惊声尖笑

曼晚：曼城直接传达了不续约决定，德布劳内感到震惊和受伤_我的网站

A |     

曼城客场2-0战胜埃弗顿后，走下场的德布劳内径直走向麦克风，这是他第一次有机会坦率地谈论曼城不续约他合同的决定。他表示他对曼城决定不续约合同感到震惊，这一消息是在四月初的一次“简短会议”上传达给他的。    NEW DELHI -- India’s top court on Tuesday refused to legalize same-sex marriages, passing the responsibility back to Parliament in a ruling that disappointed campaigners for LGBTQ+ rights in the world's most populous country. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud also urged the government to uphold the rights of the queer community and end discrimination against them. Earlier this year, the five-judge bench heard 21 petitions that sought to legalize same-sex marriage. Chandrachud said there were degrees of agreement and disagreement among the justices “on how far we have to go” on same-sex marriages, but a majority of the judges agreed that the court cannot grant LGBTQ+ people the right to marry as that is a legislative function. “This court can’t make law. It can only interpret it and give effect to it,” the chief justice said, reiterating that it was up to Parliament to decide whether it could expand marriage laws to include queer unions.One of the petitioners, Mario da Penha, said it was “a day to be disappointed but not to lose hope.”“There's been tremendous work that has gone into these petitions, and many hopes and dreams of the queer community attached to them - to lead lives that most other Indians take for granted. The fact that the dream could not come to fruition today is a disappointment for all of us,” he said.He added that it was not yet clear if the court had set a mandate or timeline for Parliament to act. “Without that mandate, there is no pressure on Parliament to enact any legislation.”“There are queer couples today that are already families and in relationships, and are pillars of society. That they are not afforded the dignity and rights that they are due is deeply disappointing,” said Karuna Nundy, one of the lawyers representing the petitioners. Legal rights for LGBTQ+ people in India have been expanding over the past decade, mostly as a result of the Supreme Court’s intervention. In 2018, the top court struck down a colonial-era law that had made gay sex punishable by up to 10 years in prison and expanded constitutional rights for the gay community. The decision was seen as a historic victory for LGBTQ rights, with one judge saying it would “pave the way for a better future."Despite this progress, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government resisted the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and rejected several petitions in favor. During the hearings, the government argued that a marriage is only between a biological male and a biological woman, adding that same-sex marriages went against religious values and that the petitions reflected only “urban elitist views”. Religious groups too had opposed same-sex unions, saying they went against Indian culture.Adish Aggarwala, the president of the Supreme Court bar association, said the court had done the right thing by recognizing that this was a job for Parliament, an argument the government also made during the hearings. Lawyers for the petitioners argued that marriage is between two people, not just a man and woman. They said concepts of marriage have gradually changed with time and laws should acknowledge that. By not recognizing such unions, the government was depriving same-sex couples of their right to equality enshrined in the constitution and rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, from adoption and medical insurance to pensions and inheritance, they argued. “This court needs to push society to acknowledge same-sex marriage,” one of the lawyers said.Petitioners were hopeful that the Supreme Court could challenge the government’s position.But even as some of the justices urged that the state must make sure queer couples don't face harassment or discrimination in accessing basic needs, like opening a joint bank account, they stopped short of granting legal recognition to same-sex unions. Instead, the court accepted the government's offer to set up a special panel that will explore granting social and legal benefits to same-sex couples. Homosexuality has long carried a stigma in India’s traditional society, even though there has been a shift in attitudes toward same-sex couples in recent years. India now has openly gay celebrities and some high-profile Bollywood films have dealt with gay issues. According to a Pew survey, acceptance of homosexuality in India increased by 22 percentage points to 37% between 2013 and 2019.But same-sex couples often face harassment in many Indian communities, whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian.India is estimated to have at least 2.5 million LGBTQ+ people, according to government figures from 2012. However, gay rights activists and global estimates believe they number at least 10% of the population, or more than 135 million.In May, Taiwan became the first jurisdiction in Asia to recognize same-sex marriages. In July, Nepal's Supreme Court issued an interim order enabling the registration of same-sex marriages for the first time. It is still not clear when the court would make its final decision on the case.。

B |

当被问及过去三周收到的所有致敬是否让他感到高兴时，他回答：“我不在乎。决定已经做出，从那时起我就只想像往常一样踢足球。”

他谈到了自己对曼城未提供合同便通知他离队的惊讶。他明确表示不同意这个决定，并透露在一次简短的会议上，他已经告诉了总监贝吉里斯坦和CEO费兰-索里亚诺自己的看法，当时他们告知了他未来的安排。

C |

记者提出：这场对话在贝吉里斯坦也会听到，会让人觉得尴尬吗？

德布劳内耸耸肩，回答道：“我不觉得尴尬。事情就是这样。

D | 我必须接受人们做出决定，我想我也告诉过他们，我觉得我还有很多东西可以贡献。

E | ”

德布劳内在曼市德比的新闻发布会前几分钟自宣离队决定显得不协调却又刻意，他透露他在向全世界公布这条改变人生的新闻之前度过了几天“奇怪”的日子。

F |

他解释道：“大约是半周的时间我才把它公布出来，这不是什么好消息。我的家人不在家。他们在复活节假期，所以有点奇怪，但事情就是这样。”

“有点奇怪，因为时间很短。在做出决定之后，当我发布（信息）时，比起我知道而别人不知道时，向外界报告这件事反而让我松了一口气。你不知道如何处理这种情绪，也不知道如何在俱乐部应对它。”

“现在一切都公开了，没关系。人们看到了我的态度。我一直在尽力为俱乐部做到最好，为球队赢得比赛。”

曼晚记者写道：仅花了八分钟听德布劳内讲话，就能明显感觉到他对这一决定的方式仍感到情绪激动，甚至有些受伤。

G |

Current article:http://cdvm.xuanliaruamibinmilangca.shop/list_99m7/css.html

Published on:01:32:28