british prime minister says the u.k. will not leave the e.u. with a deal on the twenty ninth of march and blames parliament for refusing to approve her exit plan. from official or menacing facebook backs down apologizes after banning the account of the us president's social media chief. unstrapping treaties and weaponized space moscow once again spiraling into a new arms race in the twenty first century and. hello from here in the our t.v. sets a break with the world news update us out first for you the bricks in juice to term

all that the u.k. is enduring right now looks set to continue well into the summer just over an hour ago in a statement to downing street prime minister to resign may raise the stakes for a no deal breck's it and blamed m.p.'s for the crisis two years on and these have been unable to agree on a way to implement the u.k.'s withdrawal. as a result we will now not leave on time with a deal on the twenty ninth of march. this delay is a matter of great personal regret for me well earlier to resume a road to the e.u. to request a three month extension to the withdrawal process which he staunchly defended in parliament. i have this morning written to present to us the president of the european council informing informing him that the u.k. seeks an extension to the article fifty period until the thirtieth of june as prime minister. i am not prepared to delay breck's it any further than that. here we are with the british prime minister

requesting officially an extension to article fifty requesting that the deadline be pushed back she calls it a short one three months long until june thirtieth and of course she had to make her case not just with brussels by sending a letter officially requesting this to the european council but also here in westminster where she is still battling on trying to convince her m.p.'s to support her but according to teresa mayes critics nothing about what's been going on has been reasonable or sensible all she's doing is running down the clock after a second heavy duty today was just marks one thousand days since the referendum and this government is led the country and themselves into crisis chaos and division well just to be clear for any such extension to actually be able to take

place we need to see european member states to all come together and approve such an extension and we have seen in response to official to the official plea from theresa may to have an extension a statement made by the european council president. believe the show to extension would people should be. about to have the condition of all the polls to vote on there was a moment in the house of well where this leaves to resubmit a really remains uncertain at this particular moment of course if you remember the . this is the deal that has been rejected twice at the house of commons so here he is saying that we want you to approve this deal and then you can have the extension while this is a deal that you know is not getting approval here in westminster. let's talk now to international history professor alan scott welcome back to r.t.

to reason most exact words were we will now not leave on time with a deal on the twenty ninth of march so as things stand it feels like nothing's changed at all except perhaps the possibility of crashing out of the e.u. in a few days time. or looks like. she's been allowed an extension issue get a bill through parliament but that depends on first of all and with the speaker will love the bill come forward through time. and if he does that depends on winning a majority this time i do think she's got a majority for the bill in which case according to the brussels they wouldn't give her an extension and she said she does more the long extension they're not going to give her a short one which i don't know would indicate no deal so how dangerous is this game of brinkmanship that she seems to have kicked off side downing street just over an

hour ago where she seems to want to throw it all back to parliament which has already kicked out her deal twice in record numbers and that's all also donald tusk of the european council saying unless they agree you're not getting an extension is she expecting one of those two to blink first. i don't know too she doesn't listen to people and she's. she's very bleak and just pushes ahead with what she sings isn't best interest of the come true like taking any advice why should believes to do will process some i didn't know i think she believes that if you write to the last minute and it duke says if the only alternative is no deal then the her opponents will collapse but of course many of her opponents in the don't want to deal there will no deal so that because they're happy for the deal to fail if the european union were then to say new deal. i can't i mean i don't and that's the d p and there's no sign of that yet sweet two sides who hasn't got

a hope and looks to me as if if the as i say if the speaker allows the deal to come back if it does come back i think it will fail again then to be refused a shorter extension under me i know that stage the european union marked a suitable goodbye it's no deal that patient seems to be wearing thin more about with the other m.p.'s i was she seemed to be blaming them for the crisis as it stands but they didn't actually get a chance to say what the deal was until last november i mean surely she can't believe that she's utterly blameless in this well i think most of the m.p.'s who turned out to be hypocrites they first of all to said they would get to implement bricks it in either decided they don't want to have been bricks in. a less under conditions or make bricks it's really not bricks it any longer so that it could look to answer of all but the fact remains that she did go sit in that dreadful deal most people don't like it most people think it's not to the british interest

the public against it so frank navy once again sit except her and one of two of the closest friends and acolytes inside the cabinet office full of corporate display small no. people that are very many people are so process works you want to steal because this deal is all in favor of brussels and does nothing for the united kingdom and what about e.u. leaders where do you see this had to move already had from president mccrum who's hinted that he wouldn't be party to an extension unless there was m.p.'s backing for to the other all making some of the noises like that around at the moment a more point you think that patients will snap will have before march the twenty ninth when the to say by then. i think you all happiness unison know the result of the parliamentary vote if she fails then the really isn't any point in giving a short deal because the purpose of the short deal is to implement the agreement

if it's passed that it's not passed there's no point in that. idea of a long extension would do to either over to a new deal or a new election or a new a second referendum and she's not in favor of any of these things and she says she does a lot of long extension so. you're back stalemate at which point i think that the french and others who just say goodbye it is constitutional enough not uncharted territory it's a peculiar situation if she tries to put this deal back before parliament for a third time bearing in mind the record breaking rejections that it's already had what does that mean for her job i mean how can she stay at number ten after being so roundly rejected by m. pays one of the men around party. we're live here had any self respect or respect

for parliament president should have resigned after her first story two feet then she should have resigned after the second story to cheat but she doesn't seem to believe in resignation. there was a leadership election side the conservative party which tories voted to keep her in the first she's can't be tossed out by tory m.p.'s until next december but either she would have to resign herself or the cabinet would have to give an ultimatum saying that nobody would any longer serve under those prime minister that might get rid of a but she doesn't lucas issues new mood to go. i suppose for her supporters what some might call stubbornness others say remarkable tenacity in the face of an impossible job for two years you know it is not looking like pick had it it had innocently refusal to accept reality so i think they might see the other side of

the coin and there must be huge pressure by tory of peace and by tory party members no two to move on to a new data and i just quickly as a professor of international history of former tory leader william hague has said that this is the worst governance failure by parliament in government for two hundred to three hundred years is it. probably years ago professor scott thanks for your time on r.t. international. next up a case of mistaken identity has forced facebook into making an apology after a banned donald trump social media director believing him to be a bot and a mop and has the details. we have an apology from facebook for banning the account of dan scavenger the white house social media director they are confirming that it is indeed outrageous to claim that he was a bot that the account was definitely not a bot account it was a legit account and that he should not have been blocked in order to stop automated

bots we count the amount of identical repetitive activity coming from one account in a short period of time such as mentioning people these limits can have the unintended consequence of temporarily preventing real people like bans convener from engaging in such activity but lift in an hour or two which is what happened in this case we've been in touch with him and have apologized for the inconvenience trump was quick to speak up on social media saying that it was a political move not motivated by alleged bot activity trump spoke up saying facebook google and twitter not to mention the corrupt media are so on the side of the radical left democrats but fear not we will win anyway just like we did before he also attacked the media as he often does when speaking to reporters during his meeting with bowles and narrow use the word collusion very loosely all the time and i will tell you there is collusion with respect to that because something has to be

going on and when you get the back scene back office statements made by executives of the various companies and you see the level of. in many cases hatred they have for a certain group of people that happened to be in power that happened to have won the election you say that's really unfair a conservative lawmaker devon noone is his at this point suing twitter saying that it discriminates against conservatives that it hides the message of conservatives and highlights libel and slander against conservatives at this point there is widespread criticism of social media outlets for the fact that they seem to have a huge amount of influence in crafting public opinion not only in the united states but around the world and many of the conservatives who are now criticizing social media money. they essentially argue that they're abusing that power. censorship concerns are also being debated in australia at the moment on tuesday

the country's largest telecoms company blocked access to a number of websites that are continuing to display footage of friday's mosque attacks in new zealand says that while it's considered the implications for freedom of speech it believes the measures necessary given the circumstances. we have moved to temporarily block a number of websites that continue to host of friday's terrorist attack in christ church when the stand this may cause inconvenience for some legitimate uses of these sites but these are extraordinary circumstances and they're required an extraordinary response we appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is carefully balanced against protecting the community but with these sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right thing to do to block them the move comes as pressure mounts on tech companies and social media sites to explain why they allowed videos of the massacre to appear on their platforms the authorities in australia are also investigating whether a number of national t.v. stations use the footage appropriately and in new zealand itself the three largest

broadband providers have temporarily suspended access to sites hosting images of the atrocity. facebook's perhaps borne the brunt of the criticism though for around seventeen minutes the gunman live streamed to the massacre on the platform and although it says it worked to remove the footage it could still reportedly be found with relative ease hours after the shootings privacy activist and technology expert bill mears says that effectively policing content is an unwinnable battle. obviously we have to have rules in terms of taste and decency and what is or is not offensive but what some people would argue is offensive other people can argue speech and it's very difficult for regulations to define this for all circumstances and therefore very difficult for some of the hosting providers actually to moderate accurately especially given the volume of content and the difficulty of this moment in time for any form of ai to differentiate in terms of what appears in the video

it's very very difficult and then of course there's a lot of talk now about encryption and if more and more content especially messaging platforms starts to become encrypted you need an even game to be able to see what's there so any form of moderated imposition. it's going to be impossible. russia's foreign minister is warning against the emergence of a new arms race on an even greater scale than the cold war speaking at a disarmament conference in geneva sergei lavrov said he regrets america's willingness to undermine some cornerstone treaties on controlling weapons stockpiles in turn washington questioned moscow's intentions in preventing an arms race his artie's maria for national. russia's foreign minister sergei lavrov i have to say has been very critical and has in fact accused america of destabilizing world security lover of has expressed his dippers concerns frustration and fear is over the current situation in the field of nonproliferation of weapons and global arms control emphasizing that after it's designed to destroy global basic

agreements that proved to be doing their job well in guaranteeing world security and protecting international peace are rising and this is a very dangerous tendency a lover of has particularly referred to america's recent withdrawal from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty known as the i and after treaty signed between moscow and washington back in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven warning that the recent developments may turn threats of nuclear warhead into a groom reality. through which we are now hearing is talk of the possibility of unleashing a limited nuclear war for russia and i hope all the other countries represented here such a prospect is unacceptable however such a scenario could become a reality if we together fail to find a sensible alternative to recent tendencies aimed at undermining the very edifice of arms control treaties should there be a new arms race

a lot of countries will rely on their nuclear and missile arsenals as the only guarantee of their national security russia has responded by saying that it will also suspend its obligations under the agreement but speaking of the conference in geneva earlier on wednesday minister lavrov has stressed that it wasn't russia's decision and wasn't russia's initiative russia has simply responded and russia remains open for the dialogue and is not interested in any way in arms race with washington but as most co can see right now washington is not ready for these dollars and this is what minister lavrov has rates a rating. one more time and he has brought among other things america's recent steps in developing space missile. defense program alarming steps as believes. the u.s. funds have been earmarked for the establishment of a space missile defense system as well as putting strike capabilities into orbit

this is opening pandora's box as minister lavrov has said russia hopes and believes that its western partners colleagues are responsible for global security and at the end of the day the future of the mankind will hear russia's voice and follow the right path. the united states is being accused of possible war crimes in somalia and a damning new report the rights group amnesty international says it's on earth compelling evidence that fourteen civilians are being killed in just five of america's airstrikes and twenty seventeen the civilian death toll we've uncovered in just a handful of strikes suggests the shroud of secrecy surrounding the u.s. role in the war is actually smokescreen for impunity. i'm just he says the u.s. military has carried out more than one hundred s. trucks in somalia since twenty seventy and that the number of civilian deaths may be far higher than fourteen washington dramatically stepped up attending terror operations in the impoverished east african country to gauge ago donald trump's

request despite u.s. africa command maintains that it's not killed or even wounded a single civilian in somalia the u.s. says all its efforts to confirm traded on eliminating the al qaeda linked militant group al-shabaab the editor of the pan-african ushuaia told me earlier that the u.s. is failed to justify its military role in somalia. while africa has to justify a. war to. the horn of africa nation of somalia this is escalated since the trumpet ministration has been off in office for the last two years there's absolutely no results so on this other than turning more people in somalia against us now it's the and of course we've heard for decades now that these bombs are percentage of god it was that they did not harm civilians but we know that that is not the case these

a methodology. to test out these weapons they can just label people as being out kind of well i says and then therefore people should not question how many people have died on the ground but these problems in somalia have been the developing decades and they should be dealt with diplomatically is no military solution to the question of who is going to control somalia. next american men are apparently less concerned about the issue of sexual harassment than they were at the start of the me two movements in twenty seventeen according to a new poll at least anyway it's from gallup and a survey found that fifty three percent of men see sexual assault as a problem but that's down from. sixty six percent when the me too movement exploded after a series of sexual assault allegations against powerful men now meanwhile forty six percent of men believe people underestimate the problem of how recent in the workplace that down from fifty four percent suggested that the way the story's

being covered in the media may have changed men's attitude. during that time a torrent of sexual misconduct allegations have been leveled against well known men and widely covered in the media this preponderance of news coverage may have put men on the defensive or maybe they had a strong reaction in the immediate wake of the weinstein allegations and the start of the meeting movement but they may have become somewhat desensitized to the issue since then. let's bring in resurfacing who's an attorney specializing in sexual harassment claims you've also got media commentator gina loaded with us so welcome to you both so gallup thinks that news coverage may have been putting men on the defensive reste does that explanation sound convincing to you. sounds about right to me what we have are a certain percentage of men in america who seem to think that sexual harassment is just taken a little too seriously and they're not as convinced that it's

a huge issue in the workplace well gallup has a point what they said in their in their study was simply that there is a discrepancy between men who are democratic as well as men who are republican and it seems as though that drop is more heavy leaning towards the republican man maybe it has something to do with twenty seventeen what's more what's happened since twenty seventy. the hearing on brett kavanaugh i think that a lot of men right now are a little concerned that this situation could happen to them and it's got the moment deep in jena has the media coverage backfired then an issue that should have been brought to the four decades ago let's be honest but those maybe make things worse. i actually agree with your other guest on that i think that the cavanagh hearings brought to light how false accusations going back years and years that have zero

evidence can actually be used against someone later in their career and i think we've seen so many false accusations that many americans especially constitution loving americans fear rightly so perhaps that due process could be undermined if it's a if it's a she said it and we have to believe it scenario which was spelled out pretty radically by many of the spear headers of the mitsu movement then then we really are undermining due process and as franklin said you'd rather see one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be. killed. for something that he didn't do and so i think that that's where most americans fall down on this and just a little dose of common sense on both sides of this is really important right now resorting to given that we are living in

a very attention seeking age the problem of false accusations it's going to cause people who are genuine victims to hide their problems even more. now here's the thing and this loud and we don't agree at all because i don't believe there has been just a plethora of false accusations that have come out against men here's what i believe i believe that there's been a dam a dam that has been building for years dating back to when women first entered the workplace the forty to fifty s. and sixty's the seventy's there have been women who have not said a word why because the culture and the temperature in the climate was never an acceptable place and time for them to present their issues and so these women have sat quietly for years and years and there has been a culture where men were allowed to just do what they wanted to do i believe it's called the old boys network and so the old boys' club or old boys' network was

allowed to function in this be in this way where mitt was where men were able to do what they wanted to do and women weren't respected in the workplace and they were able to take advantage of women so now what you have are these women coming forward and saying enough is enough and unfortunately they're being caught kind of like a game of you know what's that game where you're kind of the musical chairs for the game has changed the rules have changed and women are saying no more and because of that men are getting caught and they're standing up and going oh but i didn't know this is what we're where we always did this is how things have always gone well it's too bad the rules have changed and we're not playing that game anymore and that's what's happening men are getting caught and they want to go back to how things used to be and so they don't want to acknowledge the fact that. sexual harassment is still a very pervasive issue and since twenty seventeen you know i think. the gross

platitudes that your guest is using i take i take real exception with categorizing our castigating men as a one whole massive violent group while casting women as some sort of one whole massive group of victims that is just not true there is a gradient going that you're not at all where i do agree having a rational or to displacement if we're going to have if we're going to have a rational conversation you hunter not read me we're having a congress that are bad and yes some women have made false and yes some because you were going on yes some women have made false accusations it is an absolute provable fat and so until you're ready to have a conversation like that we're going to be caught up in all the same hypocrisy that many on the side of the me too movement that has become so radicalized that they think all men are evil and all women are victims listen i've been a victim of sexual harassment but i don't want to be classified as a victim i count myself a survivor and i defend myself and i will always defend myself and i raise my

daughters the same way my life experience has taught me that when you can't has black and white like that you make a big mistake and it's been it's bigotry frankly to talk that way about only not a word about learning what happened to that thirteen person we're talking about the statistic of people who have changed their view since twenty seventeen and that instead of being at sixty six percent we're now at fifty four percent what happened to that thirteen percent i'm explaining that there's been a discrepancy and that that discrepancy also falls along lines of political party because there was last year twenty seventeen twenty seventeen there were fifty four percent of men who said that there was an issue with sexual harassment and now that number has fallen to thirty five percent so we're trying to explain what happened why are men falling back away from this issue. men who have daughters men who have sisters men who have mothers men who want women to be respected what could account

for their backing away from this issue is their concern that radical is a right that has been all men as the as just as the cab the curtain was pulled back on brett kavanaugh the curtain can also be pulled back on some things that they have done and if you grew up in a privileged and entitled upbringing and you did things that you consider just for fun but you actually were violating women those can come back to haunt you why because the rules have changed and so it's the fear it's the fear of them being exposed as well that is causing a lot of men to back away from this issue again i'm not saying that it's all men i'm saying that there are specific men who are concerned who grew up in a very privileged upbringing and don't have any accountability that's who we're talking about jane or is there a problem that the need to move movement a noble way of trying to get victims to be able to safely say what happened to them

has been hijacked along the way to not cause the problem. it has been hijacked it's been hijacked by the radically feminine radical feminists the socialists the islamists and many other groups of people that have an agenda that is political and it's about power and money just like most things in politics are but i think that gives some of those same people be a little more honest to spell out that gray area that we just discussed and maybe to also if they're going to be so concerned about women and women's rights then shouldn't they be concerned about things like genital mutilation like women being killed or not being able to drive or be educated some of these same people that will scream about this and point fingers and accuse men simply because a man has money he must have done something horrible in his life and they'll set out to find the person the crime to attach to the person and if those same people would be concerned about other women's issues i think that they really have a conversation about this but as long as it's spelled out in gross platitudes and

generalizations most people look at it go they just roll their eyes because they realize the issue has been so politicized at this point they're repelled by it even the logical parts of it because sexual harassment does exist and sexual harassment should be stopped and raises the risk that genuine abuses. behind the bandwagon of the full circulations. i think that that's a concern but here's where we are we're at a place in twenty nineteen where there is some truth that the movement was hijacked because the me too movement was started by to run a berks over a decade ago for young women african-american women to be able to speak up about the sexual violence that they face so maybe it wasn't hijacked maybe it was just co-opted now it's being used to shed light on the women in hollywood to shed light on issues in d.c. on capitol hill and we.