Vintage Indiana Wine Festival Canceled for 2020, Virtual ‘Sip of Vintage’…

first_img By Hoosier Ag Today – Sep 29, 2020 Facebook Twitter Vintage Indiana Wine Festival Canceled for 2020, Virtual ‘Sip of Vintage’ Replaces On-site Event SHARE Home Indiana Agriculture News Vintage Indiana Wine Festival Canceled for 2020, Virtual ‘Sip of Vintage’ Replaces… Previous articleYield Check Shows Strong Early Yields in Southern Indiana on the HAT Tuesday PodcastNext articleCME Group to Launch Pork Cutout Futures and Options Hoosier Ag Today The 2020 Vintage Indiana Wine Festival has been cancelled for this year.The event, which traditionally draws over 10,000 wine aficionados to downtown Indianapolis’ Military Park in early June, had been rescheduled to October 17 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Katie Barnett, Purdue Wine Grape Team marketing extension specialist and Vintage Indiana festival director, made the announcement earlier on Monday: “In collaboration with sponsoring entities, the safety and protection of our Vintage Indiana staff, volunteers and participants have always been our top priority. It is with deepest regrets that we have canceled Vintage Indiana 2020.”Tickets purchased for the event will be refunded by Friday, October 2. Barnett added that Vintage Indiana staff is working with the JW Marriott to refund all hotel rooms that had been reserved as part of the festival’s event package in a timely manner, as well.In place of the on-site festival, a virtual event – The Sip of Vintage Indiana – will be held on Saturday, October 17. Wine enthusiasts are invited to visit one of the 31 wineries that had been scheduled to be on-site at the festival; snap a photo, check in or take a picture with a Vintage Indiana souvenir, and post the photo to Facebook or Instagram using the hashtags #vintageindiana and #indianawine. All entrants will receive a Vintage Indiana prize pack, while 10 grand prize winners will be selected at random to receive swag bags filled with Vintage Indiana-branded items and t-shirts plus 2021 VIP festival experiences.Participating wineries include Ash & Elm Cider, Best Vineyards, Brandywine Creek Vineyards, Buck Creek Winery, Carousel Winery, Cedar Creek Distillery, Cedar Creek Winery, Daniel’s Vineyard, Easley Winery, Ertel Cellars, French Lick Winery, Fruitshine Wine, Hartland Winery, Heagy Vineyards, Holtkamp Winery, Hooker Corner Winery, Huber Winery, Huckleberry Hill, Madison County Winery, Mallow Run Winery, Monkey Hollow, Oliver Winery, Patoka Lake Winery, Rettig Hill Winery, She Spot Winery, Sip & Share Winery, The Sycamore Winery, Turtle Run Winery, Two EE’s Winery, Whyte Horse Winery, and Winzerwald Winery.Now in its 21st year, the Vintage Indiana Wine Festival is the signature event of Indiana Wines, the Purdue University-based organization that provides research and marketing expertise to the state’s 100+ wineries. Additional information is posted at VintageIndiana.com. Facebook Twitter SHARElast_img read more

Read More →

RSF urges European Union to exert pressure with signing of EU – Algeria agreement

first_img AlgeriaMiddle East – North Africa Organisation to go further May 12, 2021 Find out more News News Help by sharing this information May 18, 2021 Find out more As the European Union prepares to sign an association accord with Algeria, RSF calls on Brussels to urge Algeria to respect press freedom, which has sharply declined over the past year. Follow the news on Algeria Algeria : Reporter jailed after covering Tuareg protests in southern Algeria Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontières – RSF) called today on the European Union to emphasise a human rights clause contained in an agreement formally associating Algeria with the European Union and due to be signed shortly.”This clause is a vital part of the agreement and its presence has up to now been ignored in similar accords with Tunisia and Israel, both countries recently criticised for human rights violations,” RSF said in a letter to Spanish foreign minister Josep Pique, who will sign the Algeria agreement for the EU on 22 April. RSF asked him to use the clause “to pressure the Algerian authorities … to pledge that freedom of the press will be respected.” This would mean ending all forms of harassment of journalists, conducting and publishing the results of investigations into police brutality against journalists or their disappearance, further amending the criminal code concerning the media and ending the arbitrary handling of applications to launch new publications.RSF described the media situation in the country, recalling that the Algerian parliament had amended the penal code in May 2001 to increase punishments and fines for defamation in the media, which was followed by numerous lawsuits against journalists working in the privately-owned media.In the first four months of this year, many journalists were questioned by police after complaints from the defence ministry about alleged defamation. Among them was a cartoonist, Ali Dilem, who was questioned on 25 January this year about a cartoon making fun of the army that appeared in the French-language paper Liberté last November. The ministry considered it “defamatory and an affront to the dignity of senior military figures.”During demonstrations last year, journalists were often threatened, physically attacked or had their equipment seized. Lotfi Bouchouchi, a correspondent in Algeria for the French TV station TF1, was seriously injured in Tizi-Ouzou on 13 March this year by a tear-gas grenade fired by police while he asking people in the street what they thought about a speech President Abdelaziz Bouteflika had just made. He was hit by the grenade even though he was not in the crowd of demonstrators and was clearly identifiable as press.The Arab-language weekly El-Mouaad el-Djazairi’s 26 November 2001 issue was withdrawn from newsstands and has not appeared since then. Several media owners have been unable to get permission to launch new publications, but the granting of some permits suggests the government is picking and choosing which to allow. Four years ago, almost to the day, Aziz Bouabdallah (see picture), a journalist on the Arab-language daily El-Alam es-Siyassi, disappeared in Algiers. This followed the disappearance of four other journalists – Mohammed Hassaine, Kaddour Bousselham, Djamil Fahassi and Salah Kitouni. After an on-the-spot enquiry in January 2001, RSF concluded that the state security services were responsible for the disappearance of three of them, including Bouabdallah. Since the first of the five disappeared, in 1995, the authorities have made no serious investigation of the cases. RSF_en Harassment of Algerian reporters intensifies in run-up to parliamentary elections News News Algeria pressures reporters by delaying renewal of accreditation Receive email alerts AlgeriaMiddle East – North Africa April 19, 2002 – Updated on January 20, 2016 RSF urges European Union to exert pressure with signing of EU – Algeria agreement April 29, 2021 Find out morelast_img read more

Read More →

SC Refers Maratha Quota Case To Larger Bench As It Involves Interpretation Of Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 [Read Order]

first_imgTop StoriesSC Refers Maratha Quota Case To Larger Bench As It Involves Interpretation Of Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 [Read Order] Ashok Kini10 Sep 2020 6:11 AMShare This – x A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the law enacted by the State of Maharashtra introducing Maratha Quota for admission in Educational Institutions and for appointments in the Public Services and posts, and has referred the issue to a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges as it involves interpretation of of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018.Maratha Quota…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the law enacted by the State of Maharashtra introducing Maratha Quota for admission in Educational Institutions and for appointments in the Public Services and posts, and has referred the issue to a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges as it involves interpretation of of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018.Maratha Quota Law and Bombay HC JudgmentThe Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for appointments in the Public Services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, originally provided 16% quota to the Maratha community in education and jobs respectively. The Bombay High Court, while upholding the Maratha quota, held that 16% reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12% in employment and 13% in education as recommended by Backward Commission. Referred as the question involved require interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018According to the applicants [who filed application seeking reference to larger bench], Articles 338-B and 342-A inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 fall for consideration of the Court for the first time and that  there is a need for reconsideration of the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India , especially after the Constitution (103rd) Amendment, 2019 introduced certain changes to the Constitution of India.The bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao disagreed with the contention that these appeals require reference to a larger Bench on the ground of the extent of reservations. It said: Undoubtedly, this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) held that reservations contemplated in Article 16 (4) should not exceed 50 per cent except in certain extraordinary situations. This Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) was of the opinion that extreme caution has to be exercised and a special case must be made out for exceeding the limit of 50 per cent. The ceiling limit of 50 per cent on reservations has been re-affirmed by this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra). As the question relating to the extent of reservation has already been decided by this Court, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in this case.The bench, also comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat, observed that it finds force in the contentions raised regarding the interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018. One of the issues that was considered by the High Court at the instance of the writ petitioners is whether the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 affects the competence of the State Legislature to declare a particular caste to be a socially and educationally backward class. According to the writ petitioners in the High Court, the State Legislature has been denuded of this power after the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 came into force. The High Court rejected the said contention and upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature. There is no authoritative pronouncement on the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018. We are satisfied that interpretation of Articles 338-B and 342-A, which are inserted by Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and the determination of such question is necessary for the disposal of the Appeal. Thus, as mandated by Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India, these Appeals require to be considered by a larger Bench. In view of our decision to refer these Appeals to a larger Bench, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate on the other points raised by the applicants.While referring the matters to larger bench, the Court observed:As the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, these Appeals are referred to a larger Bench. These matters shall be placed before Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India for suitable orders.To grant interim order, the bench observed that the State of Maharashtra has not shown any extraordinary situation for providing reservations to Marathas in excess of 50 per cent rule expounded in Indra Sawhney judgment. Maratha community which comprises of 30 per cent of the population in the State of Maharashtra cannot be compared to marginalized sections of the society living in far flung and remote areas, it said. Click here to Read/Download OrderRead Order Next Storylast_img read more

Read More →