of nations and lost last thursday.

the nether lands are taking on spain defeating spain last year 5-1. fantastic. so hopefully continue that with england.

claimed asylum in australia in 2010. he's yet to make his debut. >> being a five-time world champion hopefully if i get the opportunity to play it's going to be amazing and i would love to play for my country and i can't wait to. i'm hopeful to represent my country. >> hopefully the way we've performed and led, i think that

coupled with winning means that people love that. so that's hopefully the legacy of this world cup sometimes it's not just the action but the atmosphere that can make a sporting even but in atlanta the live experience has not been completely real. they have been using fake crowd noise at their home games. as punishment their 2016 draft pick has been taken away and have been fined $350,000. they have been piping noise into the georgia dome for the last few years to distract opposition teams. >> it's always good until you get caught. thanks for that andy. >> you normally wouldn't expect a family of giraffs to stroll along in the philippines but there are a number of animals from africa. we have the story on how they

got there. >>reporter: it's home to 3,000 animals. it's a top tourist destination but the park is its at least known attraction. in 1976 over 100 animals were shipped from kenya here ehvicting more than 200 families in the process. they were known to have stealen billions of dollars and this was to be their private zoo. he was eventually overthrown by a people power revolution. decades on care takers continue to work under limited

conditions. often their salaries are not paid over many months. there are no resident animal doctors here no clinics, and not a single working vehicle. poaching is also a problem and care takers say they do not have enough park rangers to police the perimeters. >>reporter: still, they have stayed for decades all for their love of the animals. >> my dream is to become a world-type safari park. although i could say also that this is -- that's the only thing we could maintain through the project income. >>reporter: for many year it was closed off by the public. though things are starting to pick up again. around 70 visitors come here now almost every day.

they are happy. this may also mean the park will finally be known for its unique attractions and not as a bitter reminder of past rule. before we leave, breaking news from the iran nuclear talks in switzerland. world that the negotiations could go into wednesday. the original deadline just hours away. we'll be keeping tabs on that story of course. stay with us here on al jazeera. a full bulletin of news is straight ahead and there's lots more on our website as always. site as always.

houthi fighters among dozens killed in yemen. we'll bring you all the latest on the saudi campaign in just a few minutes. you're watching al jazeera live from london. also coming up with most of the votes counted, nigeria's opposition is claiming victory but the vote could yet go to a second round. with the agreement on ryan's nuclear program just hours away the