Canberra, Australia – The people of New Caledonia will vote on Sunday on whether they want full independence from France, which has ruled the small archipelago in the Pacific since the 19^th century.

The islands, a nearly three-hour flight east of Australia, secured more autonomy amid growing calls for independence by the indigenous Kanak people in the 1980s.

When an estimated 174,000 voters who qualify as long-term residents head to the polls on Sunday, it will be the second referendum on New Caledonia’s political status. The first, held in 1987, was widely boycotted by the Kanaks, resulting in more than 98 percent electing to remain with France.

In the capital, Noumea, while campaigning has been keen, the mood remains calm.

“The public mood in Noumea is pretty quiet,” Catherine Ris, professor of economics at the University of New Caledonia, told Al Jazeera.

“Political parties and people involved in the parties are campaigning and excited to defend their opinions. There are lots of meetings, posters in the streets, and sheets of fabric printed with the red, blue and green of the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) flag are hooked on trees on the roadsides all around the country.”

‘Shared sovereignty’

About 27 percent of New Caledonia’s population of 279,000 are of European, primarily of French descent, and 39 percent indigenous. The rest are migrants from other Pacific islands and the wider Asia-Pacific.

The 1998 Noumea Accord sought to create a shared vision of the territory’s future, but while people might agree with that vision, divisions remain between French loyalists intent on retaining the status quo, and a pro-independence movement equally committed to full self-determination.

It was the years of Kanak resistance to disenfranchisement and inequality that triggered talks between French and local leaders about reform. Kanaks were worried their customary land was being taken away from them and were angry at the French government’s encouragement of inward European migration, even as Kanaks struggled to get education and find work.

To appease the indigenous people and temper calls for independence, the French negotiated two major pacts.

The 1988 Matignon Accord was designed to bring more equitable development across New Caledonian society, while the Noumea Accord paved the way for increased autonomy based on an idea of “shared sovereignty”, recognition of Kanak identity and rights and the timetable for this year’s referendum.

No social justice

For New Caledonians in general the vote is about having more say in issues that directly affect their lives. For Kanaks, it represents the promise of decolonisation seven decades after it was first promoted in the post-World War II era.

New Caledonia is one of only 17 remaining non-self-governing territories around the world identified by the UN as yet to fully exercise its right to self-determination.

“In terms of economic development, there has been change,” said Bilo Railati, a young independence supporter of Kanak and Fijian heritage. “But we have not yet achieved social justice.”

Opinion polls conducted over the past two years suggest a victory for the pro-France side.

As many as 75 percent of all eligible voters oppose independence, a survey published by local research firm Quidnovi in September showed. But many Kanaks support independence for the island, which is renowned for its natural beauty but is also the location of one-quarter of the world’s known supplies of nickel.

The apparent opposition to independence is partly the result of policies encouraging people to move to the islands from France, which have made the indigenous people a minority. But there are also broad concerns across the entire electorate about the possible economic impact of going it alone, which would probably mean a decline in French funding of the government and public services.

French politicians have repeatedly emphasised the state is impartial in the referendum and will respect the outcome.

“It’s not for the head of state to take a position on a question that is only being put to the people of New Caledonia,” President Macron said in a speech during his first official visit in May.

But he went on to say: “France would not be the same without New Caledonia.”

For the French, New Caledonia is a strategic asset, supporting the country’s position as a global, maritime and military power.

Turnout important

It is also a base from which it can extend its geopolitical influence in the Asia Pacific, particularly through membership of regional organisations, such as the Pacific Islands Forum. And if it were to lose New Caledonia there is a worry overseas island territories, such as French Polynesia, might also start agitating to leave.

Voter turnout is expected to be high. For the independence movement, the key will be getting out the vote in rural areas, home to about 22 percent of the population and more than 70 percent of Kanaks.

But even if the territory votes “no” on Sunday, it won’t end the matter entirely. Under the terms of the Noumea Accord, there can be up to two more referenda on independence before 2021.

The French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has already announced his intention to travel to the territory and hold meetings with local leaders soon after the vote is held. And both camps are expected to vigorously negotiate their interests in the aftermath of this weekend’s ballot.

“Whatever the results, the local political partners and the state will have to discuss the future of the country,” Romain Hmeun, editor in chief at the indigenous Radio Djiido station, said.

“The common destiny will have to be built with the Kanaks, not without them.”

The show may be set in the late 1970s, but for new play Torch Song — an abridged version of earlier works by Harvey Fierstein, who also originally starred — the show’s themes are as timely now as ever.

Meet Arnold Beckoff (an outstanding Michael Urie). As a young gay man in the 1970s, his caustic wit and one liners are clearly his armor for a rough world, but peel back the layers and viewers quickly see what Arnold wants: acceptance, and, mostly, love.

In the nearly three-hour run time, theatergoers follow Arnold from nights at a backroom bar (leading to some of the funniest physical comedy I’ve seen recently) to weekends away with his ex, to —finally — the real wallop of emotion: a visit from his mother (the perfect and powerful Mercedes Ruehl). 

The three sections, taking place over a matter of years, have different tones, and certainly can each feel like their own complete work. 

We kick off with “International Stud,” where we’re introduced to Arnold as drag performer Virginia Ham, uncomfortably and neurotically navigating casual sex, but dying to get serious with just one man, Ed (Ward Horton, nailing the kind of wishy-washy indifference from romantic partners that’s colder and harder to process than outright dislike).

Section two, “Fugue in a Nursery,” is the funniest of the bunch, taking place a few years later and nearly entirely in a giant bed. Direction by Moisés Kaufman and set design by David Zinn ups the stakes as four characters — Arnold, his ex Ed, Arnold’s new young boyfriend Alan (Michael Hsu Rosen), and Ed’s new girlfriend Laurel (Roxanna Hope Radja) have rapid-fire heart to hearts, trading quips and emotional confessions in equal measure. 

Michael Urie does an exceedingly stellar job at inviting viewers into his thoughts, drawing them in with measured looks and sly glances.

Throughout all parts, Urie does an exceedingly stellar job at inviting viewers into his thoughts, drawing them in with measured looks and sly glances. It’s never over-the-top, merely an ability to keep an audience hooked moment to moment, emotionally connecting not only with his scene partners but also, crucially, with the people watching. 

The only time it’s obvious that this work was at one point longer is the beginning of the third part, “Widows and Children First!”. While eventually things get cleared up, so much happens between section two and three viewers may feel like they’re missing part of the story, even if they are not. It could briefly take people out of the emotional beats to be wondering on a plot- or line-level what exactly is going on. 

It’s a small quibble, however, because when it lands, it lands, as this show does particularly well in the final hour, when Arnold’s overbearing mom finally appears.

It’s here, when these two people who clearly love each other fight and talk and yell about death and being gay and the hurt we inherent, that you’ll be reaching for the tissues, both in the theater and, perhaps, later as well, as you continue to turn this show over in your head in the coming days. 

Torch Song is part of the canon, at one point a groundbreaking and controversial work. But in this production, it transcends merely being a history play and remains instead a lively and funny show that features a new high from the always-likeable Urie. It’s no happily ever after, but you’ll walk out of the theater desperate to be closer to the people around you. 

And fair warning: You’re also probably going to want to call your mom. 

Colombo, Sri Lanka – For a brief moment on Thursday, it appeared as though Sri Lankan politicians might be able to return soon to the country’s suspended parliament to thrash out their differences over who should be prime minister – and thus end an acrimonious power struggle that has shaken the South Asian nation.

The idea took shape in the morning when newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa told academics at his office that President Maithripala Sirisena had decided to lift the suspension and resume sessions on Monday.

The declaration was nearly as shocking as Sirisena’s decision on October 26 to fire Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and replace him with Rajapaksa, a popular and controversial former leader that the president had defeated in a 2015 election.

Critics said Wickremesinghe’s ouster was the first illegal transfer of power since Sri Lanka established an electoral democracy in 1931. Citing constitutional amendments passed in 2015, they also argued that the president does not have the authority to sack a prime minister.

Still, many expected Sirisena to withstand mounting local and international pressure and stick to his apparent plan to give Rajapaksa time to muster support in the 225-member legislature.

That’s why Wickremesinghe, who maintains he commands majority in the House and has been calling for a parliamentary vote, was quick to celebrate when the news of Rajapaksa’s statement broke.

“The people’s voices have been heard,” he said in a triumphant post on Twitter. “Democracy will prevail.”

The mood at Temple Trees, the prime minister’s official residence, where Wickremesinghe has remained holed up over the past week, was jubilant. 

But the day dragged on without an official statement from the president’s office. Then in the late afternoon, two associates of Rajapaksa made an abrupt u-turn in a news conference, saying Sirisena will keep parliament shut until November 16 in line with his initial suspension order.

But legislators Mahindananda Aluthgamage and Susil Premajayantha did not stop there. They said that even when parliament reconvenes, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) – a coalition between Sirisena and Rajapaksa’s parties – does not plan to hold a confidence vote and allow legislators to choose between the two leaders claiming the prime minister’s role.

“We have decided to convene parliament on November 16,” Aluthgamage told reporters. “That’s because we need time to present a people-friendly budget.”

He added: “There is no vote scheduled for November 16.”

No vote

The move deals a severe blow to Wickremesinghe’s chances of survival as prime minister.

Many believe Wickremesinghe, whose popularity has declined amid widespread anger over the rising cost of living, will only be able to remain in the post if the matter is put to a vote on the parliament floor without delay. That’s because the UNP has a slight edge over the Sirisena-led UPFA: prior to the crisis, the UNP commanded the support of 106 legislators compared to their rivals’ 96.

Rajapaksa, who ruled the country from 2005 to 2015 and has been accused of grave human rights abuses and corruption, is also unlikely to gain the backing of the 16 parliamentarians of the Tamil National Alliance because of his treatment of the ethnic minority at the close of the country’s 26-year civil war in 2009, analysts said.

The remaining six legislators of the People’s Liberation Front are expected to abstain from any vote because of anger at both leaders.

But the consensus seems to be that the longer Rajapaksa stays in power, the more likely he is to gain an upper hand and tempt defections from the UNP itself.

Already, at least five legislators from the UNP have switched sides, taking up positions in the cabinet headed by Rajapaksa, who is insists his appointment was legitimate.

“I am sure we will see more legislators cross-over in the coming days,” said Rajitha Keethi Tennakoon, a Colombo-based political analyst.

“It looks like he [Rajapaksa] will win this [stay on as prime minister], regardless of whether this [his appointment] was constitutional or not,” he added.

Tennakoon said that he does not expect a confidence vote to happen when parliament reconvenes.

“The first session will be taken up with the president’s inaugural address. And now that Rajapaksa will sit in the prime minister’s seat when parliament opens, he will go ahead with presenting his budget for next year.”

So why did Rajapaksa announce parliament will resume on Monday?

That was just a “deliberate attempt at misleading” opponents and spreading “misinformation”, Tennakoon argued.  

Wickremesinghe’s UNP was not available for comment immediately.

Change political facts

Asanga Welikala, a Sri Lankan law professor at the University of Edinburgh, also said Sirisena, whose political future is now tied to Rajapaksa, would only recall parliament when he had the numbers.

“The whole enterprise is clearly illegal, but Rajapaksa is out to change the political facts,” Welikala said. 

The former president, whose Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) trounced its opponents in local council elections in February, was now gearing towards “dissolving parliament and holding a general election”, Welikala said.

Observers say Rajapaksa’s party has a high chance of winning early elections because of public anger over high inflation and the failure of Wickremesinghe’s government to deliver on promises of cracking down on corruption and accountability for war atrocities.

The Sri Lankan rupee lost 12 percent of its value against the US dollar this year, while growth slowed to 3.3 percent in 2017 – its lowest level in 16 years.

Both Welikala and Tennakoon said that although the constitution states that parliament cannot be dissolved before four-and-a-half years have passed since its election, Sirisena and Rajapaksa might use a constitutional provision that allows the president to dissolve it if the government’s budget fails in a vote.

And that explains why the UPFA is working on the state budget, the analysts said.

A vote on the budget would put the UNP in a tough spot. If its legislators reject it, the parliament could be dissolved, and if they approve it, it would only legitimise Rajapaksa’s government.

Welikala, the law professor, said Wickremesinghe will face a “leadership crisis in the UNP” if he fails to galvanise his party or mobilise popular support against Rajapaksa.

But if the sacked prime minister is successful in organising mass protests, the country will then face the prospect of political violence, Welikala added, because Rajapaksa will match each demonstration with his own rival rally.

“This is unprecedented. We’ve had many issues with our democracy, but one thing we’ve never had is an illegal transfer of power,” Welikala said.

“If the government can clearly violate the constitution and get away with it, it sets a very dangerous precedent.”  

Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, executive director of Colombo-based Centre for Policy Alternatives, said he feared Rajapaksa would once again lift the two-term limit on the presidency and try to return to that post.

With elections all but certain, Saravanamuttu said the only way to protect Sri Lanka’s democracy was to defeat Rajapaksa in a vote.

That would depend on how the country’s Sinhalese Buddhist majority, who regard Rajapaksa as a hero for ending the country’s bloody civil war, viewed the current constitutional crisis.

“The argument for strong government seems to have prevailed over democracy at the moment. So the issue is as to whether the people are going to vote for a strong government or against the total violation of the constitution,” he said.

But even though he went on to describe the future as bleak, Saravanamuttu said Sri Lankans are faced with a political drama that will undoubtedly twist and turn to the end.

“We’ll just have to wait and see,” he said.

In the early-2000s, you likely caught a glimpse of Don Hertzfeldt’s absurdist cartoon short Rejected somewhere on the internet.

It might be a GIF, or one of its memorable quotes like “my spoon is too big” and “my anus is bleeding” that you’ve seen thrown around on the web since the film debuted in 2000.

Now Rejected has been uploaded in high-definition to Hertzfeldt’s YouTube channel, a remaster that was originally part of the filmmaker’s anthology on Blu-Ray. You’ll never have to watch a blurry, ripped copy again.

Washington, DC – A large proportion of non-Muslim Americans think Islam is incompatible with American values, research by the New America foundation and the American Muslim Initiative found.

According to the findings announced on Thursday, 56 percent of Americans believed Islam was compatible with American values and 42 percent said it was not. About 60 percent believed US Muslims were as patriotic as others, while 38 percent they were not.

The study said that although a big majority of Americans – 74 percent – accepted there was “a lot” of bigotry against Muslims existed, 56 percent said they were concerned about extremism spreading within the Muslim community. 

Researchers found that Republicans were more likely to hold negative perceptions of Muslims and Islam, with 71 percent saying Islam was incompatible with American values. About 56 percent of Republicans also admitted they would be concerned if a mosque was built in their neighbourhood.

A slight majority of Republicans disagreed with the statement that having more than 100 Muslim candidates in the midterm elections was a positive thing.

Robert McKenzie, a senior fellow at the New America foundation and one of the authors of the study, said there were a number of factors that contributed the shaping of anti-Muslim sentiment, and that they were not limited to the political right.

“Hillary Clinton, when talking about violent extremism talked about Muslims being on the frontlines, what does that say about Muslim communities?” He said, adding: “I know she didn’t mean that in a derogatory way but if Muslims are at the frontlines, what does that suggest is happening at the local level in the US?”

The survey also found that just below half of Americans actually knew a Muslim. McKenzie cautioned, however, against correlating knowing a Muslim personally with a more positive perspective on Muslims.

Rising hatred

Rabiah Ahmed, an American Muslim media relations specialist, told Al Jazeera rising Islamophobia had consequences beyond the Muslim community.

“I think Islamophobia is not just a Muslim problem but an American problem, so it needs to be addressed by all sectors of society,” she said.

Ahmed argued that Muslims could not afford to not engage with other communities, and had a duty to “plug information gaps” to dispel negative ideas about the community.

However, she also said politicians, segments of the media, and religious leaders from other communities had played a role in stoking anti-Muslim bigotry.

“Fears of Muslims comes from the acts of extremists (and) it comes from the Islamophobia industry, a very well connected, very well funded industry, which makes it their mission to try to marginalise and disenfranchise American Muslims.

“Just as Muslims have a responsibility to lean in, other faith based communities also need to lean in. So when they see their priest preaching divisive rhetoric about Islam, they need to stop that.”

The New America foundation report comes amid a notable rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric in US political discourse and within the media.

Last month, a report by Muslim Advocates found 80 instances of “clear anti-Muslim rhetoric” by candidates running for political office. 

That included unfounded claims that Muslims were plotting to establish Islamic law in the US. 

You have people who are currently in the administration, who are closely connected to the established anti-Muslim hate groups

Zainab Arain, CAIR

US President Donald Trump also used anti-Islam rhetoric in his election campaign, and has introduced executive orders targeting Muslims, such as his infamous ban on Muslims from several predominantly Muslim countries entering the US.

Zainab Arain from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said people with anti-Muslim views were found at the very highest levels of government.

“There are people who were formerly part of the Trump administration, who are well known anti-Muslim bigots,” she said, adding: “You have people who are currently in the administration, who are closely connected to the established anti-Muslim hate groups.”

Rising anti-Muslim bigotry also comes amid a rise in hatred targeting other religious and ethnic minorities. 

Within the last week, there has been a spate of far-right violence in the US, with a foiled pipe bomb campaign targeting anti-Trump politicians and media outlets, a racially motivated shooting of two African-Americans in Kentucky, and the mass killing of 11 Jewish worshippers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh.

Walter Ruby of the Greater Washington Muslim-Jewish Forum said that while anti-Muslim bigotry and anti-Semitism were unique in their characteristics and causes, there were some shared reasons for their recent rise.

“Many people who hate Muslims, hate Jews as well,” he said, adding: “I absolutely think the rhetoric that’s come from President Trump and others has contributed.”

“I don’t want to entirely blame Trump but this movement of hate has coalesced around him, which he certainly helped orchestrate.

“It’s become a very dangerous situation.” 

Hey Twitter voters, find a time machine. 

Twitter launched additional features for its #BeAVoter election campaign on Thursday. But even the best laid plans don’t always go off without a hitch.

One of the new features was a countdown to the election, along with a link to resources on where to vote.

But the countdown feature caused a bit of hilarious confusion. Some Twitter users reported that Twitter was reminding them to vote — in negative 17,819 days.

Twitter said that the wonky countdown came from a bug that was active for less than 5 minutes after the launch of the new features. It added that any user who received the time-warping message will be shown an accurate one.

But apparently 5 minutes was plenty of time for the message to spread among Twitter’s 300 million active users. 

Oh, and just a reminder: election day in the U.S. is Tuesday, Nov. 6. You might want to check out Twitter’s #BeAVoter campaign, and, ya know, cast that ballot. 

Less than a week before the midterm elections, US President Donald Trump said his administration is finalising a plan that would deny asylum to individuals who cross the US border between official ports of entry. 

Speaking at the White House on Thursday, Trump said the plan is “totally legal”. Legal experts say, however, it is expected to be challenged in court once announced. 

Under US immigration law, any immigrant in the US can apply for asylum regardless of how he or she entered the country. 

Trump said he would be signing an executive order sometime next week regarding immigration. He did not detail the proposal or how it would be implemented. 

The announcement comes as Trump seeks to stoke fear over a caravan of Central American migrants and refugees making its way to the US-Mexico border. The caravan is still more than 1,100km away and is not expected to make it to the US border for weeks. 

Those travelling with the caravan have told Al Jazeera they are fleeing violence, including political persecution, poverty, and poor healthcare. Many have said they plan to apply for asylum at an official port of entry, as other caravans have done in the past. 

One Honduran woman, who witnessed her husband’s murder three years ago, said she joined the caravan to seek opportunities to send money back home to help provide for her son’s expensive medical care. 

Trump also said the US is building “massive” tent cities to house asylum seekers, including children, while their claims are processed. In the past this could take years. 

According to the 1997 Flores settlement, children can only be held in immigration detention for up to 20 days, after which they must either be released to a guardian or placed in a licensed shelter. Trump was forced to end his administration’s practice of separating families at the border earlier this year after public outcry. 

Rocks to be treated like firearms

On Wednesday, Trump said he could send more than 15,000 US military troops to the border. Some 5,200 troops are already making their way down to the border to provide logistical and other support to US border agents.  

When asked on Thursday if troops would use force on migrants and refugees, Trump said if individuals are throwing rocks, they would be treated as if they have firearms.

“I hope there won’t be that,” he said.   

Trump referenced clashes between armed police and caravan participants at Mexico’s border with Guatemala. One Honduran man was killed and more than 100 others were injured on Sunday. 

Trump has been hitting the campaign trail hard this week as he attempts to energise his Republican base ahead of the midterm elections. Democrats are vying to take control of Congress on November 6 in an election viewed as a referendum on the president’s first two years in office. 

Trump was slammed late on Wednesday after he tweeted an anti-immigrant online campaign video blaming Democrats and suggesting, without evidence, that the caravan includes murderers.

During his presidency, he has sought to fulfill a number of anti-immigrant campaign promises, including a wall between the US and Mexico and crackdown on immigration. 

Earlier this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that “generally” domestic violence and gang violence would not longer be grounds for asylum. 

Additional reporting by Sandra Cuffe from Tonala, Chiapas, Mexico.

You might not know it, but Facebook’s not done with breaking news.

The company is rolling out its “breaking news” labels to publishers in Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Spain and the UK, and will start testing the labels in Europe and Asia. The feature was previously only widely-available in the United States and Canada.

The labels allow publishers to append “breaking news” labels to a limited number of stories — about once per week, according to Facebook. 

“We’ve seen that breaking news posts about politics, crime, disaster, and business perform best. We’re using data like this to help publishers understand how to use the label to connect people with the breaking news that they need to see most,” writes Facebook product manager Joey Rhyu.

The social network first began testing the breaking news labels about a year ago. Back then, one of the main questions was whether the breaking news label would affect a particular post’s ranking in the News Feed. At the time, Facebook said it wouldn’t, but acknowledged that could change. 

Now, a Facebook spokesperson tells me that it considers the “breaking news” tag an indication of “timeliness,” which is one factor Facebook considers in determining where any given post should fall in your News Feed.

This shows that Facebook is still trying to find a way to show its users newsworthy information in a timely manner — something that Facebook’s News Feed, which often surfaces days-old posts, has never been great at.  

Facebook has a messy history with breaking news. The company introduced its now infamous “trending” section in 2014, which displayed popular news stories on the platform. Originally, these stories were curated by a group of human editors who selected which articles would appear for any given news story. 

But that effort, which was largely run by contractors employed by Facebook, came under fire in 2016 when Gizmodo reported that the contractors regularly “suppressed” conservatives. The story resulted in a major backlash against Facebook, with conservative politicians saying it was proof the social network was biased against conservatives. 

Much ink has been spilled about the ensuing controversy, which I won’t rehash here, but Facebook promptly got rid of its human editors and opted to let its algorithms determine which topics and stories should appear in the “trending” section. But, even with human editors out of the picture, the trending section was still a bit of a disaster. The section still managed to amplify conspiracy theories and “news” from questionable sources.

So it was a relief to many when Facebook announced earlier this year that it would kill the “trending” section for good, which brings us back to breaking news. 

With the ill-fated “trending” section gone for good, and publishers still wary of Facebook’s commitment in the wake of bigger News Feed shakeups, the “breaking news” labels are a chance for publishers to still get some of their most important stories in front of readers on Facebook.

BEWARE: Minor plot spoilers for Chilling Adventures of Sabrina below.

It’s no secret that Riverdale creator Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa has long hoped for a crossover between the kitschy teen soap and his newest creation, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. Even after The CW passed on Sabrina and it landed on Netflix, he’s still holding out hope for some kind of meeting between the neighboring towns and their curious teens. “I would hate if there was no way possible for there ever to be a crossover,” he told Entertainment Weekly ahead of Sabrina’s premiere.

But what would happen if these two groups met? It seems safe to say that Sabrina Spellman would get along with the Core Four — Archie Andrews, Veronica Lodge, Betty Cooper, and Jughead Jones — because all five characters are generally agreeable and welcoming. But what about Sabrina’s potential relationship with Riverdale’s fieriest resident, Cheryl Blossom?

Let’s examine, starting with a look at the two teens’ demeanors.

Meet Sabrina, Meet Cheryl

Sabrina is a cheery 16-year-old firmly and comfortably on the outskirts of the typical high school social food chain. She’s not a popular kid, not a brainiac nor theater kid nor loner. She’s simply Sabrina.

Her ability to sympathize is incredibly strong, making her kind and loving. That is, until someone crosses her. In that case, Sabrina is completely unafraid to stand up to her nemeses and is keen to use magic to do so. (A prime example of this behavior was when she doused Principal Hawthorne in spiders because he wouldn’t take action against the jocks who were terrorizing her mortal best friend, Susie.)

Meanwhile, on the other side of Sweetwater River, Cheryl is sitting pretty as a Queen Bee of Riverdale High. Everyone knows her, and everyone knows to stay out of her way. It may take some finesse to get on her good side, but once you’re there, she will shoot her bow and arrow with Robin Hood-level accuracy to protect you from your enemies.

The two share a to-the-death commitment to their friends, which is a promising sign for their own friendship — as long as Sabrina and Cheryl can reach that level of companionship. But friendship is a two-way street, so there are two questions we need to answer before coming to any kind of conclusion:

Would Sabrina Like Cheryl?

Sabrina would definitely admire that Cheryl is strong-willed and can take care of herself — qualities she values — but she might have a difficult time looking past Cheryl’s tough exterior to actually like her upon first meeting.

Over time, however, as Sabrina learns more about Cheryl’s past with her family and the forced suppression of her sexuality, her sympathetic nature would likely take the wheel. Sabrina loves an underdog overcoming the odds, after all. (See: her entire friend group, Susie, Ros, and Harvey, all of whom come to grips with their destiny during the course of the season.)

On Sabrina’s end, her potential for friendship with Cheryl could be comparable to her relationship with fellow witch Prudence, another strong-willed female. Things between Sabrina and Prudence started out tense, to put it mildly. Their journey was something like this: They both tried to kill each other, Sabrina figured out details of Prudence’s past and saved her from cannibalization, Prudence helped Sabrina bring back the dead, and Sabrina joined Prudence’s clique.

There were some vicious ups and downs, but in the end, Sabrina proudly walked alongside her one-time bully, so it goes to reason that with patience and understanding, the teenage witch would like the River Vixen — particularly after Sabrina decides to embrace her own dark side and can fully empathize with Cheryl’s taste for darkness.

Would Cheryl Like Sabrina?

Whether Cheryl would like Sabrina is a little trickier because, well, does Cheryl truly like anyone not named Toni Topaz? There is one immediate pro for Sabrina: Cheryl would approve of the red in Sabrina’s wardrobe. Sharing a signature color shows that they have similar preferences and ensures that their outfits would never clash, and Cheryl does love a look. At the very least, it doesn’t hurt.

Superficial aspects aside, Cheryl might be put off by Sabrina’s tendencies to always do the “good” thing, since Cheryl is typically more interested in the good-for-Cheryl thing — like boosting her academic résumé by snagging Archie’s student council presidency while he’s in juvenile detention rather than letting Veronica keep his seat warm. Cheryl’s initially contentious relationship with good-girl-next-door Betty Cooper comes to mind as a comparison.

But once she learns of Sabrina’s penchant for revenge and witchy powers, Cheryl would be on board — if only because Cheryl seems to have witchy powers of her own. (Let’s not forget the Kiss of Life she bestowed upon Fred Andrews after he became the Black Hood’s first target!) For Cheryl, having Sabrina’s powers on her side could be, at the very least, an opportunity to boost her own — and like Sabrina, Cheryl craves power.

So, Would Sabrina And Cheryl Be Friends?

There may be some hesitation on both sides at first, but once they get to know each other a bit, Sabrina and Cheryl could have dynamic duo potential, amplified by their (probably) shared powers. One thing is for sure: If that crossover between Riverdale and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina does end up happening, let’s hope it’s not at the stroke of midnight — the witching hour.