UK approval of arms exports to Israel plunged at start of Gaza war

MANILA: In her bid to convince lawmakers to legalize divorce, Filipino fruit vendor Avelina Anuran has publicly testified about the abuse she said she regularly endured at the hands of her husband.
She also keeps a copy of the medical certificate from the bloody injuries she says he inflicted, hoping it might one day serve as evidence in court.
But the mother of two-turned-activist has gotten no closer to ending her marriage.
The Philippines is one of just two countries — along with Vatican City — where divorce remains illegal.
Last week, the latest attempt to introduce a divorce law evaporated as the upper house ended its session without even a hearing.
“They kept passing it around,” Anuran said.
The last time such legislation made its way to the Senate in 2019, she painstakingly detailed her experience for a public hearing. But the bill foundered.
Spouses have a “right to be free,” she said, adding that she would keep pushing for a law.
“Hopefully it will (pass) next year, with new senators coming in.”
Ending a marriage in the deeply Catholic society of 117 million is possible only via annulment or “nullification.”
But few Filipinos can afford the fee of up to $10,000, and the process does not consider domestic violence, abandonment or infidelity as qualifying grounds.
“I just want to be free from this marriage,” said Anuran, whose estranged husband remains the beneficiary on a life insurance policy she cannot change without his consent.
Campaigners like Anuran believe the tide of public support for divorce is turning, with surveys showing about half of Filipinos now firmly back a change.
Before taking office in 2022, President Ferdinand Marcos said he was open to supporting divorce.
But the latest effort to introduce such a bill still faced strong opposition in the Senate.
The proposed law would have compelled courts to provide free legal and psychological assistance to low-income petitioners, capped lawyers’ fees at 50,000 pesos ($859) and mandated divorce petitions be resolved within a year.
The divorce bill’s co-author, lawmaker Arlene Brosas, said it was “unacceptable” that the Senate had refused to tackle the measure given the “strong public demand.”
She said her Gabriela Women’s Party will refile it when a newly elected Congress convenes in July.
“We will continue fighting for the divorce bill, no matter the composition of the Senate and House of Representatives in the next term,” Brosas said.
The previous bill was likely influenced by the mid-term elections in May, family lawyer Lorna Kapunan said.
“Because (half of senators) are seeking re-election, they are afraid of the backlash of the Catholic Church,” Kapunan said.
Senate President Francis Escudero had argued the bill would “create divisiveness,” suggesting instead that the grounds for nullification could be expanded while avoiding the word “divorce.”
Father Jerome Secillano of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, meanwhile said divorce contravenes the Church’s teachings on marriage and would ultimately destroy families.
“We will see more couples separating. We will see children who don’t know where to go,” Secillano said.
He also argued the number of domestic abuse victims would “double” as divorced men would “have another chance to be violent again” to new spouses.
Kapunan called the existing laws “very complicated, very expensive, very anti-woman and anti-child.”
Despite the opposition and failed previous attempts to legalize divorce, Anuran remains determined.
“No one’s backing down. Win or lose, the fight will continue.”

A group of investors led by Elon Musk is offering about $97.4 billion to buy OpenAI, escalating a legal dispute with the artificial intelligence company that Musk helped found.
Musk and his own AI startup, xAI, and a consortium of investment firms want to take control of the ChatGPT maker and revert it to its original charitable mission as a nonprofit research lab, according to Musk’s attorney Marc Toberoff.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman quickly rejected the deal on Musk’s social platform X, saying, “no thank you but we will buy Twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.”
Musk bought Twitter, now called X, for $44 billion in 2022.
Musk and Altman, who together helped start OpenAI in 2015 and later competed over who should lead it, have been in a long-running feud over the startup’s direction since Musk resigned from its board in 2018.
Musk, an early OpenAI investor and board member, sued the company last year, first in a California state court and later in federal court, alleging it had betrayed its founding aims as a nonprofit research lab benefiting the public good. Musk had invested about $45 million in the startup from its founding until 2018, Toberoff has said.
Musk and OpenAI lawyers faced off in a California federal court last week as a judge weighed Musk’s request for a court order that would block the ChatGPT maker from converting itself to a for-profit company.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers hasn’t yet ruled on Musk’s request but in the courtroom said it was a “stretch” for Musk to claim he will be irreparably harmed if she doesn’t intervene to stop OpenAI from moving forward with its planned for-profit transition.
But the judge also raised concerns about OpenAI and its relationship with business partner Microsoft and said she wouldn’t stop the case from moving to trial as soon as next year so a jury can decide.
“It is plausible that what Mr. Musk is saying is true. We’ll find out. He’ll sit on the stand,” she said.
Along with Musk and xAI, others backing the bid announced Monday include Baron Capital Group, Valor Management, Atreides Management, Vy Fund, Emanuel Capital Management and Eight Partners VC.
Toberoff said in a statement that if Altman and OpenAI’s current board “are intent on becoming a fully for-profit corporation, it is vital that the charity be fairly compensated for what its leadership is taking away from it: control over the most transformative technology of our time.”
Musk’s attorney also shared a letter he sent in early January to the attorneys general of California and Delaware.
“As both your offices must ensure any such transactional process relating to OpenAI’s charitable assets provides at least fair market value to protect the public’s beneficial interest, we assume you will provide a process for competitive bidding to actually determine that fair market value,” Toberoff wrote, asking for more information on the terms and timing of that bidding process.