with. a british newspaper claims it's found a russian spy operating in the u.s. embassy in moscow a washington intel agencies insist it's really not what it seems. plus dozens of civilians are killed in the alleged saudi coalition air strike on yemen's main port city the instant apparently surprising riyadh's mean u.s. . and national geographic admits it went too far with the caption on a photo of a dying polar bear that blamed climate change the photographer says that was not the message they wanted to get across and that the story's been skewed.

which is arch international bring you your live news update this hour welcome to the program. u.s. security and intelligence chiefs have pledged to protect democracy and a rare united appearance of a media briefing in the white house they attempted to reassure the american public that they are actively working to protect the upcoming mid-term elections in november from foreign interference predictably russia was named as the main threat without any evidence provided. our democracy itself is in the crosshairs paid by russia to try to weaken and divide the united states' threat is not going away to prevent foreign interference in our lections to prevent russian and other foreign influence and the russians try to hack into and steal information candidates and government officials alike cyber attacks against voting infrastructure along with computer intrusions malicious cyber actors charging elected officials that goes beyond the elections it goes to russia's intent to

undermine our democratic values however when the us national intelligence director let's press to give more details he wasn't particularly forthcoming. you give us a very sense of who is this is really hard we know these two senators have said that they've been targeted by hacking by people person in. members of the senate members of the house is it democratic or republican campaigns we follow procedure that's been agreed. some time ago in terms of when we've just received this type of information it is processed through the leadership of the respective house or chamber the senate chamber and then disseminated down to the individual member who is who is targeted so we have taken that actions that it's in place but i'm not in a position right now to release those things washington d.c.

based journalist joe lauria says it's getting common her to blame russia for everything. this is new rhetoric and actually it doesn't seem to be based in reality i have to say they're going to blame russia for whatever happens in the november elections whatever goes wrong whatever problems we have it's russia's fault there are no racial divisions there's no way in quality of income there are no problems in this country except the ones that are made by russia this is ridiculous what's going on here they have to use something to deflect criticism from their own. rules their own rules ship this is absolutely getting out of control right now i have not seen it like this before and it's getting more and more dangerous when you think of the relations between two superpowers they don't want better relations with russia they want to push this line and they yes there's a war between trump and his intelligence. a russian mole inside the us embassy in moscow it fallacious stuff and britain's guardian newspaper has been really

reveling in it scoop but also not what it seems as interest on the explains everybody loves the spy drama mystery suspense and the russian firm for ties the name of the region is stable in song my name is evident then you are russian spy. this guardian story had every ingredient for a thriller recipe the u.s. secret service as quite clearly stems from the very name is one of the most enigmatic agencies of the u.s. government its main function is to protect the lives of u.s. presidents ministers the top political brass and that is where the russians according to the guardian planted a mall the russian spy had been working under texted in the heart of the american embassy in moscow for more than a decade she had plenty of time together intelligence without supervision the

source said the guardian's head of investigations claims she was operational for a whole decade in that time through the agency's internet in e-mail systems she had access to all kinds of highly classified stuff including the shared jewels of the president and vice president all of that according to the guardian the woman fed to the office be russia's key security agency before being let go last year over security concerns they had lined the narrative the details looked spectacular in the scoop which was even projected to link to a spy ploy in washington d.c. the self or activities of stealing and sharing information could shed more light on how the russians were able to hack the twenty sixteen presidential election office of the d.n.c. except the secret service was well unimpressed by the reporting and not out of shame or embarrassment but because of the facts according to the media release within the agency the woman in question held the position of

a foreign security national these employees have their duties outlined very strictly as by default the secret service views everyone of them surprise as potential spies the woman's responsibilities were limited to things like translation cultural guidance and administrative support and i don't mean to offend anybody here but this sounds more like the job description of. a tourist guide rather than a spy a material employee and you wish i could say the guardian didn't know all these things when publishing the article but they did prior to the guardian publishing their article the u.s. secret service provided their editor with their official statement clearly refuting unfounded information despite all this the article was published as is after all everybody loves a spy drama but some plots a better be saved hollywood script. thousands of yemenis have turned up in the

nation's capital in protest that ongoing saudi led coalition air strikes was prompted by a deadly raid which killed dozens in the main port city of saudi arabia insists it carried out no raid and blames local share rubbles for the deaths please be warned that the video you're about to see contains graphic scenes yemeni officials say twenty eight people were killed and around seventy injured every local t.v. station has reported that fifty two are dead and at least one hundred air strikes hit an area near the city's main hospital yemen's health ministry is clear on who it thinks is to point. the health ministry strongly condemns the crime of targeting the hospital in the fisherman's market in. the united states bruce full responsibility because the united nations and its organizations and the international community have remained silent in the freeze of the gratian from the american israeli the coalition and its allies and their crimes for more than two thousand two hundred twenty days ago in saudi arabia denies

carrying out any airstrikes in the area at the time and said blaming the attack on who the rebels rads coalition has been at war with them since march of two thousand and fifteen when saudi arabia sided with the government and joined the civil war since that intervention the u.n. says yemen has become the world's worst humanitarian crisis despite that saudi arabia and the u.s. have enjoyed wide military coopt. we should both under the trump and obama administrations washington has been providing riyadh with billions of dollars worth of planes tanks and other military equipment but now the united states u.n. ambassador seems to perceive the latest attack on civilians as a new development despite the same scenario playing out frequently. we had that in saudi led coalition had airstrikes today against a fish market and a hospital in who data that may have caused dozens of casualties we've hit a new day now in yemen.

and we've had a new sense of urgency and you know. that if this is what started to happen civilians are at risk infrastructure is at risk for nikki haley it just occurred today which is unfortunate because the united states is actually supplying a lot of the logistics and the intelligence for the saudis and you don't hear too much criticism she should have been out there months ago condemning what the the humanitarian catastrophe that's occurring in yemen is just you just you just cannot be nice about this any longer or or just overlook it because it's gone on for too long and too many people have been have been killed and you wonder and you have to ask yourself the question what's the point twenty five palestinians are thought to have been wounded by israeli forces and the ongoing great march of return protests

the gaza health ministry says some protesters were wounded by live ammunition this is the nineteenth great march a return rally since they began in march of this year it comes as hamas and israel are reportedly considering a deal brokered by egypt to end the protests along the border. national geographic is admitting that it went too far at linking a starving polar bear with climate change saying there is no way to know for certain why the bear was dying national geographic went too far in drawing a definitive connection between climate change and a particular solving polar bear there is no way to know for certain why this bear was on the verge of death playboy to look at how simply changing the caption opened a whole new way on the story. you might remember these heart wrenching pictures of a starving polar bear looking for food national geographic ran them back in twenty

seventeen with a big caption claiming that this is what climate change looks like the images went viral the photographers estimate over two billion people saw them on you tube alone the video got one point five million views and it also became one of the most of you to videos on national geographic's websites but it turns out that the photographers original caption didn't make an explicit link to climate change they posted the videos saying that this is what starvation looks like but when national geographic picked up the material to publish it skewed the narrative and it was. this is one where it's not a once off is it i mean the expectation as climate change continues that this kind of image is going to be amplified again and again but that viral success troubled

the photographers it was not the message they intended for viewers the mission was a success but there was a problem we had lost control of the narrative we were perhaps naive the picture one viral and people took literally. well now national geographic has been forced to admit that it went too far in linking the dying bat to climate change and that there's no way of telling exactly why the stricken bear was on the verge of death so i've come to london zoo to speak to the animal lovers here to find out if they feel like their sympathies have been manipulated by the media. i think it's very well because so you think that really the cause is climate change exactly. for the globe. yes so it's as safe for you the magazine simply took what everybody would have thought about these images out and said it yes you

know i wouldn't necessarily a. painful thing do you feel like it's one of those situations where the media sometimes kind of manipulate you know the. oh it to them so that is it i mean we know that that happens we know that there is manipulation this picture is very very powerful impacts when you see it but then once you have the impress on them it's very difficult to change your mind or to get focus again on this new problem i feel like because a lot of other pictures as well although i says no it is not there's no any way for them to go get it anyway so probably has something to do climate change so yeah climate change is clearly a serious issue that weighs heavily on the minds of many people but the question is whether it should negate serious reporting the photographers haven't explained why they waited until now before speaking out but some biologists were already skeptical about the claims that the animal suffering because of climate change

saying that illness was a more likely reason for the bear's condition more are to headline news on the way and a few moments. when i just showed seems wrong why don't we all just don't hold. the old beliefs yet to shape out these days to come after. and in detroit equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground. most of the people you know my theory is that. we were in.

the all day spirit is that all of this was still. in the growth in. the psyche you would not let slip that. fact in the program in an unprecedented ruling a british judge has recognized in his long faced marriage as being legal under u.k. law the case was brought by a muslim woman who wanted to vorst to divorce her strange husband the couple were married at a traditional muslim wedding ceremony also known as a nneka twenty years ago but it was regarded as a religious ceremony and therefore not a civil marriage under u.k.

law the husband has blocked divorce proceedings invoking sharia law under which a union can only be dissolved by a council of muslim leaders but such councils have no legal jurisdiction in the u.k. . to break this down further we're joined live by political commentator david vance and muslim rights campaigner solomon by its thank you both for joining us on the program now david if we could go ahead and start with you how significant do you think this ruling is in terms of how britain regards religious weddings and the marriage there after. yeah i think i cleaned it and it is quite a significant ruling because it is essentially the first time that the british courts or legal system has essentially recognized a parallel legal system nearly shari'a law now shrilled of course. you cannot have multiple forms of law you know we are all equal under the law but

it seems that for some reason this court has determined that it will recognize shari'a and essentially institutionalized one of the one on one aspect offered in this case samar age and somebody said about slow general under british law i think it's very bad law in the in the sense of it does set a precedence with perhaps establishing what the bindery serang that should be so i view this as troubling misguided and potentially very disturbing for the future jacqueline so man what do you make of those comments do you consider this as the u.k. recognizing sharia law in this case. well i have read the judgment and literally on page one the the judge says this is going nothing to do with recognizing sharia or anything that appears to be just something that some people are getting excited about the judge was talking about recognizing it as a void marriage under english common law which is not exactly the same as shari'ah although this might might be similar yes in fact to clean made that point that this

is not about recognizing a shari'a law it's about recognizing and implementing what is seen as a marriage or avoid marriage and english common law not sure real law or the two us or the. young or fortunately that's actually not not the case in this instance i can understand someone that is the judge has perhaps taken this decision given the marital debate to between these the couple i guess the judge was trying to provide the the estranged wife bond or islamic law sharia law with the same rights that someone might read on or british law would have but of course this code couple who were married on the shari'a choose not to then have that marriage also in a british civil court so what the judge is essentially doing it's a lie he is a lying this muslim couple the opportunity to go all right and the british civil

court system i enjoy to see him benefits and that seems to me somewhat prejudicial discriminating against other people and fundamentally unfair even if the judge thinks it was for the right reason i suggest it's wrong again you're not actually read the judgment you're talking about he's talking about what is considered marriage or avoid marriage under english common law which has been here for centuries before muslims even came here scott nothing to do with sharia. but unfortunately the cook the solomon was brought by muslims to the uk to the court so you're just trying to suggest that somehow this is not a thing to do with the shari'a and actually not it's good everything to do with she really couldn't make more clear and you're being just ingenuous by suggesting it somehow completely divorced from islam it's everything to do with shari'a law as

it's understood in this united kingdom and we cannot have i'm sure you'd agree with me there is no place for parallel legal systems within the u.k. can we agree enough. your pay again to be ignoring the actual words of the judgement the judge is saying this is nothing to do with cheerio this is something called english common law which has been here for hundreds of years it's on the same order list statute law you're right in that case we have statute law which is determined by parliamentarians and we have the english common law is saying under english common law people who are living together who appear to be presenting themselves as a married couple whether it's because a muslims or jews or sikh so he knew or whatever the case he's talking about the english common law which has been the one if you want to call that a parallel legal system that there's a statute law and a common law fair enough that's your prerogative but bringing a serial to sharia to this is literally has no sense to it whatsoever but actually

you did not really answer my question i note did you believe or not you should be parallel legal systems within the united kingdom you don't answer that question the bible the substance of the point then when you suggest one from what you're saying that this judge illinois means that any any any couple living together on the basis of this decision no one can claim the full rights of a divorced couple who are married on a british civil law because they're so that's really big news that should be making every headline and for some reason it's not so you saying that the judge has no idea that you know he has knowledge of any couple sites i've read i've read i mean i can read i can assure you i will capable of reading and in this scenario what i'm reading is that george has made an exception for a couple calling from a shari'a law environment and then it is what i'm getting the hair ok sorry man if i could go ahead and jump in someone i wanted to ask you how will muslim leaders take the decision coming down from a u.k.

court does this put this law does this put it at odds with what sharia law is saying given that there was no counsel you know making this decision. well to be fair no because the people who i have talked to they say this is nothing new out of the ordinary if we were having this conversation a few hundred years ago then yes the distinction between sharia and you know wherever happens to be english law would have been great but over the years over the centuries english law has improved to the level where it's very very similar to the general aims and objectives of sharia anyway so. a marriage under english common law is very similar to marriage under serial or anywhere in terms of you know before maybe a few hundred years ago for example the woman wouldn't even be accepted in under english laws as a human being will have rights to divorce and so on so for but now we're talking about something which is very similar it's not exactly the same but the shari'a law

sharia has certain guidelines certain rights and one sponsibility is for a husband and wife or people who are you know showing the world that there has been one and likewise english common law does as well so what the judge is actually doing is is judging based on the common law is and if somebody actually reads the judgment like apparently minds look to hasn't certainly the realize it's got nothing to do with it would be exactly the same if they were just you know jet eyes or something can conduct in some kind of jet i married seven ceremony but this was oh they're just looking at the issue according to english common law and deliberately the points that the judge was making was that he didn't feel like he could determine this as a non marriage because these two people had lived together for twenty years they were treated as a married couple they had four children together and that's why he determined that it was a void marriage what do you make of that point. well i'll let me respond to that in a second but just go just to go back to what's been said for someone to suggest

that should real law in its full manifestation has any compare ability to british law is a little cross we only have to look growing in the world to see some of the barbarism associated with your real or to understand quite incompatible parts of it is with with for example the united kingdom that's point number one point number two or again as regards what the judge has said i believe this judge has set a precedent which does carry consequences those consequences seemed it tell of the islam to particular prominence which it doesn't deserve above any other fee if those married on her islam of the whole was have the opportunity juggling to get the rights was this judge has no veil them by simply having a civil a civil ceremony that's open to all people we have to ask the question how come in this case muslims are not being allowed to step not over to opportunity quite hard

and mums telling them that look if you want to get my daughter sharia law that's one thing but byrne mind but it isn't does not provide you with legal status under british law i know this judge has given them a backstop i think that's wrong well to be fair the woman in this case she was arguing that she did ask for the civil ceremony and that her husband refused to go forward with it that her father had also asked for it and it just was not an option for just the same if she asked for a divorce and he would not give it to her so someone if we could go to you again what do you think this means for other women who are an unhappy marriage just possibly that they might also try and take this route. well i don't mean to be sticking to the tedious issue of the actual judgment but i think it means little to absolutely nothing because the rights that women and indeed men have in this scenario are the exact same rights that they would have under the english common

law and they've had for decades if not centuries so when you look at things for example of the division of assets and so for if there is an asset which is truly shared like the marital home or a car or something they're brought together then regardless of if they're married or not. even under the english common law let alone sharia obviously they have an enticement to their birth have an entire turn to that thing when it comes to. getting out of the marriage or exiting a marriage it's very similar likewise in you know in under the english common law so women who do have do want to. civil marriage they can go to civil court women do wish to are now their islamic contract to any other contract they can go to the relevant party to do that except it's not really like the told jacqueline colors i'm familiar with muslim women who have sought to get divorced and i should say in this case the lady had to go through enormous hurdles to try and get to the

position that she's wanted so i do sympathize with. that record but. if i may so i do some of the huge sympathies and i thought fuck this brings it back to the core issue for me which is this what is she real or tolerated in any regard in this united kingdom should be one law for all people and that's quite simply high for example it operates in those countries that only operate sharia law so the u.k. i'm afraid people can't pick and choose it's either british law or shari'a law it can't be both and this judgement makes us in much this regard is that what you've. been told and that is a problem and i fear for the consequences don't align you're right this woman has been through a lot to try and obtain a divorce but that's a civil divorce in the civil english family high court going and you're going to. cost her literally two percent of the cost and an afternoon in front of

a in front of a counselor advisor is far far far easier this is not. think the shari'a marriage this is about them what they what she argued was a civil marriage and for which she had to go to civil courts as for your ludicrous final thoughts on all of. these subjects was same trend if you know it's not a venue like i let go ahead and let him finish and then you can respond go ahead someone if you don't like the fact that according to our existing law in the u.k. some people have the freedom to choose this type of contract or that type of contract whether it's marriage or buying a house or even hiring a car or whatever if you don't like the fact that people have the choices in the freedom to do different things under the existing law you can campaign for the law to be changed but it's not muslims here that are trying to call for something exceptional it's you my friend well if i can respond charlene the point is that

contrary to what you've just said this is entirely. a muslim related issue sure real law is entirely related to is love and in this instance what we've seen is the one further advance in something which many british people will find objectionable nearly having a second tier of law in the united kingdom recognised by the you like it or not sure real law should have no place in the united kingdom i want to see every will equal under the law my friend if you don't feel comfortable with that then perhaps that's the question you have to answer certainly not me i'm happy with the existing law as it is we already acknowledged the law again you're the one who appears to have an issue. that if you want to talk seriously about it what's that like to talk about it with anyone yourself or any other functionally illiterate person with regards to the sharia but this is not about sharia this is not about some kind of secondary problem or some people trying to get excited about this about its

heritage to english law english common law and english start tightening and going according to english law not shari'a by taking an exception by making an exception that's the point that you're continually avoiding in the circumstances it's really an excellent speech peter the first made to judge me of a political decision exception in this case for a muslim couple you can avoid that i'm sorry that's just the fact of the matter and i'm simply saying i do not believe that anyone is above the law i think we should all be treated separately it's our equally and in this case for whatever reason the judge has set a precedent and i'm sure you understand presidents can lead to all kinds of bad situations and in this case what we're seeing is a parallel law being legitimized in the u.k. i repeat sharia courts help nucleus in the united kingdom literally all you had to read was the first page of the judgement to show the judges saying almost by.