316usman/thematic4cembed huggingface dataset:
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571601819.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
Mario Lubetkin Growing food insecurity calls for greater coordination By Mario Lubetkin, FAO Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Latin America and the Caribbean According to the latest Global Report on Food Crises, in 2022, almost 258 million people in 58 countries faced the highest levels of acute food insecurity, which includes the categories of "Crisis", "Emergency", and "Catastrophe", meaning that it can range from malnutrition to the risk of death due to lack of food.
The number of acutely food-insecure people in Latin America and the Caribbean reached 17.8 million.

Haiti reports one of the most challenging situations, with 4.72 million people affected, representing 26% of the region's total.
This situation has led the affected regional population to take extreme measures, such as selling their animals, eating seeds knowing very well that they will have nothing to plant later, selling their homes, or begging for food, which turns into a spiral of vulnerability, particularly among the rural populations.

Currently, many people suffering food crises depend on agricultural livelihoods for survival.

This is most critical for rural women.


In a household with insufficient food, evidence indicates that women will be worse off than men.

There are also significant gaps in the food security of indigenous populations.

The food crisis or emergency reported in the region in 2022 is mainly due to several factors, such as the war in Ukraine, the social and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of extreme weather events.
We must increase humanitarian efforts with populations that can no longer meet their minimum food needs.

But it is also essential to invest in agriculture and local food production, as this also contributes to humanitarian work in contexts of food crises.

Currently, only four percent of humanitarian assistance in countries in food crisis goes to agricultural and livelihood support.
We must provide humanitarian aid to protect agricultural livelihoods, act proactively on alerts anticipating the deterioration of an acute food insecurity situation before it becomes an extreme emergency, and ensure social protection for rural people, and increase economic and climate resilience.

Investing in agriculture and the resources that sustain it is strategic and cost- effective.
According to our studies, the benefits of investing in agriculture can be ten times greater than if investing only in food aid, and the effects can be prolonged over time.

Without successful recovery and sustainable development initiatives, there will be a perpetual need for urgent humanitarian action and an increased risk of deterioration into a chronic emergency.
We must achieve these results with more coordinated efforts by international organizations, governments, the private sector, regional organizations, civil society, and communities.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571616495.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
CHEF (Grill) Certificate in Culinary School or 3 years experience working in reputable restaurants Must have a Food Handlers Certificate Must be a team-player Must be flexible Must work well under pressure Must know the GRILL and cooking temperatures Interested individuals, for more information should: Contact the One Stop Employment Centre (OSEC) at 562- 8533/4/5 RIGHT AWAY!!

!
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571619263.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
GROUND SUPERVISOR A small luxury boutique hotel has an immediate vacancy for a Grounds Supervisor.
The individual should meet the following criteria:  Knowledgeable about Caribbean Plants  Be able to maintain & enhance the hotels landscape  Experience in a supervisory position  Candidate is required to have at least 2-5 years in this field  Relevant Qualifications in this field  2+ Previous work experience in the Hotel Industry  Must be able to work a flexible schedule to include weekends & holidays.
For more information, interested individuals should: Contact the One Stop Employment Centre at 562-8533/4/5 RIGHT AWAY!!

!
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571654910.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
Plant Varieties Plant variety protection is a type of intellectual property right granted to the person or entity that breeds a new plant variety.

The rights are also known as plant breeder’s rights (PBR).

PBRs allow plant breeders the right to prevent persons from commercializing the protected variety without prior authorization of the breeder.

This authorization is normally in the form of a license agreement between the title holder and those who sell the variety.
There is no IP system of protection that specifically protects plant varieties in Antigua and Barbuda as yet.

Stakeholders are currently exploring varying avenues to bring this to reality in the near future, including for example, membership to The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571723485.pdf (Australia)
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 8 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 8 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 8 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 8 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 8 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 8 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 8 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 8
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571738116.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
LAWS OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Members of Parliament Gratuities (Options) (CAP.

272 1 CHAPTER 272 T H E MEMBERS O F PARLIAMENT GRATUITIES (OPTIONS) ACT Arrangement of Sections Section 1.

Short title.

2.

Interpretation.

3 .

Right of option for Gratuity MEMBERS O F P A R L I A M E N T G R A T U I T I E S (OPTIONS) (7th May, 1981 .)

411981.

1.

This Act may be cited as the Members of Parlia- Short title.

ment Gratuities (Options) Act.

2.

In this Act- Interpretation.


"The Act of 1967" means the Members of Parliament (Gratuities) Act, 1967 (Repealed); NO.

3911967.

"the Act of 1979" means the Pensions and Gratuities (Parliamentary and Special Offices) Act, 1979; Cap.

322.

"member of Parliament" has the meaning assigned to that expression- (i) in section 2 of the Act of 1967 as respects a person who opts under this Act to receive a gratuity under the Act of 1967; or LAWS OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 2 C A P .
272) Members of Parliament Gratuities (Options) Right of option for Gratuity.

(ii) in section 9 of the Act of 1979 as respects a person who opts under this Act to receive a gratuity under the Act of 1979.

3.
3.

(1) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Act of 1967, a member of Parliament who immediately before the com- mencement of the Act of 1979 was entitled to a gratuity under the Act of 1967 and who is also entitled to a gratuity under the Act of 1979 may opt to receive a gratuity either under the Act of 1967 or under the Act of 1979.
(2) Where a member of Parliament opts under this sec- tion to receive a gratuity under the Act of 1967 he shall exercise his option within such time and in such manner as ~ r o v i d e d &the Act of 1967 for notification of an election to take a gratuity and he shall be granted a gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1967 as if sec- tion 18 of the Act of 1979 (which repealed the Act of 1967) has not come into force or operation.
(3) Where a member of Parliament opts under this sec- tion to receive a gratuity under the Act of 1979 he shall exercise his option at such time and in such manner as pro- vided in the Act of 1979 for notification of a desire to receive a gratuity.

(4) Where a member of Parliament is entitled to exer- cise an option under this section, the law for which he opts shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be more favourable to him than the law for which he does not opt.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571753216.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
LAWS OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Bills of Lading (CAP.

50 1 CHAPTER 50 THE BILLS OF LADING ACT Arrangement of Sections Section 1.

Short title.

2.

Rights under bill of lading to vest in consignee or indorsee.

3.

Not to affect right of stoppage or claims for freight.

4.

Bill of lading in hands of consignee, etc., conclusive evidence of the shipment as against master, etc.

BILLS OF LADING (5th March, 1887.)

1.

This Act may be cited as the Bills of Lading Act.

short title.

2.
short title.

2.

Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading, Rights under bill of lading to vest and every indorsee of a bill of lading, to whom the property in consignee or in the goods therein mentioned shall pass upon or by reason indorsee.

of such consignment or indorsement, shall have transferred to and vested in him all rights of suit, and be subject to the same liabilities, in respect of such goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself.

3.
3.

Nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect :;:tG;:ro:ight any rights of stoppage in transitu, or any right to claim freight .I~;,, for freight.

against the original shipper or owner, or any liability of the consignee or indorsee by reason or in consequence of his being such consignee or indorsee, or of his receipt of the LAWS OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CAP.

50) Bills of Lading goods by reason or in consequence of such consignment or indorsement.

4.
4.

Every bill of lading in the hands of a consignee Bill of lading in hands of consignee, etc., or indorsee for valuable consideration, representing goods conclusive to have been shipped on board a vessel, shall be conclusive evidence of the evidence of such shipment as against the master or other shipment as against master, person signing the same, notwithstanding that such goods etc.
or some part thereof may not have been so shipped, unless such holder of the bill of lading shall have had actual notice, at the time of receiving the same, that the goods had not been in fact laden on board: Provided that the master or other person so signing may exonerate himself in respect of such misrepresentation by showing that it was caused without any default on his part and wholly by the fraud of the shipper, or of the holder, or some person under whom the holder claims.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571753731.pdf (Australia)
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 205
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571761629.pdf (Australia)
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 27 - Supplementary Submission
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571767549.pdf (Australia)
Dear Sirs/Madam, The right to freedom of religion does include the right to practice those beliefs.

International covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPRs, Article 18) which states Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

This right shall include freedom to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Also the Declaration of Human rights Article 18 also recognizes the same rights to practice your religion.
Redefining marriage will essentially take those rights away from anyone who does not agree with same-sex weddings based on the practice of their religious beliefs via anti- discrimination laws.

We have seen this in numerous examples overseas.

The example of a wedding supplier who does have religious views against same-sex unions and marriages will be open to law suits if they refuse service based on their religious convictions because they are a same-sex couple.
Giving rights to one group should not impact onto another opposing group that is not equality.

What happens to religious rights in these cases?

Are they ignored even though article 18s make it clear you are allowed to practice your religion.

This includes not being forced by anti-discrimination laws to facilitate a gay marriage, which is in fact forcing them not to be able to practice their religion if these people are open to law suits for practising their religious belief.
Regards, Paul Woolley Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 360
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571773088.pdf (Australia)
From: Lesley Nesbitt Sent: Friday, 31 July 2015 6:27 PM To: Economics, Committee (SEN) Subject: Enquiry into Food Certification Schemes Consumers have the right to know - a whether the products they are purchasing carry a particular certification (be it kosher, halal or anything else), and more importantly b whether a fee has been levied for such certification of that product, and c whether such fees/expenses are borne by the consumer; ie the consumer should know the potential impact on prices when such certification fees are levied on companies and producers.
Lesley Nesbiit PH.

Third party certification of foodSubmission 1397
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571783551.pdf (Australia)
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 195
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571790304.pdf (Australia)
Submission concerning the Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief.

To Whom It May Concern: With respect to the terms of reference of this enquiry, specifically item 3.

I observe that the only reason d’etre for the inclusion of such a term, much less the implementation of laws predicated on this principle, is quite sinister.
The very notion that someone can be insulted or offended by another’s personal beliefs and the expression of an opinion, cannot be grounds for laws to silence such speech.

This is anathema to a society that values freedom; and in other circumstances could be described as anti-sedition laws.

Our “lucky” country derives its values from a great heritage, which in part come from its colonial past and from the belief systems passed on as part of that heritage.
These values, including free speech, underpin our institutions including as justice system and the parliamentary systems of government.

Religious beliefs have contributed in no small part to establishment and strengthening of these values.

Religious beliefs are amongst the most fundamental beliefs a person can hold, they have to do with our ultimate purpose and how we can fulfill that purpose through a fully matured and consistent philosophy.
In a secular society science is often held up as the golden standard for determining the truth, the dismissal or disrespect directed toward those who hold religious beliefs is not itself a deliverance of science, merely the expression of a prejudice.

Even were an individual devoid of religious conviction, few of us possess the intellectual capacity to independently arrive at a completely formed set of comprehensive moral principles.
We all draw from the body of knowledge handed down to us in one way or another, from our parents, from institutions such as our legal code, literature, the deliberation of philosophers, our churches and other such repositories of knowledge and thought.

Laws are there to protect our society, and what is a society without values, therefore laws must also protect the values of the society, not dismantle them.

If laws were enacted that mandated lying and violence they would inherently be unjust.
Likewise laws that either prohibited an individual from expressing their beliefs, or coerced them into acting contrary to those beliefs could hardly be any more unjust.

As a logical proposition, how can you possibly propose that some previously un- acknowledged right is a universal human right in the first place, if you intend to prohibit anyone from debating or challenging your proposition, this is using the law to shield an absurdity.
In short the state has no moral mandate to silence the free expression of religious believers.

It does not have to like what they say; it does not have to agree with them.

Likewise, it has no right to force them to act in ways they find morally repugnant this is tyranny.

Yours Respectfully, Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 24
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571801732.pdf (Australia)
# Human right to freedom of religion # With regards to the terms of the inquiry: 2.

Action taken by governments, international organisations, national human rights institutions, and non-government organisations to protect the freedom of religion or belief, promote religious tolerance, and prevent violations or abuses of this right; Tolerance, and hence the freedom from abuse and harassment, is an exceptionally low bar in the goals of any human rights organisation.
The prevalence of blasphemy and anti-atheist laws in governments around the world shows anything but tolerance along with harsh penalties including execution are preventing any divergence in religion and the abuse is at the hands of these governments.

3.
3.

The relationship between the freedom of religion or belief and other human rights, and the implications of constraints on the freedom of religion or belief for the enjoyment of other universal human rights; In an era of religious pluralism there needs to be a continued restraint by those with religious belief towards each other and non religious people.

Limits need to be applied to ensure gratuitous litigation of blasphemy is not allowed by law.
The entire worlds population represented governments also needs to ensure that constructs that become socially inherited without religious exclusive ownership, like marriage, do not remained universally controlled by religious groups.

Belief in the importance of constructs like marriage is fundamental and a believer in nondiscriminatory marriage is also important even without a collective name for this belief.
Constraints on religious freedom as literally coded into the ICCPR article 18 have no intent to limit the enjoyment.

The rights of others affected by the exercise of religious freedom and belief.

As there is no hierarchy of rights, ICCPR article 26 detailing non- discrimination is equally important.

4.
4.

Australian efforts, including those of Federal, State and Territory governments and non-government organisations, to protect and promote the freedom of religion or belief in Australia and around the world, including in the Indo-Pacific region.
In the implementation of the Federal Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 section 38(3) infringes on the rights of parents of students (ICCPR Article 18(4)) to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
A child's properties regarding a sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy status injurious to religious susceptibilities should not interfere with the parents right to the education happening.

Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 16 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 16
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571824914.pdf (Australia)
The essence of religious freedom is that every person has an inalienable right to hold and practise a religious belief provided that belief and its practice are not used intentionally or deliberately to deride, insult or attack in any other way, verbally or physically, the genuinely held religious belief of a fellow human being.

This naturally implies every person universally.


Any direct, deliberate attack on a fellow human, either by verbal abuse or physical violence, on account of a genuine religious belief and/or practice is an abuse of human rights that demands universal condemnation and sanction.
It is a solemn obligation of all governments globally, international organisations, national human rights institutions and non-government organisations (NGOs) to pursue genuine, serious avenues and means to ensure that all direct, intentional and deliberate attacks against freedom of religion, above all those involving cruel, physical violence, are at least drastically diminished, if not eradicated.
The intrinsic right to live out a true and genuine religious belief and practice implies that all other basic human rights are recognised and respected.

However, a phenomenon in recent times has been the growth of law suits challenging the basic rights of certain religious bodies who wish to maintain and apply long-held, traditional beliefs.

Such challenges are in reality an attack against freedom of religion and belief.
If those issuing challenges decide to live lifestyles that conflict with the beliefs of certain religious groups, the latter do not attack and insult them for their choice.

Our democratic society allows them the right to make that choice of lifestyle; but a true democratic society would not grant them a right to openly and directly attack religious bodies for their genuinely long-held beliefs within their own communities.
Such religious intolerance is an issue that needs to be recognised, acknowledged and resolved throughout Australia by Federal, State and Territory Governments as well as NGOs for the protection and enhancement of freedom of religion and belief AND respect for other intrinsic human rights in our nation.

Of course, exactly the same development should be encouraged and applied internationally.
The process I have outlined/described has no room for unfair discrimination in acknowledging and respecting another's right to hold and practise a genuine religious belief.

At the same time, sensible and fair discriminations exist at every level of human existence, otherwise the whole of humanity would morph into unimaginable and unbearable boredom.

Recognising a vast range of 'differences' means that society is always 'discriminating'.
This reality naturally includes an acknowledgment of 'religious difference', implying a true respect for each other's freedom of religion and belief with a real desire to try to eliminate all forms of violence and abuse against religious belief and practice.

Peter Phillips, Springvale, Victoria Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 237
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694571865620.pdf (Australia)
Please see submission 321 and associated right of reply Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 [provisions]Submission 45 - Please see submission 321 and associated right of reply