Some Indian states are making it a crime to offer any sort of inducement to convert to a religion. Even beyond that, a local official will have the power to decide what constitutes an inducement. That opens the door to repressive selective enforcement — in favor of Hinduism and against anything else.

What if the law were enforced honestly and narrowly? That's not going to happen under a rulig party that encourages religious-based hate crimes, but let's suppose.

I think that would still unacceptably restrictive. People should not be required to get government approval for what they believe.

*Indonesia relents on plan to push back boat carrying 100 Rohingya refugees after outcry.*

* Australia’s independent expert group OzSage has savaged the “let it rip” Covid-19 strategy in New South Wales and elsewhere, saying it will condemn some people to death, particularly the more vulnerable.*

Australia has apparently flipped completely from the approach it used until a few months ago.

A lawsuit challenges the intentionally inadequate US system for labeling genetically engineered foods.

Each kind of genetic modification raises different issues, so it is a mistake to generalize about them. There is no reason to suppose by default that they do practical harm, but some specific modified varieties can do harm for specific reasons. Aside from that, they are likely to carry patents which would do practical harm to society if it depends on them for something important.

* Now that they can no longer pretend the climate crisis isn’t real, big emitters and their enablers are making all of the right noises –- and taking none of the right actions.* This includes Australia's government.

It also includes United Airlines. It proposes to use "100% green fuel" for its planes, and plans to burn a lot more fuel than today; but it has no plausible plan to get enough of this green fuel to run more than a fraction of its flights.