Français | English | Español | Português

Norway Economy

Zain (Zain Al Rafeea) is an abrasive, unkempt boy of either 12 or 13 years old. Neither he nor his parents quite know his age for sure. His parents’ neglect is only part of the reason why Zain wants to sue them for bringing him into this world without a care. He hopes to stop them from having any more neglected children like himself or his beloved sister, Sahar (Cedra Izam), who they sold into an early marriage. Yet this is still only the beginning of Zain’s sad story.

Nadine Labaki’s “Capernaum” is a brutally honest — sometimes difficult to watch — drama about neglected children. Some, like Zain, are the innocent victims of a bad situation, joining a big family already burdened with an absurdly small income. Others are the victims of circumstance, like when a hardworking, caring Ethiopian migrant, Rahil (Yordanos Shiferaw), is arrested for her expired (and forged) paperwork. She can say nothing of her baby Yonas (Boluwatife Treasure Bankole) at home, or she risks losing custody of the infant.

Despite his parents’ mistreatments, Zain tries to do the right things for his siblings. He’s especially protective of Sahar and tries to save her from being sold into marriage. When that fails, he runs away from home. He stumbles onto a dusty fairground where one of the workers, Rahil, takes pity on the forlorn-looking boy asking everyone for work. She takes Zain in and asks the boy to look after Yonas while she works.

Also Read: 'Capernaum' Director Left Out 'Shocking' Details About Kids on the Streets That Audiences Couldn't Handle

Unfortunately, as an undocumented migrant vulnerable to extortion, she’s unable to pay the high price to forge her papers and is arrested, leaving the two boys to fend for themselves. So the resourceful Zain does what he’s always done: survive. He figures out how to feed the baby without its mother’s milk, where to find alternative places to shower when they run out of water, how to create a carriage out of a stolen skateboard and pots and how to use what he learned working for his parents’ drug business to earn money. But every step towards survival is met with complications, and Zain’s growing frustration with this unkind world drives him to want to leave the country — potentially without Yonas.

“Capernaum” has garnered much attention for shining a light on the exploitation of children, migrants and refugees. The movie earned a rapturous debut at Cannes, and Lebanon selected the film as its Oscar contender for the foreign language film category. Labaki, whose previous film “Where Do We Go Now?” was also chosen as Lebanon’s Oscar submission in 2012, collaborated with cinematographer Christopher Aoun to look for beauty in this tragedy. They hone in on details like the sunlight brightly streaming into Zain’s messy home or in touching close-ups of Zain playing with Yonas.

Also Read: Do the Oscars Have an Asia Problem in the Foreign Language Film Race?

Labaki’s film hinges on the heartfelt emotions of a little boy struggling to survive, and she cast Al Rafeea, then a 12-year-old illiterate Syrian refugee, to carry the film’s extraordinary emotional demands. At times, the beatings and arguments in “Capernaum” can look frightful; I worried for the children in the scenes. Recently, the director shared that the boy and his family have resettled in Norway, which was similar to his character’s escape plan to go to Europe.

In the movie, Zain can be defiant, ready to curse or to fight anyone who crosses him or anyone in his care. But he’s not always a raw nerve looking for a brawl. In scenes of quiet desperation, Labaki’s camera focuses on the actor’s eyes and his defeated body posture to get a sense of the internal fight going on in his head. There’s a melancholy tone throughout the film, even in its most innocent moments, like when Zain is playing with Yonas in his crib.

Watch Video: 'Capernaum' Director Nadine Labaki Says Refugee Child Star Is Safe and Resettled

There’s no reprieve from the extreme poverty that fuels Zain’s parents’ abuses or that drives Rahil to risk everything to care for her child. Sadness isn’t just around every corner of this film; it is in the viewer’s face throughout its runtime.

In a handful of drone shots in the movie, Labaki extends her lens beyond the suffering of her characters. As the camera flies up, it loses track of the kids. The shot is now focused on the seemingly endless blocks and rows of rundown homes and crumbling apartments. The children’s suffering is lost in a sea of inescapable hardship. Days after watching the movie, I still have some reservations about how abuse is shown in the film, but it’s hauntingly effective. I haven’t been able to shake those images since.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Oscar Foreign Entry 'The Great Buddha+' Director Says Authority 'Confines and Defines Us'

Oscar Foreign Entry 'Village Rockstars' Director: 'I Started From Nothing With Only a Camera'

Oscar Foreign Entry 'Barbarians,' About Genocide in Romania, Was Nearly Shut Down Mid-Shoot

'Roma,' 'Cold War' Lead Academy's List of 87 Films in the Oscars Foreign Language Race | 12/13/18
Norway's sovereign wealth fund expects to double its investments in Saudi Arabia when the country is included in the fund's reference index a few months from now, Chief Executive Yngve Slyngstad said Friday.

Discovery and the PGA Tour have struck a massive $2 billion deal for tournament rights outside of the United States through 2030. That’s a lot of green — and we’re not just talking about the putting surfaces.

The pricey (and lengthy) alliance, which tees off next year, will result in about 2,000 hours of content annually and nearly 150 tournaments, including The Players Championship, the FedExCup Playoffs, and the Presidents Cup. It will grant Discovery the exclusive non-U.S. television and multiplatform rights to all PGA Tour golf events by 2024 — here is a timetable for implementation:

Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain
Poland, South Korea
Belgium, China, Germany, South Africa
Denmark, Finland, India, Norway, Sweden, UK

Also Read: Former 'Deadliest Catch' Skipper Blake Painter Found Dead at 38

About those multiplatform rights: Together, Discovery and the PGA Tour will develop a new PGA Tour-branded OTT video streaming service to serve 220 markets and territories.

“Today is a fantastic day for golf fans around the world as Discovery proudly partners with the PGA Tour to create something that has never been done before,” David Zaslav, president and CEO, Discovery, said. “The long-term partnership between the PGA Tour and Discovery will create the new global Home of Golf, including delivering over 2000 hours of live content year-round and this prestigious sport’s greatest moments, stories and athletes. Following our successful first Olympic Games in PyeongChang, Discovery will contribute its strong global distribution and promotional infrastructure, in-market relationships, global sports expertise with direct-to-consumer platforms and brands to create a valuable new long-term Home of Golf offering in every market outside the U.S.”

“This is an exciting next step for the PGA Tour, which presents a tremendous opportunity to accelerate and expand our media business outside the United States, better service our international broadcast partners, and drive fan growth with a deeply experienced strategic global partner,” added Jay Monahan, commissioner, PGA Tour. “This partnership aligns very well with the opening of PGA Tour offices in London, Tokyo and Beijing in recent years and will support our long-term objectives of growing the game of golf. It also will deliver more value to our sponsors as it presents a tremendous opportunity to engage new and diverse audiences around the world.”

Also Read: Jon Hamm's Impression of Ray Romano Playing Golf Is Simply the Best (Video)

The partnership will be led by Discovery’s Alex Kaplan, who is president and general manager of the new Discovery and PGA Tour venture. His management team will include the PGA Tour’s Thierry Pascal as head of distribution.

Kaplan previously was an executive vice president at Eurosport Digital, where he helped grow the Eurosport D2C business to over 1 million subscribers. Prior to joining Discovery, Kaplan was a senior vice president of global media distribution for the NBA.

“I am incredibly excited to work with David Zaslav and JB Perrette to take international coverage of PGA Tour golf to the next level,” Kaplan said. “We can’t wait to get started and build a world-class global platform and long-term distribution strategy to turn the vision of this partnership into a reality. By joining forces with the outstanding PGA Tour team, led by Jay Monahan and Rick Anderson, we have a unique opportunity to build an amazing product that will serve the fans with the golf content they love on every screen.”

Related stories from TheWrap:

Discovery Lost Money in Q1 Due to Huge Scripps Deal

Discovery Boss David Zaslav's Pay Rose Above $42 Million Last Year

Rich Ross Out at Discovery: Company Unveils Post-Scripps Senior Executive Team | 6/4/18

Prince William is heading to Israel.

Kensington Place announced on Thursday that William, 35, will tour Jordan, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories next month. His trip begins on June 24 in Amman, and includes stops in Tel Aviv and Ramallah before concluding in Jerusalem on June 28.

Can’t get enough of PEOPLE’s Royals coverage? Sign up for our newsletter to get the latest updates on Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle and more!

William’s visit marks the first time a member of the royal family has traveled to Israel on official business. Prince Phillip went in 1994 for a Yad Vashem ceremony honoring his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, who saved Jews during the Holocaust by opening the doors of her palace in Greece. In 2016, Prince Charles attended the funeral of former President Shimon Peres.

The high-profile visit was “at the request of Her Majesty’s government and has been welcomed by the Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian authorities,” Kensington Palace said in a statement.

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, previously tweeted: “Nechama & I were happy to hear @KensingtonRoyal announcement, and look forward to welcoming #PrinceWilliam, the Duke of Cambridge, on an official visit to the State of #Israel later this year. A very special guest, and a very special present for our 70th year of independence.”

Nechama & I were happy to hear @KensingtonRoyal announcement, and look forward to welcoming #PrinceWilliam, the Duke of Cambridge, on an official visit to the State of #Israel later this year. A very special guest, and a very special present for our 70th year of independence.

— Reuven Rivlin (@PresidentRuvi) March 1, 2018

Wiliam’s most recent royal tour took him and wife Kate Middleton to Sweden and Norway in January, when the visited with Stockholm schoolchildren, played hockey and had lunch with Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and her parents King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia at Stockholm’s Royal Palace.

RELATED VIDEO: Prince William and Kate Middleton Step Out for Their Last Day in Snow-Covered Norway

The news of William’s trip to Israel comes just two days after the royal dad made his first appearance after serving as the best man at his bother Prince Harry and Meghan Markle‘s royal wedding. William paid tribute to the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing with a service at the Manchester Cathedral on Tuesday in honor of the one-year anniversary of the attack that left 22 people dead.

Harry and Meghan also attended their first engagement as married couple that afternoon when they appeared at a garden party at Buckingham Palace for Prince Charles‘ 70th birthday. | 5/25/18

After the Brexit vote, I wrote that there could be an impact on EU registrants based in the UK.

Over the past year, the UK government has been engaged in negotiations with the EU to navigate the application of Article 50 and the UK's exit from the European Union. While there has been a lot of focus on issues like the customs union and the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, the eventual departure of the UK from the EU will have a tangible impact on the European digital economy.

In the case of the .eu ccTLD, the situation was unclear. Under the current policies, an individual or organisation needs to have an address in the EU and a couple of neighbouring countries to qualify for registration:

(i) an undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein, or

(ii) an organisation established within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein without prejudice to the application of national law, or

(iii) a natural person resident within the European Union, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein.

While the UK leaving the EU could be seen as having a clear impact on future registrations of .eu domain names, one would have expected the European Commission not to want to disrupt existing domain names and their registrants. When other domain spaces have updated their policies, they've usually offered some form of "grandfathering" for existing registrations to minimise the negative impact.

However, it appears that the European Commission isn't going to take that approach. In an announcement earlier this week they've made it very clear that they have no intention of allowing existing registrants to keep their EU domain names if they are in the UK.

The document does give a very slight glimmer of hope, but it's only a tiny one. It is hypothetically possible for the UK and EU to reach some form of agreement that would allow for the continued use of .eu domains by UK registrants, but it's looking highly unlikely. Here's the full text of the notice they issued.

As you can see it's highly legalistic and makes lots of references to various bits of legislation and treaties, but the bottom line is summed up in this:

As of the withdrawal date, undertakings and organisations that are established in the United Kingdom but not in the EU and natural persons who reside in the United Kingdom will no longer be eligible to register .eu domain names or, if they are .eu registrants, to renew .eu domain names registered before the withdrawal date.

But what about businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland? Under the Irish constitution they're considered in many realms to be entitled to the same rights and entitlements as Irish citizens and residents:


It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.


1 It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

2 Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Does this mean that businesses and individuals north of the border will lose their .eu domain names, or is there a chance of some form of derogation for them?

How can registrars and their clients lodge their concerns with the EU about this move?

Is EURid in a position to do anything?

At the moment there are more questions than answers, but what is sure is that the options are not looking anyway positive.

According to the most recent EURid quarterly report registrants in the UK account a significant chunk of the .eu registration base and weigh in as the 4th largest country for .eu registrations behind Germany, Netherlands and France:

Wiping out this number of registrations will have a negative impact on the .eu ccTLD as a whole, as well as a negative impact on many European based businesses serving the registrants of the 300 thousand plus names.

Is this unavoidable?

For now, as I mentioned above, there are more questions than answers.

Disclosure: my company is a .eu accredited registrar and I previously served two terms on the .EU Registrar Advisory Board.

Written by Michele Neylon, MD of Blacknight Solutions | 3/29/18

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a rights protection mechanism crafted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for trademark owners to challenge the lawfulness of domain name registrations. Cybersquatting or abusive registration is a lesser included tort of trademark infringement, and although the UDRP forum is not a trademark court, as such, in some ways it is since it empowers (assuming the right alignment of facts) to divest registrants of domain names that infringe a complainant's trademark rights.

The argument that any use of a domain name "inevitably entail[s] an infringement of the world-renowned [name of any] brand in the industry" is unavailing because regardless of future use (by a successor holder, for example), if the original registration is lawful, the complaint must be dismissed. Equipo IVI SL v. Domain Admin, WebMD, LLC, D2017-2240 (WIPO January 31, 2018) (). The complaint must also be dismissed if the substance of the claim is trademark infringement. Force Therapeutics, LLC v. Patricia Franklin, University of Massachusetts Medical School, D2017-2070 (WIPO December 12, 2017) (:

[T]he Policy is directed to determining abusive domain name registration and use. This involves a more limited assessment than trademark infringement.

The term "infringed" in the domain name context refers to unlawful registration in breach of the warranties agreed to in the registration agreement and, by incorporation, Paragraph 2 of the UDRP. The evidentiary demands for proving cybersquatting under the UDRP are different and less demanding than proving trademark infringement, but nevertheless demanding in its way and if not properly understood will sink the party with the burden of proof or production, as it did in Equipo IVI SL.

If one has to look for an analogy for the UDRP it is to the commercial rules promulgated by arbitration providers, with this difference: the UDRP has its own special purpose law as expressly defined by the terms of the Policy and Rules, as construed by neutral panelists. I underscore this because while these neutrals are limited in their assessment of the facts to determine whether 1) domain names are identical or similar to trademarks, 2) registrants lack or have rights or legitimate interests, and/or 3) the domain names were registered in bad faith, they are not robotic. They apply this special purpose jurisprudence (consisting of a cabinet of principles) in a fair and balanced manner so that although the UDRP was crafted for trademark owners, it operates as a neutral forum.

But precisely where to draw the line separating cybersquatting and trademark infringement is not always so certain because they are both present in that area of the continuum that defines the outer limit of one and the beginning of the other. Where the facts support either or both cybersquatting and trademark infringement what is within and outside jurisdiction is in the eyes of the beholder. Some panelists will accept what others decline. There are several considerations that go into accepting jurisdiction, one of them is the residence of parties in different jurisdictions. If Panels are convinced, there is compelling proof of abusive registration (or convince themselves that there is!) they push the jurisprudential envelope to assure that "justice" is done.

Notable for accepting jurisdiction where the parties reside in different jurisdictions, and there is also potential (or alleged) trademark infringement are Boxador, Inc. v. Ruben Botn-Joergensen, D2017-2593 (WIPO February 27, 2018) ( and , U.S. Complainant, Norwegian Respondent) discussed further below in which the Panel awarded the domain names to Complainant, and Autobuses de Oriente ADO, S.A. de C.V. v. Private Registration / Francois Carrillo, D2017-1661 (WIPO February 1, 2018) (. Mexican Complainant, French Respondent) in which the Panel issued a Complainant's award that has already been challenged in an Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act filing. I discussed the ADO dispute in an earlier essay. (If Autobuses de Oriente has any claim at all, which I think dubious, it would be for trademark infringement and not cybersquatting. In other words, the dispute always belonged in a court of competent jurisdiction and should have been declined by the UDRP Panel).

Let me quickly say, though, that the vast majority of disputes are easily pigeonholed as being in or out of jurisdiction, and mainly within. Those that are not within are respectfully declined as belonging in courts of competent jurisdiction. In some instances, complaints may be denied with permission to refile if the facts warrant further consideration. Of this kind Air Serbia a.d. Beograd Jurija v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Meijun Lu, D2017-1986 (WIPO December 16, 2017) (, Serbian Complainant, Singapore Respondent) is notable in which the Panel accepted jurisdiction, denied the complaint, but agreed that Complainant could "at some point in the future" refile if "subsequent evidence come[s] to light which would demonstrate a bad faith intent on the Respondent's part."

Boxador is exemplary in a number of ways for the Panel accepting jurisdiction and granting the requested remedy. First, Complainant had to make a case for common law rights for the reason that it let lapse its USPTO trademark. However, the Panel explained that it found the Complainant's submission wanting:

While it would have been possible to infer on the balance of probabilities — from inter alia the Respondent's knowledge of the Complainant and its business when he registered the Domain Names — that the Complainant's business was an established business of some substance, the Panel majority were reluctant to accept bare assertions of unregistered trade mark rights without any supporting evidence of the kind set out in section 1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

"Reluctant to accept" is ordinarily fatal but Complainant was fortunate in two ways: first, in drawing a three-member Panel clearly appalled by Respondent's conduct; and second, a Panel prepared to order Complainant to supplement the record (in effect allowing it to make its case):

In response to Procedural Order No. 1 a sufficient amount of the missing evidence was supplied, including a substantial number of independent press reports speaking of the standing of the Complainant and recommending its services for businesses looking for new brand names. Enough of them pre-date the registration of the First Domain Name to satisfy the Panel that industry and media recognition of the Complainant at that time was high.

Respondent did not deny that it knew of Complainant's business and its marketplace moniker. In fact, it offered similar services as Complainant in Europe and Norway:

The Respondent contends that since the Complainant has no rights to the BRANDBUCKET trade mark in Norway and Europe and since the Complainant is operating in totally different territories he cannot be said to have registered the Domain Names in bad faith.

The final clause misstates the law; operating in different territories does not shield a party from abusive conduct. In any event, Respondent knew of Complainant because it conducted a trademark search:

The Respondent claims that he investigated the trade mark rights position when setting up his business and found no registered rights in either Norway or the United States. He also noted that the Complainant's United States registration had lapsed. He points out that the Complainant has no rights in Europe or Norway, the geographical area in which the Respondent trades. He, on the other hand, has trade mark rights in both Norway and the United States.

Having learned that Complainant had allowed its trademark to lapse, Respondent applied for the BRAND BUCKET trademark in the U.S, which in the normal course (there being no opposition) advanced to registration. The contention that the parties operated in different national jurisdictions did not impress the Panel. It pointed out that the Internet is a global marketplace and "that for the most part websites connected to gTLDs are in general terms accessible from all jurisdictions."

While Respondent's trademark was lawful, the Panel concluded that its application was (although it put it more mildly) fraudulent:

[While] [t]he Panel is not in a position to assess the significance of that declaration [the formal declaration of use in commerce in the United States] ... it seems to the Panel to be a strange declaration to make if, as is the impression given by the Response, one has no intention of using the mark in the United States.

The Panel gave no credence to Respondent's statements justifying its conduct and explained why:

The position becomes clearer when one studies the chronology set out in section 4 above. The Respondent prudently conducted 'freedom to operate' searches, one of which was a search at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. From that date at least, if not before, he would have been aware of the Complainant's business being conducted under the Respondent's chosen name. He would have known then that the Complainant's claimed first use was in 2007. The Complainant's business at that time was a business, which according to [Respondent's] email of December 17, 2016, he respected and appreciated. Indeed, in that same email he suggested that there might be scope for collaboration between the parties. (Emphasis added).

On this basis, and because the Panel found "on the evidence before it and on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent's adoption of the name 'Brandbucket' for his business was an opportunistic move to take a free ride on the back of the goodwill associated with the Complainant's unregistered trade mark" it rejected Respondent's defenses entirely; although rejecting the validity of a U.S. trademark is extraordinary. In fact, to rule unenforceable a facially valid trademark is a decision that is ordinarily only within the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction.

I will posit (which most certainly will be denied as fanciful) that Panels are willing to accept disputes in the unclear area in which there is either or both cybersquatting and trademark infringement when the parties reside in different national jurisdictions and Panels have come to believe respondents have acted opportunistically. But granting a remedy under these circumstances is taking on a judge's role and setting aside the Panel's (which should be constrained by the jurisprudence of the UDRP). However, what may be acceptable when respondent's conduct is truly outrageous (as it was in Boxador) is not so acceptable when the conduct complained about is non-infringing (that is, within the scope of respondent's business) as was the case in Autobuses de Oriente.

Written by Gerald M. Levine, Intellectual Property, Arbitrator/Mediator at Levine Samuel LLP | 3/13/18
While team Norway sure has egg on its face in PyeongChang to start the Winter Olympics, this incident is a prime example of why your small business needs to be extra careful to avoid purchase order mistakes.

Prince William and Kate Middleton have been packing as many official visits into their already busy royal schedule before the arrival of baby number 3, who is expected in April.

The next big event on the royal agenda is a tour of Sweden and Norway, where William and Kate will visit with the royal families of each country. They have also been invited to a special lunch at the Royal Palace of Stockholm by Their Majesties King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden. During their trip to Norway, William and Kate will join Their Majesties King Harald V and Queen Sonja at Oslo's Royal Palace for an official dinner.

But it's not only royalty the Duke and Duchess will meet with; they will also attend a black-tie dinner with with Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, and actors such as Alicia Vikander and Stellan Skarsgård. The Lara Croft actress will be a representative of the country's popular culture.

The Duke and Duchess have apparently requested to meet with "as many Swedes and Norwegians as possible" throughout their tour, visiting those working in the "mental health sector, and leaders in business, academia and scientific research, government, civil society and the creative industries."

The official press release from Kensington Palace doesn't state whether Prince George and Princess Charlotte will be attending. Since Charlotte just started nursery and George is busy getting up to mischief, it's possible the young royals will stay at home. That means, unfortunately, we won't have any new hilarious photos of Prince George's facial expressions during the royal tours. Fingers crossed mom and dad decide to take them along after all!

CNN Guest Drops N-Word to Don Lemon On-Air

— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) January 12, 2018

Philip Mudd, former deputy director of the CIA Counterterrorist Center, dropped a slew of slurs in an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon Friday to make a point about racism.

In a lengthy statement criticizing President Trump’s reported reference to “shithole countries,” Mudd stated: “I’ve seen these conversations that this is economic, so let’s be clear, a white honky from Norway can come here but a black dude from Haiti can’t. What does that tell you in an America that in one generation called you a ‘n—er,'” he asked Lemon.

“What does that tell you Don. I can tell you what it tells a honky like me. We’re no different than we were a generation ago and we’re learning the same lessons that we learned when we called a Chinese man a slant-eye, when we called a man from Guatemala a spic and wetback and we called a black man a n—er.”

Also Read: How Late-Night Hosts Handled Trump's Latest S-- Storm (Videos)

Mudd was arguing that people from so-called “shithole” countries have historically provided the backbone of the United States economy. He said he proudly stood with them.

Lemon did not react to the torrent of slurs. A CNN spokesperson declined to comment.

Lemon himself famously held up a sign with the N-word on CNN in January 2015 to make a point about the emotions raised by it and the Confederate flag.

In a tweet (of course) Trump denied calling Haiti and some African nations “shithole countries” during a meeting with lawmakers on immigration, though he did concede to using “tough” language.

The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made – a big setback for DACA!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2018

He earned a swift rebuke from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), who was present in the room when Trump made his remarks.

“In the course of his comments [Trump] said things which were hate-filled, vile and racist,” said Durbin in a press statement Friday. “I cannot believe that in the history of the White House and in that Oval Office, any president has spoken the words that I personally heard our president speak yesterday.”

“You’ve seen the comments in the press. I’ve not read one of them that’s inaccurate,” he added.

Related stories from TheWrap:

WH Press Secretary Sarah Sanders Spars With CNN's Jim Acosta: Trump 'Not Watching CNN' (Video)

Stephen Miller Denies CNN Escorted Him Out, Blasts Network's 'Low Journalistic Standards'

CNN Promotes Jim Acosta to Chief White House Correspondent

When and How to Watch CNN's 'New Year's Eve Live with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen' | 1/12/18
[Daily News] FINANCE and Planning Minister, Philip Mpango has invited investors from Norway to support Tanzania in its industrialisation drive and make the country realise its dream of a middleincome economy, adding that the private sector's contribution is necessary in boosting the economy, stressing: "Tanzania is taking a number of measures to improve the economy through industrialisation and we believe investors from Norway have a great role to play in the plan," Dr Mpango told the Norwegian Ambassador to Tanzania, | 12/21/17

The economy of Norway is a developed mixed economy with heavy state-ownership in strategic areas of the economy. Although sensitive to global business cycles, the economy of Norway has shown robust growth since the start of the industrial era. Shipping has long been a support of Norway's export sector, but much of Norway's economic growth has been fueled by an abundance of natural resources, including petroleum exploration and production, hydroelectric power, and fisheries. Agriculture and traditional heavy manufacturing have suffered relative decline compared to services and oil-related industries, and the public sector is among the largest in the world as a percentage of the overall gross domestic product. The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system.

From dbpedia, under creative commons CC-BY-SA | hosting | | |