Latest news with #ICAN
Perth Now
6 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Perth councillor calls to abolish nuclear weapons
The City of Perth council will be asked to support a campaign led by local governments across the country for Australia to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The motion from Cr Clyde Bevan seeks to formally endorse the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Cities Appeal (ICAN), a global initiative urging national governments to ban nuclear weapons under international law. More than 50 other local governments in Australia, including Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and the ACT Government, have declared their support for nuclear disarmament. WA local governments who have endorsed the ICAN include Bassendean, Fremantle, Cockburn and Augusta-Margaret River. Cr Bevan's motion also calls for the council to acknowledge the upcoming 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, which claimed the lives of about 210,000 people. 'We honour the victims of these attacks, and the Hibakusha and Hibakunesei who continue to live with the legacy of nuclear weapons,' his motion states. Cr Bevan said it would send a clear message to Federal leaders. 'Our cities are the targets — we should be leading the call for their protection,' he said. 'The only thing preventing disaster is luck — and luck is not a security strategy.' He argued that although nuclear disarmament was a global issue, it had local implications. 'If protecting our cities and our people from weapons designed to destroy them isn't a local responsibility, then what is?' he said. A city officer's report said that although endorsing the ICAN carried no legal weight, it was a public statement of the council's values. 'These local governments believe that they have a role to play in raising awareness and building support for nuclear disarmament and some councils state that they are also motivated by a desire to protect their communities from the potential dangers associated with nuclear weapons,' it said. ICAN was founded in Melbourne and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its advocacy in helping bring about the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which prohibits the development, possession, use or threat of nuclear weapons and requires countries to assist victims and clean up areas affected by nuclear testing and bombings. ICAN was developed in Melbourne and has won a Nobel Peace prize. Credit: Clare Conboy 'Despite strong public support, Australia has not yet signed (the treaty), even though both major parties have committed to doing so in principle,' Cr Bevan said in his motion. Australia signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1973 and is part of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. Cr Bevan said the organisation's legacy was an example of Australia's leadership on the world stage. 'Australia has a proud history of supporting treaties that ban indiscriminate, inhumane weapons,' he said. 'We've stood against landmines, cluster bombs, and chemical weapons — it's time we do the same for nuclear weapons, the most dangerous of all.' The council is scheduled to consider the proposal at its July 29 meeting.
NHK
17-07-2025
- Politics
- NHK
New memorial marks 80 years from 1st nuclear test in US state of New Mexico
On the 80th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb test in the US state of New Mexico, a memorial sign was unveiled at the site acknowledging the damage and suffering caused by the radioactive fallout. The first detonation of a nuclear weapon took place on July 16, 1945. Less than a month later, two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. About 100 people attended the dedication ceremony on Wednesday and called for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The state government placed the marker near the entrance of the former test site. It includes an explanation of the damage from the blast's radioactivity and conveys the experiences of affected residents. Among the attendees at the ceremony was Melissa Parke, the Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN. She said, "What happened here 80 years ago today also marked the beginning of an existential threat to humanity." She went on to say, "The story perpetuated by nuclear arms states that nuclear weapons keep the world safe through deterrence is a grotesque and dangerous lie." A man from an area affected by the test said people are going to read the sign and know the full story, that it just wasn't about a test, but an atomic bomb explosion. He called nuclear proliferation "ridiculous."
CTV News
10-07-2025
- Health
- CTV News
Sudbury author explores stories of stroke survivors and their recovery
Sudbury author David Leblanc talks with Tony Ryma about his new novel 'Beyond Stroke.' Sudbury author David Leblanc talks with Tony Ryma about his new novel 'Beyond Stroke.' Living the words write what you know, Leblanc decided to cover the sensitive topic after suffering a stroke 12 years ago in hopes of inspiring others to "keep on trucking." A Sudbury author is leaning on his recovery from a stroke to help him write a new book. David Leblanc of Sudbury says his latest novel, 'Beyond Stoke,' explores the stories of stroke survivors and how they managed to persevere. 'I acted upon the words of a person who said if you know something about a topic, write about it,' Leblanc said. David Leblanc David Leblanc of Sudbury says his latest novel, 'Beyond Stoke,' explores the stories of stroke survivors and how they managed to persevere. (Photo from video) 'And since I had a stroke, I figured I should write this book.' He suffered his stroke 12 years ago. There were no warning signs before it happened and the stroke changed his life drastically. 'My educational background was in Laurentian University PhysEd, and I was focused on cancer and heart attack,' said Leblanc. 'I knew all the signs about a heart attack and I was ready. But when the stroke came along, I had no clue.' He underwent three months of rehabilitation at Health Sciences North on the third floor. He later spent some time at ICAN-Independence Centre and Network in Sudbury, a group that helps people living with a physical disability. 'I knew all the signs about a heart attack and I was ready. But when the stroke came along, I had no clue.' — David Leblanc, author of 'Beyond Stroke.' He also went to a Sudbury organization, IRegained, that helped him get his hands and fingers moving. 'I am nowhere near back. I cannot ride my unicycle yet. I do not think I will ever fully recover,' Leblanc said. 'However, there is a lady in the book who made tremendous strides and is almost back to where she was before her stroke.' He interviewed 23 people from northern Ontario for the book and says all of them have one thing in common. 'They are determined. They are convinced they are going to do it. They exercise and they are motivated.' Leblanc says family, spouses and partners are equally important to a stroke victim's recovery. Without their encouragement, he says, the hills would be that much higher to climb.
Sydney Morning Herald
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Is the world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe? This expert thinks so
Fitz: Lights, camera, Kevin07! MP: Yes, and in parliament, the issues of concern to my Fremantle constituents tended to be the same things I was passionate about: that Australia should be a good global citizen, protect the environment, respect human rights and animal welfare, practice good governance and [be an] advocate for nuclear disarmament. Fitz: And what propelled you to leave parliament a decade later, even though by that point you'd had a stint as the minister for international development in the second Rudd government? MP: I'd been there for three terms and felt it was time to let someone else have the extraordinary privilege of being the federal MP for Freo. And frankly I was pretty burnt out. The next year I was asked to become an ambassador for ICAN Australia, and it went from there. Fitz: Which brings us indeed to ICAN. What is the central idea? MP: The idea is to abolish nuclear weapons globally. The campaign started in Melbourne in 2007, with a small group of people sitting around a kitchen table who decided to start a campaign based on earlier successful campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions, as well as chemical and biological weapons – you ban these inhumane weapons, and they become morally and legally unacceptable. Within 10 years of having started that campaign, ICAN had become a global civil society movement headquartered in Geneva, made up of hundreds of partner organisations around the world. It won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to highlight the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and for helping to get a new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted at the UN General Assembly with the support of 122 countries. That treaty is basically the only bright light for nuclear disarmament, which had been stalled for decades. Fitz: And yet while half the countries of the world have signed that treaty, and many more support it, Australia still isn't one of them? MP: Not yet. Anthony Albanese, in 2018 when he was in opposition, introduced a resolution to the national ALP platform, that Labor in government would join the treaty and Anthony, I think, has a personal commitment on this issue. Labor is now in its second term of government and it has a great opportunity to honour that platform commitment and its own strong history of championing nuclear disarmament by joining the treaty. There will, of course, be resistance from the defence establishment, but Australia's current reliance on US nuclear weapons in our defence policy is both dangerous (because it makes us a nuclear target) and absurd (because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours). If Australia was to join the nuclear ban treaty we would be improving our own security and that of our region and the world. Fitz: Is Iran a signatory of the treaty to ban nuclear weapons? MP: Iran and the United States are both parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from 1970, which aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, requires nuclear-armed states to negotiate disarmament, and allows countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under strict safeguards. Israel is not a party to the NPT. None of those countries have yet joined the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and we are encouraging them to do so. But Iran is entitled under the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Loading Fitz: The problem being it's only a small step from having a nuclear energy program to having nuclear weapons? MP: Until the attacks on it by Israel, Iran had been co-operating with international inspectors and engaging in talks with the US about its nuclear program. US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency had assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. And so the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran were clear violations of international law, since Iran had not attacked either country, had not threatened an imminent attack on those countries, and did not have nuclear weapons. These attacks were not only illegal but also counterproductive because Iran has now made a decision to suspend its co-operation with international inspections. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and it has never subjected itself to international inspections. It is arguably Israel's possession of nuclear weapons that has emboldened it to be a nuclear bully, to commit atrocities and genocide in Gaza and to attack other countries in the region, not only Iran, but also Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Fitz: But hang on, Melissa, Iran actually had launched some ballistic missiles at Israel before this strike. MP: The two incidents in April and October last year involved Iran responding to assassinations by Israel. They are entirely separate from Israel's June attacks this year, which Netanyahu himself claimed were 'pre-emptive self-defence' based on Iran being close to developing a nuclear weapon, which we know is not the case. That is, even Israel itself is not claiming the June attack on Iran was retaliation for last year's events. Fitz: I confess surprise at the strength of your language. As the executive director of ICAN it seems you're in a quasi-diplomatic role and it is rare that diplomats use very strong language like saying Israel's committing 'genocide' in Gaza. And yet you don't hesitate. MP: Well, I'm an advocate and an international lawyer rather than a diplomat. The word 'genocide' has been applied by many international legal experts to the Israel/Gaza situation, and every major international human rights organisation, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 'Genocide' is not an emotive expression, it is a legal one, applying the terms of the Genocide Convention to what is happening in Gaza, and it is very clear. The International Court of Justice has said it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You know it's not a controversial opinion in most of the world. Fitz: And you take it as absolute fact that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons? How do you know? MP: The same way we know that every other non-nuclear weapon state that is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not developing nuclear weapons, because there's a very strict inspections regime that's carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which the international community trusts. US intelligence and IAEA had both assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. So I'm not saying it as a guess or an assumption. Fitz: And so the net result of the American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities a fortnight ago? Loading MP: The world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe right now. These events expose the double standards inherent around nuclear weapons. You had here two countries with nuclear weapons – Israel and the US – attacking another country that does not have nuclear weapons, Iran. And as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, 'There are no right hands for wrong weapons'. Nuclear weapons are the only devices ever created that have the capacity to destroy all complex life on earth. No country should be able to threaten the end of life on this planet. No country should have these nuclear weapons. And these events have shown that you can't bomb your way to nuclear non-proliferation or security. You've got to negotiate agreements. You've got to return to the diplomatic process because these illegal attacks did not make the region or the world any safer. They've made it more dangerous by undermining the non-proliferation regime and international law itself. Striking nuclear installations is specifically banned under international law and risks causing radioactive contamination that's harmful to human health and the environment. This misadventure by Israel and the US may well have prompted Iran to consider building a nuclear weapon for the first time. Fitz: What is the doomsday scenario that keeps you awake at night? MP: This year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest we've ever been to global catastrophe – and that was before the recent India/Pakistan and Israel/US/Iran confrontations. There are more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with 2000 of them on high-alert launch status. As long as any nuclear weapons remain anywhere they are bound one day to be used, whether by design or by accident or miscalculation – the situation becomes even more dangerous with the increasing integration by the military of AI into nuclear command and control systems. When the experts 'war-game' likely scenarios, there's virtually none where the firing of one nuclear weapon doesn't lead to an escalatory exchange that results in all-out nuclear war. Fitz: And the bombing of Iran makes this more, not less, likely? Well, you didn't choose your words carefully on Israel, so what about US President Donald Trump? Is he now the most dangerous man in the world? MP: We don't know. It's entirely unpredictable. For instance, during his election campaign and then in his message to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Trump was talking about the need for denuclearisation, and saying he was going to talk to Russia and China about denuclearisation, and that nuclear weapons cost so much money that could be spent on other things, which is all true. ICAN's latest report shows that the nuclear armed states spent $US100 billion last year on their nuclear arsenals. The US is spending trillions of dollars on its nuclear modernisation program. So, Trump says he wants to denuclearise, but at the same time is approving increases to nuclear weapons modernisation programs. So we haven't seen him act consistently on this issue, and we really don't know which way it will go. He's apparently quite keen to get a Nobel Peace Prize. So if he could eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, maybe [he could get one]. Fitz: So if he could do that, you'd call it all even on the card for the many shocking things that he's done?
The Age
05-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Is the world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe? This expert thinks so
Fitz: Lights, camera, Kevin07! MP: Yes, and in parliament, the issues of concern to my Fremantle constituents tended to be the same things I was passionate about: that Australia should be a good global citizen, protect the environment, respect human rights and animal welfare, practice good governance and [be an] advocate for nuclear disarmament. Fitz: And what propelled you to leave parliament a decade later, even though by that point you'd had a stint as the minister for international development in the second Rudd government? MP: I'd been there for three terms and felt it was time to let someone else have the extraordinary privilege of being the federal MP for Freo. And frankly I was pretty burnt out. The next year I was asked to become an ambassador for ICAN Australia, and it went from there. Fitz: Which brings us indeed to ICAN. What is the central idea? MP: The idea is to abolish nuclear weapons globally. The campaign started in Melbourne in 2007, with a small group of people sitting around a kitchen table who decided to start a campaign based on earlier successful campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions, as well as chemical and biological weapons – you ban these inhumane weapons, and they become morally and legally unacceptable. Within 10 years of having started that campaign, ICAN had become a global civil society movement headquartered in Geneva, made up of hundreds of partner organisations around the world. It won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to highlight the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and for helping to get a new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted at the UN General Assembly with the support of 122 countries. That treaty is basically the only bright light for nuclear disarmament, which had been stalled for decades. Fitz: And yet while half the countries of the world have signed that treaty, and many more support it, Australia still isn't one of them? MP: Not yet. Anthony Albanese, in 2018 when he was in opposition, introduced a resolution to the national ALP platform, that Labor in government would join the treaty and Anthony, I think, has a personal commitment on this issue. Labor is now in its second term of government and it has a great opportunity to honour that platform commitment and its own strong history of championing nuclear disarmament by joining the treaty. There will, of course, be resistance from the defence establishment, but Australia's current reliance on US nuclear weapons in our defence policy is both dangerous (because it makes us a nuclear target) and absurd (because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours). If Australia was to join the nuclear ban treaty we would be improving our own security and that of our region and the world. Fitz: Is Iran a signatory of the treaty to ban nuclear weapons? MP: Iran and the United States are both parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from 1970, which aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, requires nuclear-armed states to negotiate disarmament, and allows countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under strict safeguards. Israel is not a party to the NPT. None of those countries have yet joined the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and we are encouraging them to do so. But Iran is entitled under the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Loading Fitz: The problem being it's only a small step from having a nuclear energy program to having nuclear weapons? MP: Until the attacks on it by Israel, Iran had been co-operating with international inspectors and engaging in talks with the US about its nuclear program. US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency had assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. And so the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran were clear violations of international law, since Iran had not attacked either country, had not threatened an imminent attack on those countries, and did not have nuclear weapons. These attacks were not only illegal but also counterproductive because Iran has now made a decision to suspend its co-operation with international inspections. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and it has never subjected itself to international inspections. It is arguably Israel's possession of nuclear weapons that has emboldened it to be a nuclear bully, to commit atrocities and genocide in Gaza and to attack other countries in the region, not only Iran, but also Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Fitz: But hang on, Melissa, Iran actually had launched some ballistic missiles at Israel before this strike. MP: The two incidents in April and October last year involved Iran responding to assassinations by Israel. They are entirely separate from Israel's June attacks this year, which Netanyahu himself claimed were 'pre-emptive self-defence' based on Iran being close to developing a nuclear weapon, which we know is not the case. That is, even Israel itself is not claiming the June attack on Iran was retaliation for last year's events. Fitz: I confess surprise at the strength of your language. As the executive director of ICAN it seems you're in a quasi-diplomatic role and it is rare that diplomats use very strong language like saying Israel's committing 'genocide' in Gaza. And yet you don't hesitate. MP: Well, I'm an advocate and an international lawyer rather than a diplomat. The word 'genocide' has been applied by many international legal experts to the Israel/Gaza situation, and every major international human rights organisation, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 'Genocide' is not an emotive expression, it is a legal one, applying the terms of the Genocide Convention to what is happening in Gaza, and it is very clear. The International Court of Justice has said it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You know it's not a controversial opinion in most of the world. Fitz: And you take it as absolute fact that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons? How do you know? MP: The same way we know that every other non-nuclear weapon state that is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not developing nuclear weapons, because there's a very strict inspections regime that's carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which the international community trusts. US intelligence and IAEA had both assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. So I'm not saying it as a guess or an assumption. Fitz: And so the net result of the American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities a fortnight ago? Loading MP: The world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe right now. These events expose the double standards inherent around nuclear weapons. You had here two countries with nuclear weapons – Israel and the US – attacking another country that does not have nuclear weapons, Iran. And as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, 'There are no right hands for wrong weapons'. Nuclear weapons are the only devices ever created that have the capacity to destroy all complex life on earth. No country should be able to threaten the end of life on this planet. No country should have these nuclear weapons. And these events have shown that you can't bomb your way to nuclear non-proliferation or security. You've got to negotiate agreements. You've got to return to the diplomatic process because these illegal attacks did not make the region or the world any safer. They've made it more dangerous by undermining the non-proliferation regime and international law itself. Striking nuclear installations is specifically banned under international law and risks causing radioactive contamination that's harmful to human health and the environment. This misadventure by Israel and the US may well have prompted Iran to consider building a nuclear weapon for the first time. Fitz: What is the doomsday scenario that keeps you awake at night? MP: This year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest we've ever been to global catastrophe – and that was before the recent India/Pakistan and Israel/US/Iran confrontations. There are more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with 2000 of them on high-alert launch status. As long as any nuclear weapons remain anywhere they are bound one day to be used, whether by design or by accident or miscalculation – the situation becomes even more dangerous with the increasing integration by the military of AI into nuclear command and control systems. When the experts 'war-game' likely scenarios, there's virtually none where the firing of one nuclear weapon doesn't lead to an escalatory exchange that results in all-out nuclear war. Fitz: And the bombing of Iran makes this more, not less, likely? Well, you didn't choose your words carefully on Israel, so what about US President Donald Trump? Is he now the most dangerous man in the world? MP: We don't know. It's entirely unpredictable. For instance, during his election campaign and then in his message to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Trump was talking about the need for denuclearisation, and saying he was going to talk to Russia and China about denuclearisation, and that nuclear weapons cost so much money that could be spent on other things, which is all true. ICAN's latest report shows that the nuclear armed states spent $US100 billion last year on their nuclear arsenals. The US is spending trillions of dollars on its nuclear modernisation program. So, Trump says he wants to denuclearise, but at the same time is approving increases to nuclear weapons modernisation programs. So we haven't seen him act consistently on this issue, and we really don't know which way it will go. He's apparently quite keen to get a Nobel Peace Prize. So if he could eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, maybe [he could get one]. Fitz: So if he could do that, you'd call it all even on the card for the many shocking things that he's done?
