Why should anyone trust a system that gears itself against ONE presidential candidate?:
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a
new interview and told them there was “nothing to worry about” after
former President Trump was hit with a $463 million (with interest) fine
and a ban on conducting business in New York for three years. He can’t
even borrow money, and his sons can’t do business for two years. Son
Eric is running the business in Trump’s absence.
If I were a business-owner, I would think twice about doing business in New York.
The legal system in Canada is a shambles.
And that is before someone railroads it further:
The Department of Justice has surveyed Canadians’ support for a separate Indigenous court system. The initiative followed a 2021 proposal to
study adoption of ancient legal practices on First Nations lands:
“People think we’re a lawless, savage people and that’s not true. Our
people were very highly organized.”
(Sidebar: uh, yeah, you are. What due process was there in the Stone Age?)
**
Two former ArriveCan executives are attempting to quash a “scandalous” investigator’s report alleging criminal wrongdoing, according to Federal
Court records. Cameron MacDonald and Antonio Utano, both ex-Canada
Border Services Agency managers, were suspended without pay: ‘Untested
accusations are of such magnitude any reader could only be left to draw
the conclusion of potential criminal activity.’
**
The Canada Border Services Agency last year assigned just 207 staff to criminal investigations nationwide including 48 in Greater Toronto, auto theft capital of Canada, records show. The disclosure follows a cabinet-sponsored conference on auto theft one MP dismissed as a “good photo op.”
Calling people "far-right" or some such thing only lends further credence to a cause:
Protests against the government’s immigration policy have been mostly peaceful, but some have turned violent – including in Dublin last year
where riots broke out after three young children and a woman were
stabbed, allegedly by a man of Algerian origin. There has also been a
spate of more than a dozen arson attacks in Ireland over the past year
on migrant facilities and venues wrongly thought to be housing migrants.
The
Irish state last year accepted more refugees than it could accommodate,
forcing the government to offer asylum applicants tents and sleeping
bags as they arrived in Dublin. Since the Russian invasion, nearly
100,000 Ukrainians have also been offered sanctuary in Ireland. I spoke
to one Ukrainian refugee outside of an asylum processing centre in
Dublin, who told me that despite sleeping rough in Ireland, he was
nonetheless grateful for refuge from Vladamir Putin’s forces in Ukraine.
The
number of asylum seekers arriving into Ireland has shot up to more than
26,000 over the past two years, the highest annual figures on record,
and a growth of nearly 200 per cent from 2019. Last year, most asylum
seekers arriving in Ireland came from Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan,
Somalia, and Georgia.
There
are some TDs who have spoken out against “unsustainable” levels of
immigration in the Irish parliament. Six of them have formed a loose
coalition called the Rural Independent Group. I sat down with one of
their members, Carol Nolan, to hear their side of the story. “I have
never seen the feeling as strong on the issue of immigration as it is
now,” Ms Nolan said. “I do feel that people will protest at the ballot
box and I do feel that if the government doesn’t change direction
quickly…that they will be punished.”
Ms
Nolan said she felt anti-EU sentiment was being stoked by the
government’s immigration policy. “There is a lot of frustration over the
EU dictating everything a country should do – the numbers they should
take in and so forth. So there is definitely frustration over that
dictatorship as some people see it.”
Leo
Varadkar’s government says it can tackle the problems around
immigration with better messaging and tougher laws to censor what it
deems as “hate speech”. But the Irish public say their concerns are
legitimate – a view which is becoming harder to ignore as it gains
political momentum. It’s beginning to look like the Irish government’s
vision of an Ireland which looks more like its European neighbours is
coming true – a multicultural country, ripe for a populist revolt.
Is it condescending or maddening when a tone-deaf leader claims that people are ignorant of what they can see around them?
Discuss.
**
When did it become ‘far-right’ to support European farmers who are fighting for their livelihoods and rural communities? If we were to believe the mainstream media coverage of the
farmers’ protests, we might expect to see them marching through Berlin
or Paris in jackboots rather than their working bottes en caoutchouc (Wellingtons to us Brits).
The ‘far-right’ political libel against hard-pressed farmers is
really a sign of how far the EU elites have lost touch with the reality
of life for the peoples of Europe. We should ignore the slurs, and get
behind the fighting farmers.
The protests by angry farmers have spread across the European Union,
with mighty convoys of tractors blockading roads and cities from Romania
to Rome, from Portugal to Poland, from Bulgaria to Brussels and beyond.
There might be some national variations in the farmers’ specific
demands. But what unites them all is opposition to the way that the EU
elites are subordinating agricultural policy to their Green agenda and
Net Zero obsession, leading to more hardship for farmers and higher food
prices for other Europeans.
As tractor convoys blockaded German cities in January, farmers’ association president Joachim Rukwied spelt out
that they were protesting not just against the government’s proposed
cuts in fuel subsidies, but against an EU-wide system where
“agricultural policy is being made from an unworldly, urban bubble and
against farming families and rural areas.”
This week in Poland, 62-year-old protesting farmer Janusz Bialoskorski told
the media that, “They’re talking about climate protection. But why
should it be done at farmers’ expense?” Farmers, he pointed out, are not
responsible for industrial pollution, and “nor do we fly to Davos on
our jets.”
These farmers are now in the front line of a wider populist revolt,
against those elitists who DO fly in their private jets to the World
Economic Forum in luxurious Davos, Switzerland, where they lecture the
rest of us about how to save the planet by sacrificing our living
standards.
If people were true students of history, no one would have to implore for this:
Britain is estimated to have sent more than three-million Africans
across the Atlantic into slavery, of whom 2.7 million survived. But it
was also the country that changed course, and led the world in
abolishing slavery elsewhere.
Another inconvenient truth
for today’s secular society is that the major abolition leaders were
motivated by their Christian faith.
Quakers led the way,
holding that slavery was wrong and against God’s will: we are supposed
to love our neighbour and do unto others as we would wish they did unto
us, and who would want to be a slave? The Quakers, however, held no
political power, not even the vote, as non-members of the Church of
England. Yet they did circulate petitions and speak out against slavery.
John
Wesley, the founder of Methodism, published his “Thoughts upon Slavery”
in 1774, and in 1788, preached against it in Bristol, a major
slave-trading port. He encouraged the (evangelical) William Wilberforce
to take up the issue, and he led the push for abolition in Parliament.
Thomas
Clarkson, a top abolition leader, when he was a student at Cambridge,
had planned to become a clergyman, but after he won an essay contest on
slavery, he decided to devote his life to working for abolition. He did
research, published books and pamphlets, and travelled the country to
win people over to the cause.
A third inconvenient truth
might be seen in the inordinate time it took to abolish slavery and the
slave trade in practice: passing a law against it in 1807 did not end
the practice — too many people carried on, as there was money to be made
and no penalty for breaking the law. It took an array of further laws,
such as making it a crime to engage in the trade. Another law
criminalized making profits from it.
In 1819, 12 years
after the adoption of the law banning the trade, the British government
set up a whole new sub-department in the Foreign Office, to persuade
other countries to ban the trade, as well. It started small, but in time
had the largest budget of any in the Foreign Office. It was not
disbanded until 1882.
Yet many in Toronto, as in Edinburgh,
blame Henry Dundas for delaying abolition by adding the word “gradual”
into Wilberforce’s 1792 motion. Dundas argued strenuously for the need
to gain the co-operation of the plantation owners. He talked with those
he could and found that some were open to the idea.
Lord
Palmerston, as foreign secretary, worked hard on getting other
countries to join in abolition. The year before he died, he said the
achievement that gave him “the greatest and purest pleasure was forcing
the Brazilians to give up their slave trade,” through the passage of the
Slave Trade (Portugal) Act in 1839. But Brazil kept up the slave trade
until 1888.
Even Dundas, who had a much more realistic idea
than Wilberforce and his supporters on what it would take to abolish
the slave trade, had no idea that decades would be needed for the dream
to be fully realized.
So why does Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow
still rate what Dundas did as “horrific”? Wilberforce himself, and his
cohort, in time went over to the “gradual” position of Dundas. In 1823,
they formed the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of
Slavery Throughout the British Dominions.
When slavery
itself was finally abolished in the British Empire, in 1834, the British
Treasury had to compensate existing slave owners. The government had to
take out a major loan, equivalent to 40 per cent of the national budget
for that year. Unseemly as this was — the former slaves were paid
nothing — emancipation would not have happened without it.
This
is not to excuse the terrible brutality of Britain’s conquests around
the world. It is to say that when a country changes course, and for
decades devotes its resources to doing the right thing, we should give
it credit.
The Russian government has been doing things like this for ages:
The brazen poisoning renewed fears that roving Russian
assassins were ready to kill Putin’s critics using a nerve agent which
translates as “newcomer” in Russian. Novichoks were a group of advanced
nerve agents developed in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s.
The
poison blocks signals from the nerves to muscles, causing bodily
functions to break down. Constriction of the pupils is quickly followed,
if the dosage is high enough, by convulsions, interrupted breathing,
vomiting and then death due to asphyxiation or cardiac arrest.
I was assured that not allowing these Frankenstein surgeries would be detrimental:
A new study
challenges the common assertion that gender-dysphoric youth are at
elevated risk of suicide if not treated with “gender affirming” medical
interventions. If it’s true, it ought to have a seismic impact on the
accepted medical approach to gender-confused youth.
Reported in the BMJ, the study examines data on a
Finnish cohort of gender-referred adolescents between 1996 and 2019, and
compares their rates of all-cause and suicide mortality against a
control group. While suicide rates in the gender-referred group studied
were higher than in the control group, the difference was not large:
0.3% versus 0.1%. And — importantly — this difference disappeared when
the two groups were controlled for mental health issues severe enough to
require specialist psychiatric help.
In other words: while transgender identity does seem to be
associated with elevated suicide risk, the link is not very strong.
What’s more, the causality may not work the way activists claim.
A new documentary shines a light on the disabled in Japan:
With its calm and peaceful depiction of a farm where people with
disabilities work, a Japanese documentary film is aiming to give
audiences a look into the everyday lives of people who are often kept in
the shadows.
Originally intended as a statement against an ableist-inspired
killing spree in which 19 residents of a care home were murdered eight
years ago, the film, "Fujiyama Cottonton," ultimately took a more
sanguine approach, although director Taku Aoyagi was clear in his
purpose.
"What motivated me the most to create this film was the 2016 incident
at Yamayuri En," the 30-year-old director said, referring to the mass
killing, one of Japan's worst mass murder cases, which targeted
residents of a nursing home in Sagamihara, Kanagawa Prefecture.
Satoshi Uematsu, 34, the convicted murderer, now on death row, who
was an employee of Yamayuri En, also injured 26 others in the incident —
many seriously. He said at his trial that people with disabilities who
cannot communicate their thoughts "create unhappiness" for others, while
justifying his crime as being "useful to society."
"I felt a sense of urgency (to make the film) from the fact that
death-row inmate Uematsu determined the value of human life by measuring
people, and there seems to be an atmosphere that his discourse was
being disseminated through society," Aoyagi said in a recent interview.
In the film, Aoyagi attempts to show audiences how people at the
welfare facility live full lives by communicating with others and
pursuing simple passions, just like people without disabilities do.