Links - 16th March 2025 (2 - Feminism)

Sydney Sweeney slams 'fake' female empowerment in Hollywood: 'None of it is happening' - "Euphoria star Sydney Sweeney has candidly slammed female empowerment in Hollywood as "fake," claiming it doesn't exist. The music and film industry tends to support such movements publicly across social media and in some productions themselves. However, the 27-year-old actress implied it was all a facade. Sweeney called the "women empowering other women" a "front," calling it "very disheartening to see women tear other women down". In an interview with Vanity Fair, she added: "Especially when women who are successful in other avenues of their industry see younger talent working really hard – hoping to achieve whatever dreams that they may have – and then trying to bash and discredit any work that they’ve done." "This entire industry, all people say is 'Women empowering other women.' None of it’s happening. All of it is fake and a front for all the other s*** that they say behind everyone’s back," Sweeney told the publication."

Meme - Southpauz @SouthpauzArt: "I hope the male loneliness epidemic eats you maga scum alive. I hope you feel a hole in your soul and feel unloved until your dying day. I hope you rot in your deathbed wondering why women looked at you like you had rabies your whole life as your eyes close for the last time."
Shalini Kumar @Shalinikumari5: "i genuinely cant believe men want us to care about them its fucking pitiful"
"As if I needed another reason to hate men"
Kaju freak @ @angel_kaju: "the male loneliness epidemic is 100% deserved"
Weird. We keep being told that feminism is not about hating men

Andy🌪🌹 on X - "making “kill all men” jokes online for years objectively alienated young men and pushed them to the right"
alfonsu.bsky.social 🗡️ on X - "Men after experiencing 0.00001% of the mistreatment that women have systematically suffered since the dawn of time"
Wilfred Reilly on X - "I'm not whining about this, but the idea that there is more crime vs women than men, or more online abuse directed at normal women than guys, is off by almost an order of magnitude.   Men are 5x more likely to be murdered than women, and a huge chunk of the murderers of women are other women. Something like 86% of online negative language targets men or whites. Very core left wing arguments - "It is harder to get hired as a Hispanic liberal female" - are often almost the opposite of reality.   Just saying."
As we all know, women are the primary victims of war

Meme - "Feminism in movies *Wonder Woman*
Feminism in reality *Female Secret Service agent cowering behind Trump during assassination attempt while male agents cover him with their bodies*"

Colin Wright on X - "Get ready for insanity.   This new peer-reviewed paper in the a @SpringerNature  journal, uses "feminist blue posthumanities to reimagine...how brine shrimp are perceived in science, culture, and art."  The paper "introduced the concept of hydrosexuality" to  enrich "feminist blue posthumanities and feminist biology through art-based practices and queer advocacy." Its use of the "hydrosexual perspective challenges settler science by exploring the connections between the reproductive system of brine shrimp and the economy, ecology and culture."   Its analysis "draws inspiration from low trophic theory and Queer Death Studies" to "gradually alter white humans' perceptions and understandings of brine shrimp."  I gotta say, this might dethrone the classic Feminist Glaciology paper for Most Insane Paper Ever. I am convinced that @ConceptualJames , @peterboghossian , and @HelenPluckrose  are behind this!"
Loving the Brine Shrimp: Exploring Queer Feminist Blue Posthumanities to Reimagine the ‘America’s Dead Sea’ | Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

hoe_math on X - "All of the great evils of our time (woke, feminism, communism, mass migration, gender fuckery) are based on selectively removing the freedom to exclude.
"It is OK for some groups to exclude, but not for others."
Does that sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory:
"My money is my money. His money is our money."
"What's mine is mine; what's yours is ours."
That is what Mattie Watkins unwittingly says to men over and over in this long, complex disaster of a thread of quotes within quotes.  Mattie asks what exclusive spaces men lost. When she is informed, she finds cheap excuses to justify denying that exclusion was ever the rightful choice of the men who created these things.  They were just playing keep-away the whole time! With their spaces! That they made!  She then compares them with exclusive spaces that women lost, like sports teams and locker rooms. She asserts women's right to exclude, but denies it to men.  This is nothing but a classic case of "can dish it out; can't take it."
I am in favor of the freedom to exclude.  If you are not free to exclude whoever you wish from your presence - as an individual or as a group or a business or a religion, whatever, really - then you are not free and you are being wronged.  I rent an apartment. My name is on the lease. I am free to exclude others from living in it. Same with my car. Only I say who drives it.  You have a body. You are free to exclude others from touching it.  If you start a sport league, you should be free to say who cannot be in it. If someone else is telling you who to include, you are being wronged. If the women don't want to share a locker room with males and are forced to, they are being wronged.  Americans used to have a country. We are no longer free to exclude those we do not want to be here. We are being wronged. This country was never intended to be for just whoever.
The remaining implications of the selective removal of the freedom to exclude should be obvious.
Men used to exclude women from many parts of life. Business. Government. Military. Golf. Social clubs.  Feminism has decided that this freedom to exclude is unfair. Men must be forced to allow women to participate in these things.  Now, I'll grant that this makes a good deal of sense in government. Women cannot just go make their own government. The government affects them, and they should be giving input. This doesn't necessarily mean that Congress should be half women, but that's a point for a different day.  But if a man starts a business and doesn't want to hire women... why is that choice yours to take away? Why is it so with clubs, sports, religions?
The military has always been just men. If women want to participate, why don't they make their own military? Like the WNBA but for the Marines?  Why, again, must men yield their right to exclude, when you do not want to do the same?  Where else can you recognize this double standard?   Every stand-up comedian in the 1990s had the same joke about "why is there a Black Entertainment Television channel, but no white one?"  Why indeed?  There are black countries, asian countries, muslim countries... but no country can be called 'white' or 'christian!' That would be bigoted! There are black-only colleges, women's schools, scholarships for more or less every imaginable group except for straight, white, or male.
Mattie, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you never had a problem with any of that... until it began to affect woman-only spaces. Is that about right?  So when what's ours became yours, that was a good thing, but when what's yours became theirs...  Do you not see that your own monster has turned on you?  "What's mine is mine; what's yours is ours."  Sounds good from one direction only, right?  Welcome to the party, Mattie!"

Natalie Jean Beisner on X - "Ladies, I’m not your sister. We’re not friends unless we’re friends. I don’t automatically have your back. I don’t want to play pretend hand maid’s tale with you or complain about made-up oppression. I’m not going to unquestioningly rise up with you or inherently share your cause. I don’t feel some kind of special bond with you or feel safer with you than I do men just because our genitals look similar. Frankly, when/if the shit ever hits the fan, I’d rather be with the men. Please fuck off with your weird dramatic psycho sisterhood bullshit."

Meme - "To the men who are labeled...
Douchebags: Keep being assertive.
Fuckboys: Keep on exploring your sexuality.
Manchildren: Keep your inner child alive.
Entitled: Keep knowing your worth, King.
Autistic: Keep telling yourself you're literally Ryan Gosling.
Please don't shrink yourself to make people happy. Be yourself, you're wonderful that way.
Ellis Gilbert I His Sigma Grindset"

New research on female video game characters uncovers a surprising twist - "female participants—despite generally disliking highly sexualized characters—were more likely to choose these characters when given the option to play as one... when a character combined high sexualization with high strength, participants perceived her as even more sexualized than characters with high sexualization alone. This outcome indicates that strength cues do not counteract the effects of sexualization; rather, they may amplify it. This pattern aligns with the “fighting fuck-toy” theory, which suggests that strength paired with sex appeal can reinforce objectifying impressions, heightening perceptions of the character as a sexualized object.  The researchers also found that high sexualization was a key factor in perceptions of femininity and character likability. Characters with high sexualization were viewed as more traditionally feminine, yet they were also less liked, particularly by female participants. Strength cues, by contrast, did not independently influence likability, suggesting that the perception of likability may be more influenced by sexualization cues than by physical strength. Interesting gender-based differences emerged in character preferences. Female participants generally disliked highly sexualized characters but were more likely to choose characters with high femininity traits (typically associated with higher sexualization cues) when given a choice. Male participants, on the other hand, gravitated toward characters that were strong yet less sexualized, indicating different gender-based preferences in the interpretation of character traits... "I was surprised to see that in our first study women still selected the most sexualized character when asked which character they would choose to play. It’s important to remember that this character was also rated as the most feminine, so it’s possible that women were just selecting the character they most identified with.”  “However, this finding highlight why this research is so important,” Lynch continued. “If women are conflating sexual appeal with femininity, then can they disassociate those two concepts? And, if entertainment media like video games continue to portray female characters by emphasizing sex appeal, how does that shape expectations of women and women’s value in society?”... Female participants viewed high-strength characters as more competent compared to low-strength characters, while this difference was not significant among male participants... The study, “Examining How Sex Appeal Cues and Strength Cues Influence Impressions of Female Video Game Characters,” was authored by Teresa Lynch, Annie Dooley, and Matthew R. Erxleben."
Once again, what women say they want, what women think they want, and what women really want aren't always the same.
Clearly it's time to blame patriarchy, aka men, because women only have agency when it pushes the left wing agenda, and to rag on men for sexualising video game characters, even though they choose them.
Obviously games have a responsibility to socialise players into having the Correct Opinions and Preferences. Giving people what they want is bad when it obstructs the left wing agenda

Meme - "AITAH For not getting on an elevator with only a woman on it?"
"I have been living in my apartment complex for a few years now and I usually take the elevator when I leave for work during the weekday, most of the time it's just me in it. About two weeks ago, I was about to go into the elevator when I saw a woman, about my age, in it and nobody else. My mom always told me what to do so I don't make women uncomfortable; don't walk behind them on the sidewalk and cross the street, don't approach if they seem to be alone, be aware of their body language, etc. One of these was to never enter an elevator if there is only a woman on it. Seeing as it was just her, I turned to take the stairs. It's only like an extra minute or two of my time, and I usually get to work about ten minutes early anyway. For the rest of the week, when I went to work, it was just her in the elevator, so I just took the stairs. I didn't run into her over the weekend. On Monday the same thing happens, only she is in the elevator and I take the stairs. After that, I just kept to the stairs and stopped trying the elevator. Saturday comes around, and I was leaving for my friends place. When I left the building, the woman and I guess her friend were going in. We didn't exchange words and just walked past each other. I didn't get back until today when I ran into her friend again, and she stopped me. She tells me that I was a dick for making her friend feel bad and that I should apologize. I ask what I did wrong, she says that I was making her feel self- conscious and it was messing with her self-esteem. I told her that I didn't know what she was talking about, and she just started calling me insecure to grow up before walking away. Did I miss something that I'm not aware of?"
Men can never win

Fewer women could be sent to prison as Justice Secretary announces reforms - "The Justice Secretary has announced moves to send fewer women to prison, as she warned jail time “forces” many of them into a “life of crime”.  Shabana Mahmood said a new women’s justice board will be tasked with reducing the number of women going into prison, with the “ultimate ambition” of having fewer women’s prisons.  She added a new strategy will examine early intervention to resolve cases before they go to court, “viable” community alternatives to prison and ways to address concerns over self-harm."... “Self-harm in women’s prisons is eight times higher than the male estates.  “Perhaps worst of all, women’s prisons are hurting mothers and they are breaking homes.” Ms Mahmood said more than 50% of women in jail are mothers, adding: “The damage passes down generations, with three-quarters of children leaving a family home when their mother is sent to jail.”... “For women, prison isn’t working. Rather than encouraging rehabilitation, prison forces women into a life of crime.”"
Feminism is about gender equality, which is why we cannot send women to prison
Weird. I thought the left were very keen on "equity". Turns out "equity" is only important when it benefits "minorities"
Feminists demand that men take an equal role in family life, yet they want to exempt women from prison because of the impact on family life. Ironic
Apparently prison doesn't "force" men into a life of crime

When a man kills a woman the news calls it "a feminicide epidemic" and all the experts on tv call say it's misoginy but when a mother kills her two sons... there is no mention of misandry. : r/MensRights - "Perhaps they should teach women to not murder children /s"

Australia gives its men a slap in the face for International Men's Day. Thanks mate. : r/MensRights - "Its International Men's Day in Australia (Nov 19 2024), and as usual, there is a resounding indifference in the government, media, schools and universities, to the issues experienced by men and boys, and the aspirational theme of "Positive Male Role Models".  An internet search for Australia showed very few mentions of IMD. I found two.  One, in South Australia advertised an International Men's Day dinner organised by the Honourabl Sarah Game MLC (member of the South Australian Legislative Council), to celebrate men and boys and the theme of positive male role models. The dinner was sold out early.  https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/international-mens-day-tickets-918350640487  The other, from a privately run Melbourne "what's on" web page, which reported no events for IMD, and got the IMD theme wrong.  Melbourne thinks the IMD theme is "asking men to be better.. better towards women!", instructing men to "think about yourself, and then think about your mates. Ask yourself, can I do better?"  https://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/international-mens-day  Hoping IMD and positive male role models is celebtrated with more enthusiasm and less gender hatred in your local areas. Australia signing off."

As the workforce behind the Movember brand in Australia passes 51% women, and leading roles are controlled by women, more Movember donations are being redirected to women's issues : r/MensRights

Melissa Chen on X - "A major component of the angst that characterizes much of the modern dynamics between men and women today comes down to the fact that women have demanded equal rights but also wish for preferred treatment.  So what do we have now? We have something called:   “Schrödinger’s Feminist”  Where a woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered  Until something happens and she collapses into one of either states, whichever is politically expedient for her current circumstance.  This is simply untenable, and there will be a conservative backlash."
Ben Bokser בנצי בוקסר on X - "Part of the problem is that modern people think too much in terms of rights and not enough in terms of duties, virtues, & characteristics to cultivate. Gender dynamics could benefit from us appreciating, encouraging, & cultivating these in ourselves & others."
Melissa Chen on X - "This is what the religions and trad cultures got right!!!! Feminism has ensured that any talk about duties and virtues are oppressive"
Fauxmaha on X - "In a discussion on military stuff, I opined that I didn't want women in combat roles. My 20ish daughter called me "sexist".  I told her she was sexist too, and I could prove it.  "Suppose you and your boyfriend are driving somewhere, and you come across a man who looks like me. His car stopped on the side of the road. He is changing a flat tire. Do you tell your boyfriend to stop to help?"  That earned me a somewhat puzzled look, as if she was asking "Why stop?"  "Now, instead of a man who looks like me, suppose it is a woman who looks like your mother. Do you tell your boyfriend to stop?"  She got it immediately."
Melissa Chen on X - "There you go. When feminists assail the concept of norms surrounding chivalry in the name of equality, then you get a world in which no one stops to help a woman stuck on the road shoulder"
David Opsahl on X - "After the incident where a man stopped to help a woman and then she falsely accused him of r*ping her and had his assistance not been wholly recorded on video he would have gone to jail, I absolutely will NOT stop to help a woman."

Teaching sexism during NS, allowing more men to receive alimony among suggestions by WP MPs on how to achieve gender equality
I like how NS is supposed to be a way to push the left wing agenda. Good luck tackling female genital cutting with Shafi'i Islam

A traffic researcher in Germany has called for men to be allowed to obtain a driver’s license only after the age of 26. : r/MensRights - "Wow, the discrimination against men is getting crazier every day. In Germany, a traffic researcher has called to raise the minimum age for obtaining a driver’s license to 26, but only for men. The researcher made headlines with this, and I have seen women on social media actually advocating for it.  The researcher justified this demand by pointing out that young men, on average, cause more major accidents than women and are more likely to exceed the speed limit.  Just imagine if the roles were reversed how loud the feminists would scream. I’ll link one of the articles about it, but beware it’s in German."
"Men also clock more kilometers than women. Some 46 percent of German male drivers drive between 12,000 to 30,000 kilometers (7,460 to 18,640 miles) a year while 60 percent of women drive less than 12,000 kilometers a year.  From this article  So half of the male drivers drive between 12-30k kilometers while not even 40% of women drive MORE than 12k kilometers  I bet that if you compare the accidents per kilometer driven men and women come about the same"

Does Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth hold up? What I think of it now that she’s an anti-masker.
It's telling that Wolf challenging covid hysteria is what prompted the author to relook her seminal work

Meme - i/o @eyeslasho: "Mothers are more likely to abuse their children than fathers, more likely to kill them, and boys are more likely to be killed than girls by a parent, according to a 2006 report — the opposite of the media's narrative."
Breaking the Science: 71% of Children Killed by One Parent are Killed by Their Mothers; 60% of Victims are Boys - "The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers.  And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers.  Furthermore, contrary to media portrayals that leave the viewer with the impression that only girls are ever harmed, boys constituted fully 60% of child fatalities. (Table 4-3, p. 71, Child Maltreatment 2006, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf, reports that 675 boys died in 2006 as compared to 454 girls).  The pervasive media bias cannot help but influence judges. Thus the newspapers, TV shows, and movies that promote this bias must bear a significant part of the responsibility for child abuse and deaths of children at the hands of violent mothers."
Evil men need to stop harming children. This is literally femicide

Male survivors 'ignored' as their abuse is classified as 'violence against women' - "Male survivors of abuse say they feel "ignored" by the Westminster government because crimes against them are being classified as "violence against women and girls".  For the last 15 years, successive governments have grouped male victims of domestic abuse, rape, stalking and so-called honour-based violence into the same category as female victims, and charities are calling for change.  "Male victims can often feel ignored, negated because we're not even listed and I just think there's something about how important it is to be recognised, to be seen," explained Duncan Craig OBE, founder of We Are Survivors... Recent research by the University of Central Lancashire found that 88% of male survivors believed the government does not care about them, 89% said the policy made it harder for them to get help and 90% were made to feel invisible."
Left wing gaslighting is amazing

Girls Are Losing Ground to Boys Now at School, Test Scores Show - WSJ - "Girls have lost ground in reading, math and science at a troubling rate, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of student test scores across the country. Since 2019, girls’ test scores have dropped sharply, often to the lowest point in decades. Boys’ scores have also fallen during that time, but the decline among girls has been more severe. Boys now consistently outperform girls in math, after being roughly even or slightly ahead in the years before 2020. Girls still tend to perform better in reading, but their scores have dropped closer to boys. The findings suggest that pandemic learning loss hit girls particularly hard in ways that haven’t been addressed by schools."
It's only cause for concern when women are the ones affected
The irony is that this will be blamed on "misogyny" and "sexism", when the covid debacle was the epitome of the female worldview

Gender, Perceived Competence, and Power Displays: Examining Verbal Interruptions in a Group Context - "Both men and women interrupt more when the group is male-dominated"
This doesn't stop feminists blaming men, as usual

Hunter Ash on X - "A progressive is someone who thinks a racist is worse than a rapist."
i/o on X - "When I was in college, long before wokeness, I had a female friend (a leftist and staunch feminist from a very privileged background) who believed that being date raped was worse than being savagely murdered. When I pointed out the flaws in her argument, she ended our friendship.  A year later I heard that she had married a classmate of ours, a really odious rightwing guy with a history of violence and misogyny and an adoration of Pinochet and Franco, who had what I would describe as the most extreme porn addiction I'd ever come across.  I've often wondered whether they're still married."

Jason Ganon on X - "And yet you wonder why he rose to fame? The older generation refuses to see what feminism has done to our culture. This allows types like Andrew Tate to rise to fame and grab the ear of young men. Until you people accept what feminism has done people like Andrew Tate will only take more power."

South Korean man who attacked ‘feminist’ shop worker over short hair jailed for 3 years | South China Morning Post - "A man who assaulted a convenience store worker in South Korea after suspecting she was a feminist due to her short hair has been sentenced to three years in jail, amid anger from activists who denounced the verdict for failing to recognise the case as a hate crime... the intoxicated defendant reportedly told the woman employee: “Since you have short hair, you must be a feminist. I’m a male chauvinist, and I think feminists deserve to be assaulted.” He later punched and kicked her, resulting in multiple injuries, including hearing loss. The accused also used a chair to hit the shopper who attempted to intervene, causing grievous injuries to his shoulder and nose, the court heard. The prosecution had sought a five-year jail term, but the court said psychological evaluation of the man showed he was in an unstable mental state at the time of the incident... “It is regrettable that the court did not see the incident as a hate crime. … If an act of targeting someone out of hate, just because they belong to a specific group, is not considered a hate crime, then what is?” a coalition of women’s rights groups said in a statement on Tuesday following the ruling... This is the latest in a string of misogynistic cases involving women with short, cropped hair in South Korea. In 2021, Olympic gold medallist archer An San, who has short hair, was subjected to an intense cyberbullying campaign for “looking like a feminist”."
Feminists are a protected group, apparently

COVID pandemic lockdowns, what were the impacts on public health?

Jordan Schachtel on X - "Thoughtful people on day one: lockdowns are stupid and will destroy the economy while imposing devastating disruption upon our society. Corporate media, five years later:"

COVID pandemic lockdowns, what were the impacts on public health? (aka "‘The lockdowns were never really effective’: New research shows COVID stay-at-home orders did more harm than good")

"Five years ago, lockdown critics faced death threats and censorship. Now they are gaining influence amid new evidence on the harmful health effects of prolonged isolation...

A growing number of scientific studies have concluded the measures in the United States did little to slow the rampaging pathogen. What’s more, the stifling of public debate about them eroded trust in public health policy and prevented more effective strategies, according to a number of prominent infectious-disease experts...

“We are long overdue for a reckoning on the lockdowns,” said Stephen Macedo, a political scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey, who co-authored a book due out later this month that calls for a national inquiry into the lockdown measures. “What’s become increasingly clear is that a lot of what we did was irrational and based on fear, and we didn’t think through the profound costs.”...

while the impact of lockdown policies is still being studied, new research paints a troubling picture of the immense collateral damage inflicted by them.

The measures increased poverty and wealth disparities, spurred a dramatic rise in adolescent anxiety and depression, contributed to a surge in fatal drug overdoses, and led to devastating learning losses in schoolchildren, who have yet to recover, according to scientific studies. As of last spring, the average American student remained half a grade behind pre-pandemic levels in both math and reading, according to a recent report card on pandemic learning loss.

What’s more, months of unrelenting seclusion caused many people to sever social connections, with lasting consequences to mental and physical health. Both volunteering at nonprofits and church attendance, two measures of social engagement, declined and have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. In 2023, the nation’s surgeon general warned of an "epidemic of loneliness and isolation" — brought on, in part, by lockdown measures that isolated people.

And that’s not counting the other costs in lost livelihoods, shuttered businesses, and the anguish of seeing relatives die alone without being able to say goodbye.

“The lockdowns were never really effective, and the confusion around them sowed a great deal of public distrust in government,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota.

On average, states with Democratic governors had stay-at-home orders that were nearly three times longer than those in red states. Yet many so-called blue states — including California, New York, and New Mexico — had among the highest COVID-19 death rates, measured as a share of their population. And some red states, including Idaho and Utah, had among the lowest, national health data shows, according to an analysis by Macedo and a Princeton colleague, Frances Lee..

Those critical of lockdowns point to sobering data showing that, despite widespread school and business closures, the United States had among the worst mortality rates in the developed world during the pandemic...

Infectious disease experts who are critical of lockdowns point to alternative approaches that would protect public health with less pain should another pandemic arise. These include more stringent testing of workers in nursing homes, more generous sick leave policies for workers, and efforts to expand home care and food deliveries for older people most vulnerable to the virus.

“You couldn’t witness the mass deaths in New York City and Italy and not think that something had to be done,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health. “But tools like shutdowns and school closures are sledgehammers and shouldn’t be part of our toolbox.”

The other problem with lockdowns, say many scientists, is they cannot be sustained indefinitely. And once they are lifted, people start interacting again and infections can spread rapidly. For instance, China’s abrupt decision in December 2022 to end its zero-COVID policy, which included stringent quarantines and lockdowns, led to a massive surge in hospitalizations and deaths in the following two months, according to a 2023 study in the medical journal JAMA.

Osterholm at the University of Minnesota has long recommended what he calls the “snow day approach.” When infections surge, or hospital bed capacity falls to unsafe levels, officials could announce temporary school closures and encourage people to stay home. Then, when the virus subsides, after a few days or weeks, the restrictions would be lifted, he said. People would be more willing to comply, knowing the closures are temporary, he argued...Public officials should also communicate more clearly about the uncertain benefits of any measure during a pandemic, particularly when so much is unknown, public health experts said.

Indeed, in October 2019, the World Health Organization analyzed a range of responses to past pandemics, including the 1918 “Spanish flu,” and recommended against forced quarantines of individuals or populations, saying there was “no obvious rationale” for such measures and they were impractical to implement.

“From the beginning, the evidence to support lockdown policies was very, very poor, and there was a large sentiment within the scientific community that the collateral damage far outweighed the benefits,” Macedo, of Princeton, said.

In the bitterly polarizing climate of 2020, some scientists who spoke out against lockdowns in favor of less-restrictive measures faced a harsh backlash. Some even received death threats.

In one such instance, in October 2020, three medical experts from three renowned universities decided the public discussion about lockdowns had become too one-sided.

The trio — which included Bhattacharya of Stanford, Sunetra Gupta of University of Oxford, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard Medical School — crafted a short statement opposing the lockdowns, arguing that there was no scientific consensus for school closures and other stringent measures.

“Keeping [lockdown] measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed,” the trio warned in the statement, which was named the “Great Barrington Declaration,” after the town where it was written in the Berkshires.

Kulldorff said he was not prepared for the visceral response. Within days, he began receiving anonymous death threats via email and accusations that he supported mass murder. Facebook deleted a page set up by the scientists, and Kulldorff’s Twitter account was suspended.

Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the National Institutes of Health, wrote an email at the time to Dr. Anthony Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in which he called for a “quick and devastating published take down” of its premises, according to emails obtained by the American Institute for Economic Research, a free market think tank.

Three years later, Collins said in a public forum that lockdowns caused widespread harm to public health and the Great Barrington Declaration could have been a “great opportunity” for a broad scientific debate about lockdowns. Collins, who recently retired from the NIH, declined to be interviewed.

Fauci did not respond to multiple interview requests.

To the dismay of some public health advocates, there has never been a public reckoning over the lockdown measures.

Robert Moffit, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Congress should appoint a bipartisan commission with subpoena power that would investigate the extent of the harm caused and why alternative points of view were silenced.

“We need to know why all these federal health agencies failed to respond to the latest science on lockdowns,” Moffit asked.

Even some who supported the lockdown measures five years ago are now doubtful they were worth the long-term costs."

Links - 16th March 2025 (1 - Hamas Attack Oct 2023: Mahmoud Khalil)

Trump doubles down as he silences critics - "With ICE’s weekend arrest of a student who engaged in peaceful protests, Trump’s administration is flexing dangerously unconstitutional muscle and daring the nation to flinch. Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University, helped to organize several pro-Palestinian student protests last year, all of which were peaceful and non-violent. Khalil was pulled from his apartment by “special agents from a department in ICE” who informed Khalil that the State Department had revoked his student visa... Silencing political opponents presents the steepest of autocratic slopes. If students and citizens lose the right to publicly criticize or disagree with their government, they have lost the right to choose who that government will be...
Sabrina Haake is a 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1 and 14 A defense"
With so much left wing misinformation out there, it's no wonder so many people are duped
It is telling that Trump's "political opponents" are terrorism suporters
An attorney who doesn't even mention section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII)) in the context of this case is either incompetent or malicious where you cannot "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization"

Thread by @Davidlederer6 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Many have been calling Mahmoud Khalil an anti-war activist. Nothing can be further from the truth. Here he is on 10/7/24 attending a 1 yr anniversary celebration of the “Al Aqsa Flood” (massacre of Jews). He was a leader of this group at Columbia and is a pro Hamas radical. In this photo Mahmoud can be seen instructing the lead marcher on their route shortly before they began marching around campus. He was much more than a mere bystander or participant."

Benjamin Weingarten on X - "I count a whopping 19 attorneys representing Mahmoud Khalil. J6ers could've only dreamed of that volume of legal firepower. Who is paying for this representation? All pro bono to take on the Trump admin as Resistance heroes?"
Stephen L. Miller on X - "His lead attorney is a former Biden WH advisor."
Clearly, this is because his case is so unjust, it motivates everyone to fight against injustice

Kosher🎗🧡 on X - "How does a foreign student at a college that costs $93,000 a year, still manage to afford 19 lawyers that cost $1,000 an hour each?"

Angela Van Der Pluym on X - "Has anyone looked up Mahmoud Khalil’s attorney, Ramzi Kassem? He defends terrorists for a living. Mahmoud’s attorney was not only a “Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans” recipient. (Details The Paul and Daisy Soros Foundation supports new Americans any individual who is a resident alien (i.e., holds a green card), has been naturalized as a US citizen, or is the child of two parents who are both naturalized citizens.) He is a law professor at antisemitic CUNY.
“Kassem argued Tanzin v. Tanvir before the U.S. Supreme Court, a landmark civil rights case challenging the federal government’s abuse of watchlists, resulting in a unanimous decision for the clinic’s clients. In Raza v. City of New York, another groundbreaking litigation challenging secret police surveillance, Professor Kassem helped negotiate an historic settlement restricting surveillance of constitutionally protected religious and political activity.”
Aka he has wanted to stop the government watchlists. He has tried to stop the police from identifying people at these pro-terrorist rallies...
It gets worse: “Ramzi Kassem, a professor at CUNY's law school, was tapped to serve as a senior policy adviser for immigration in the White House's Domestic Policy Council. Kassem is a vocal Israel critic who spent a portion of his time as an undergrad at Columbia University writing scathing criticisms of the Jewish state, a Washington Free Beaconreview found. Kassem, who helped defendterrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, charged the Jewish state with genocide and decried ‘unconditional’ support for Israel.”"

David lederer on X - "On Veterans Day instead of honoring the brave men and woman who protect this country Mahmoud Khalil protested the day to venerate Hamas terrorists instead!! He was also seen representing the protestors in talks with administrators here, strongly indicating a leadership role
“Veterans Day is an American Holiday to honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice, of Veterans. This won’s stand! We reject this holiday” - CUAD
Mahmoud Khalil’s group
Instead of honoring our veterans they payed homage to the late Hezbollah chief terrorist Nasrallah"

Eyal Yakoby on X - "BREAKING: New photos reveal that on Veterans Day, Mahmoud Khalil trespassed onto Columbia’s campus—not to honor U.S. veterans, but to glorify Hamas terrorists. If he despises our veterans but celebrates fallen Hamas terrorists, why is he here?"

Daniel Greenfield - "Hang Together or Separately" on X - "This is Mahmoud Khalil's group which officially endorses terrorism against Jews "it explained how solidarity was essential with members of the so-called Axis of Resistance — which includes Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas" every Dem rallying for Khalil supports terrorism"

Eitan Fischberger on X - "There's footage of Mahmoud Khalil engaging in criminal activity just last week, when he helped take over a Barnard College academic building that was then littered with terrorist propaganda. Don't let them gaslight you into silence"

Elliot Kaufman on X - "I’m glad that the Mahmoud Khalil debate is bringing out the larger truth about the Columbia protest encampment. It was not pro-peace or anti-war, as much of the media represented it. It was led and organized by supporters of Hamas, who celebrate Oct. 7."

Thread by @ryanmauro on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "🚨🚨🚨🚨 🧵🧵🧵🧵 BREAKING: Smoking guns prove Mahmoud Khalil posed terror threat (Please RT!) Khalil's group sought to incite a Oct 7 repeat on U.S. soil! Wanted help from violent extremists abroad. Component of his group declared itself to be a LITERAL part of Hamas! (below) Khalil's group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), was one of over 150 pro-terrorism groups I identified in my study - the largest ever done of the protests - that came out in October
Here, Khalil's group states it is "fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization" It asks for help from violent extremists abroad to help them fight the U.S.: "we seek...instructions from militants in the Global South." The post's slides exalt a violent Islamist uprising in Bangladesh, so his group is obviously not referring to non-violence. Khalil's group tells those engaged in the "intifada" "American imperialism" in the West to replicate the Oct 7 attacks & violent uprising in Bangladesh. His group urges "battling fascist agitators by dismantling state infrastructure" & "confronting military & police en masse." Khalil's group says "we" in America must be killed, jailed, tortured & targeted in order to "genuinely threaten the state" as part of the Global Intifada. "If we want to achieve liberation in America, we must be prepared to make these same sacrifices" seen in Bangladesh. Khalil's group says "the only way to respond to state repression" is to storm prisons & release prisoners and burn down prisons, government offices and state vehicles (like police cars). It describes itself as part of an insurgency in the U.S. "until the empire crumbles" and must learn from violent extremists in Bangladesh that overthrew the government. Khalil's group refers to itself as "the militants of Hind's Hall" and says it is inspired by Hamas, PFLP, etc. It pledges to "continue our fight for Palestine from within the belly of the beast" (America). Khalil's group says it intends to get guidance from its Bangladeshi "comrades" who violently overthrew the government as part of their shared "Global Intifada" Jamaat-e-Islami is the Islamist extremist group largely behind the Bangladeshi uprising Khalil so admires. The group has been linked to Hamas and is described as Southeast Asia's counterpart to the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas's parent org). Khalil's group vowed to "shut down" Columbia University unless it ended the police presence on campus and severed all ties to the NYPD. I wonder why. Khalil's group frequently incites vandalism & property destruction. In this video, Khalil's group boasts about spraypainted graffiti on campus. Khalil's group idolizes terrorist Casey Goonan who committed arson in California. "Resistance is love," "Glory to all our martyrs" and flames surround the demand to "free Casey Goonan." Khalil's group expressed its "full support" for terrorist Casey Goonan and "all our comrades" it hoped to incite to "escalate" It seemingly threateningly said, "We will defend all those who resist." Khalil's group endorses Goonan's arsonist terrorism targeting campus & police property as a "rational action of targeting state infrastructure" The effort to equate American police with Israeli police is also an indirect call to attack them since Khalil's group and its allies support targeting Israeli police. This is part of a publicly acknowledged effort by the seditionist groups to merge their cause with a broader "insurgency" against law enforcement by exploiting issues surrounding race and police misconduct. The objective is to preserve & expand their infrastructure by joining the anti-police cause so it does not fade away when hating Israel becomes less of an issue. Khalil's group directly states its intention to "grow" the terrorist campaign against "state violence." The goal isn't to just destroy Israel. It's to "topple all institutions profiting from colonial, racial capitalism."
Here again, Khalil's group calls for a repeat of the October 7 attacks on U.S. soil. It says to "look to the tactics" of the "Palestinian resistance for inspired actions." It says to "rise" "like a flood." The reference to a "flood" would be unmistakable to his comrades: The October 7 attacks that Hamas named "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood." Khalil's group offers another example of an act of terrorism it wants to see repeated: An attempted firebombing of a federal building in Oakland.
Khalil's group also endorses these acts:
Firebombing a UC Berkeley cop car
Torching a campus building
Looting a campus supply building
Setting fire to a construction site on campus
Khalil's group also often refers to the U.S. as "Turtle Island," just like it refers to Israel as Palestine. TI is a reference to a Native American myth that the continent had that name before colonization. It's a refusal to recognize the U.S.'s right to exist & seek its elimination as a country. My latest report shows how 250 anti-Israel/"pro-Palestine" groups want the see the U.S. come to an end and condemn the Fourth of July holiday. Khalil's group also held an event with Samidoun, which the U.S. and Canadian governments have designated as a terrorist entity because it's a front for PFLP. PFLP is a Marxist terrorist group attached to Hamas's hip that took part in the 10-7 attacks. Khalil's group also has ties to the Chinese Communist Party through a CCP front called People's Forum. Columbia protestors went to People's Forum HQ, where they were told to riot, which they did a few hours later. Khalil's group is actually a coalition of 116 groups, the largest likely being the Columbia chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. SJP declared itself to be a LITERAL part of Hamas (and arguably other Oct 7 perpetrators like PFLP) after the atrocities happened. Almost no one noticed. I discussed it in my study here:
Why hasn't the Trump Administration been citing this evidence?...
Ilhan Omar's daughter was or is a "coordinator" for Kahlil's group, CUAD, and the Columbia chapter of SJP. As I mentioned, SJP declared itself to be a literal part of Hamas after Oct 7."
This doesn't mean Mahmoud Khalil was linked to any of this, of course, but naturally, if a swastika appears at a protest the left disapproves of, it means they are all Nazis

ثنا ابراهیمی | Sana Ebrahimi on X - "People tell me, “Oh, you support the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil? One day they’ll deport you too.” To that I say: If I ever become a supporter of terrorism, justify the deliberate murder of a 9-month-old and a 4-year-old by Hamas and call it “resistance,” disrupt schools by leading protests, and advocate for the destruction of Western civilization — not only should you deport me, but you should also keep me far away from any civilized society. And guess what? That day will never come, because I would never do that."

Will Chamberlain on X - "There's a terrible slippery slope involved with the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil The United States might start *gasp* deporting OTHER noncitizens who have violated the terms of their residency"

Mila Joy on X - "Mahmoud Khalil, dressed in a hoodie featuring Hamas spokesperson Abu Obaida, was seen inciting violence against Jews mere hours after disrupting a pro-Israel march in Hampstead, Quebec. He urged protesters to "destroy" and "explode the heads of Zionists.”"

Vivid.🇮🇱 on X - "Here is Mahmoud Khalil in New York, glorifying Hamas and leading hundreds of pro-Hamas, anti-American terrorists, shouting for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. Anyone who defends this idiot hates America, simple as that."

Thread by @Davidlederer6 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "“We’ve tried armed resistance, which is legitimate under international law, but Israel calls it terrorism” -Mahmoud Khalil
At a session where he indoctrinates students to join the pro terror group CUAD on campus. There shld be no more debate whether Khalil himself supports Hamas
This itself is just speech, however he led a group CUAD which blocked Jewish students from entering the lawn on campus, violently took over buildings, harassed and vilified me and my Jewish friends, and impeded academic studies. There is plenty of other support for terrorism from his group that is well documented, more viscous and militant. This is just one clip of Mahmoud speaking. I’m sure there are many others. In case some may think he is referring to “resistance” of the “occupation” his co-panelist makes clear in the same presentation that they are resisting the existence of a Jewish state. “The end goal is the end to the Zionist project, the full liberation of Palestine”"

Hillel Neuer on X - "Mahmoud Khalil, ringleader of pro-terrorist thugs @Columbia, was a political officer for UNRWA—which was defunded by bipartisan U.S. legislation last year over its complicity with terrorism. Khalil served UNRWA while it employed Hamas terror chief Fathi Sharif as head teacher."

Joel M. Petlin on X - "For those interested in a more detailed legal explanation, Mahmoud Khalil is also deportable for another reason:
Khalil is a spokesman for an organization that supports armed resistance by Hamas. That makes him deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B). That provision in the statute allows the deportation of even lawful permanent residents who are "representative[s]" of a "political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(aa)-(bb); see also id. at (B)(v) (“representative” defined as including “an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization.") Columbia University Apartheid Divestment (“CUAD”) supports armed resistance by Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization.
See Sharon Otterman, Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs Armed Resistance by Hamas, N.Y. Times (Oct. 9, 2024), https://nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/columbia-pro-palestinian-group-hamas.html…… (CUAD supports armed resistance by Hamas).
Mahmoud Khalil is a spokesman for CUAD. See https://columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/24/cuad-negotiators-leave-talks-as-shafiks-midnight-deadline-passes/………… (“Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia student on the CUAD negotiating team.”).
Too many intelligent people on this platform are misstating the law and the facts for political purposes. It's time to prioritize the law and student safety and support the deportation of those who violate both."

Charlie Kirk on X - "It's not widely known, but over HALF of Columba University's enrollment is now foreign students. Some of them are people like Mahmoud Khalil, who spent all his time agitating in support of Hamas terrorists. But if you dig deeper, the true story is even more appalling: Columbia is using the prestige of its elite undergraduate school to bring in thousands of mediocre foreigners who want a Columbia degree in computer science, engineering, or a similar field. Columbia admits them because they pay full-freight tuition, boosting their bottom line while glutting the American job market and lowering wages for STEM workers. Why are we letting one of America's premier universities become overwhelmingly foreign in order to fund bloated administrator paychecks? Don't take it from me, the internet is full of Columbia grads complaining about what's happened to their school:"

Guy Benson on X - "Outrage gap.
Right: US citizen Edan Alexander, who was forcibly abducted during the 10/7 bloodbath. He’s been held hostage by Hamas for more than 500 days.
Left: A Syrian national & non-US citizen who’s spent the last 18 months in America loudly supporting Edan’s kidnappers."

Dr. Maalouf ‏ on X - "So, Mahmoud Khalil, a self-proclaimed ‘Palestinian’ who was born in Syria but holds Algerian citizenship, moved to the US only in December 2022. During his first year in America, he found the love of his life, got married, and received a green card. He spent his entire 2 years in America agitating and organizing anti-American protests. It all seems a little odd, don’t you think?"

Cheryl E 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🎗️ on X - "According to multiple reports and open source sources, Mahmoud Khalil had requested in writing for legal assistance against deportation over a day before he was even arrested. How did he know? Who tipped him off and got him fully lawyered up before he was even detained? And why"
miha schwartzenberg on X - "That’s interesting. For a student to have 19 lawyers in a day and organized protests with printed tshirts and banners ready-to-go, sure seems like a “freedom of speech” trouble. 🤔"

Joo🎗️ on X - "“My husband was kidnapped from his home” “I demand his immediate release” “His disappearance has devastated our lives” “Every day without him is filled with uncertainty” Womp womp. Try 523 days in the tunnels of Mahmoud Khalil’s heroes."
Haviv Rettig Gur on X - "But your husband supports kidnapping people from their homes. And not just grown men. Three-year-old girls too. In fact, he’s spent much of the last 17 months running defense for the kidnappers, which is why he was detained. Glad to have cleared that up."

Contributor: Deporting Mahmoud Khalil wouldn't be unlawful - Los Angeles Times - "here is one thing media consumers probably don’t care a lot about: Whether a Syrian national and Algerian citizen who was the face of last year’s pro-Hamas Columbia University campus riots gets deported. Is it any wonder that only 31% of Americans told Gallup in the fall that they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media? By any metric, Khalil is a wildly unsympathetic figure. The New York Times described him as the “public face of protest against Israel” at Columbia. He acted as the lead negotiator for a pro-Hamas student group called Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which has referred to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, slaughter of Israelis as a “moral, military, and political victory” and asserted that it is fighting for nothing less than “the total eradication of Western civilization.” Even more relevant, Khalil is not a U.S. citizen. He is a green card holder, a “legal alien.” And he can remain on our soil only when the sovereign — in the U.S., that’s “We the People” — consents to it. When we remove our consent, that person can be deported. The power to exclude is a defining feature of what it means to be a sovereign. Emer de Vattel’s highly influential 1758 treatise, “The Law of Nations,” described this power as plenary: “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state.” And as the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted in a citation in a 2001 dissent, “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.” It’s quite simple, really: If someone in the U.S. on a tourist visa or in possession of a green card violates the terms of his admission, he can be removed. That brings us back to Khalil — a foreign national who allegedly violated the terms of his sojourn by supporting at least one U.S. State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization, and by making common cause with an organization clamoring more generally for the end of Western civilization. The day the United States loses the ability to deport noncitizens who espouse such toxic beliefs is the day the United States ceases to be a sovereign nation-state. The Khalil saga is where we see the intersection of the three toxic anti-Western ideologies. First, there is the “woke” angle: Khalil represented CUAD, which espouses a neo-Marxist oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, and its view of Israel as an “oppressor” underlies Khalil’s repugnant activism. Second, there is the Islamist angle: CUAD supports Sunni Islamist outfits such as Hamas. Third, there is the global neoliberal angle: Those protesting Khalil’s detention see little distinction between citizen and noncitizen — as in John Lennon’s dystopian song “Imagine,” they envision a borderless world. Khalil’s arrest and detention are thus only in part about Khalil. On Monday, the official X account for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats posted, alongside a corresponding photo, “Free Mahmoud Khalil.” But if those Senate Democrats and Khalil’s myriad other apologists are being honest, they seek not merely to “free” Khalil from President Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Rather, they seek to free him — and all of us — from the shackles of Western civilization itself."
Left wingers hate the US and want it destroyed, so that tracks

Aleph on X - "If I moved to China and joined an organization calling for the obliteration of Chinese culture I'd feel lucky to just be deported tbh"

Columbia graduate detained by Ice was respected British government employee - "A detained Columbia University graduate threatened with deportation after the Trump administration claimed he poses a risk to US foreign policy is a former employee of the British government who was extensively vetted before working at the embassy in Beirut... Andrew Waller, a former British diplomat who worked with Khalil at the UK office for Syria, a diplomatic mission housed inside the British embassy in Beirut, described Khalil as a thoughtful individual and highly valued colleague during his government service. “This is a naked example of the US administration arresting someone for their political opinions, and I think the British government should be exercised about this,” he said... Both Waller and Khalil’s lawyer, Samah Sisay, pointed to the extensive background checks and screening, including about his political views and those held by his family, that Khalil had been through in order to work for the British government, and then later to obtain a US green card... Waller described the “rigorous security clearance”, that Khalil was subject to before he began work for the British government at the embassy in Beirut"
Supporting terrorism and wanting to destroy Western civilization means you can get security clearance and work for the British Government

Should the arrest and looming deportation of a pro Palestinian immigrant (green cardholder) worry Americans? : r/ask - "Mahmoud Khalil is allegedly a senior member or activist in the Colombia University Apartheid Divest. If you look at their official Substack (I actually made an account 10 seconds ago to do this lol) they very clearly support Hamas and terrorism. There are articles calling the October 7th massacre heroic and I found several mourning the death of a high level Hamas leader and calling him a martyr. So Khalil is being deleted for supporting a terrorist organization, which is completely legal."

Thread by @ShirionOrg on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "$386,456. While you work. While you struggle. While you pay taxes. He gets a check for HATING this country. Not for the soldier who came home in a flag draped coffin. Not for the veterans who fought for this country. For the guy who would spit on that coffin and laugh. For the man who cheers for the ones who want it destroyed. You grind every day. You sacrifice. You obey the law. He gets a six-figure payday for backing terrorists. And we are supposed to sit back and accept it? If that doesn’t make you absolutely furious, nothing will.
$400,700 in cash. Remember this is ALREADY in a bank account. They send the money every single day.
Legal or illegal? Connection to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Anti-Terrorism Laws Under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, it is illegal to provide material support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). If Khalil has any financial or operational ties to Hamas, the U.S. government could seize these funds under terrorism financing laws. The Treasury Department’s OFAC has the power to freeze assets if there is reason to believe they are being use..even indirectly to help support a terrorist groups cause. Even if the money is for personal use, Khalil’s known support for Hamas could trigger asset forfeiture and additional charges under anti-terrorism financing statutes. Here is where this gets interesting when tied to "Immigration & Removal Consequences" Khalil is already in DHS/ICE custody on immigration-related charges. If ICE determines that he received foreign financial support while promoting an FTO’s agenda, it could lead to
Accelerated deportation based on national security concerns
A permanent bar from re-entering the U.S ever again.
While foreign nationals can legally donate to his fundraiser, if ICE or Treasury links any part of these funds to terrorism-related activities, including the protests, they can seize them and use it as FURTHER evidence against him in removal proceedings. That being said..most likely he will keep these funds as it's probably in his wife's name\bank. And the Lawyers are being paid by a foreign state. They don't cost him a cent."

Nick Sortor on X - "🚨 #BREAKING: ICE has ARRESTED another pro-Hamas rioter from Columbia University for immigration violations, Secretary Kristi Noem has announced GOOD! Send them ALL back! The rioter, Leqaa Kordia, is being deported back to Palestine a year after being arrested by NYPD for participating in the Columbia University riots, but was released. She already had her visa revoked TWICE for failing to attend classes, but Biden let her stay away. “It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America. When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country,” @KristiNoem said in a statement."

End Wokeness on X - "NEW: Columbia rioter Ranjani Srinivasan self deported after her student visa was revoked"

Links - 15th March 2025 (Climate Change)

Off Target: The Economics Literature Does Not Support the 1.5°C Climate Ceiling - "It is widely but mistakenly believed that the SR1.5 recommended the 1.5°C target on the basis that it was needed to avoid large net economic and social losses. But in fact the report specifically eschewed cost-benefit analysis, and made no assertions about what such an analysis would conclude. For the most part, the IPCC simply tried to compare the model-projected impacts of a 2.0°C warming to that of 1.5°C, and not surprisingly concluded that the former would be larger. In this report, we argue that pursuit of the 1.5°C ceiling on global warming is incompatible with mainstream economic analysis. Indeed the 1.5°C goal did not arise from the economics literature or from formal cost-benefit analysis. The SR1.5 simply took the goal as given externally. Our report provides several lines of argument to show that the economics literature as a whole does not support the 1.5°C target. For example, on the same weekend that the UN released its Special Report, William Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change. Major media treated the two events as complementary, assuming Nordhaus’ work supported the 1.5°C goal. Yet, on the contrary, his then most recent (2016) modeling work projected that the “optimal” global warming by the year 2100 would be 3.5°C, a full two degrees higher than the popular target. In fact, Nordhaus’ model estimated that a 1.5°C ceiling would be so harmful to the economy that it would be better for humanity if governments did nothing at all about climate change rather than pursue such a draconian policy. Or, consider the “social cost of carbon,” which economists define as the present value in dollar terms of future damages caused by the emission of an additional metric tonne of carbon dioxide. The Biden Administration’s EPA in February 2021 estimated the social cost of carbon for the year 2030 at US$62. Yet, the SR1.5 admitted that the policies it detailed for achieving the 1.5°C goal would only be justified for a social cost of carbon in 2030 ranging from $135 to $5,500 per ton, costs that are 2 to 89 times the EPA’s estimate. The SR1.5 in many respects represented a departure from views the IPCC had expressed in its 2014 Fifth Assessment Report about the economic effects of climate change. We show that the UN chose a very different team of authors for the SR1.5... the UN Special Report based its reversal of the earlier consensus largely on the basis of two new studies that asserted a much larger drag on economic growth from climate change compared to that found in many previous studies. In doing so, the SR1.5 overlooked other new studies that had upheld the earlier consensus. The two new studies have, in the years since the Special Report, been criticized on methodological grounds, and other authors have not confirmed their findings. Although advocacy of aggressive climate-change policies is often draped with the mantle of science, mainstream economists who follow the scientific literature have shown that the popular 1.5°C policy target will pose costs that far exceed the benefits, and that the emission reductions flowing from strict adherence to the 1.5°C target would be worse for the world than doing nothing at all."
In other words, it's more costly to do too much to fight climate change than do nothing at all

Starmer to ban gas boilers and force developers to install heat pumps - "The National Audit Office warned efforts to encourage homes to install the pumps have been slow with people reluctant to spend four times more than on a gas boiler... The plans form part of a mission to cut carbon emissions across all new homes by up to 80 per cent - but there have been concerns over whether enough new heat pumps can be supplied to meet targets. Sir Keir's government has also pledged to build 300,000 new homes per year... He also raised fears over the capacity of the National Grid if put under extra pressure to serve heat pumps... A study published last month found that British homeowners are being put off installing environmentally-friendly heat pumps by the high cost which has not reduced over the past decade... Advocates of heat pumps say they offer energy security and efficiency benefits and can also lower energy bills. But homeowners who have installed the systems have complained that their monthly bills skyrocketed during the energy crisis."
Clearly, developers need to suck it up and install heat pumps and not pass on the costs to customers, or they are greedy

Oil and gas a 'gift from God', Azerbaijan tells Starmer at COP29 - "The COP29 summit was at risk of descending into shambles today as the host hailed oil and gas as a 'gift from God'. In his opening address, Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev insisted countries should not be embarrassed about selling fossil fuels. The extraordinary comments came as Keir Starmer used the gathering to commit the UK to a massive cut in carbon emissions. The PM confirmed the eye-watering target of slashing 81 per cent off emissions by 2035, compared to 1990 levels. He used a press conference at the Baku summit - snubbed by many world leaders but attended by the Taliban - to deny he will need to tell Brits 'how to live' in order to meet the ambitious goal... Sir Keir is one of the only premiers from the wealthiest nations in Azerbaijan for the annual gathering... Senior figures from the EU and China are also absent from what is feared will be yet another talking shop that achieves little or nothing in the way of concrete action. French president Emmanuel Macron, German chancellor Olaf Scholz, and EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen are all staying at home. The only other G7 leader taking part in the summit is Italy's Giorgia Meloni... Sir Keir said earlier that achieving Net Zero power by 2030 would 'lower bills for people, for their energy it'll give them independence, so that tyrants like (Vladimir) Putin can't put his boot on our throat, causing all sorts of difficulties for our energy bills'."
Left wing logic - banning gas boilers is not telling people how to live
They can still fall back on blaming greedy companies when power bills rise

COP29 carbon credit debate sparks backlash from activists - "At COP29 summit in Baku, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was criticised by climate justice groups. They are sounding the alarm, warning that this approach lets the world’s biggest polluters off the hook. Instead of cutting emissions at the source, they can simply buy credits, allowing them to continue polluting without making meaningful changes, they say. Outside the venue, campaigners used visual displays to amplify their messages, including a ‘Pay Up’ banner in a nearby stadium calling for the richest countries to shoulder their responsibilities and contribute their fair share to funding the fight against climate change"
Climate change hysteria is not about preventing climate change, but self-flagellation and virtue signalling. This is also why they hate nuclear power - disrupting society and inflicting misery is a feature, not a bug. Not to mention all the free money

We're at a climate-policy turning point - "Climate alarmism is facing daunting scientific, economic and political challenges to its credibility with the public and its influence on government policy in Europe, the United States and Canada. It may finally have reached an historic turning point. The public is constantly warned about a dangerous surge in warming since the late 1970s due to increased man-made GHG emissions. But a recent peer-reviewed article by five academicians with expertise in oceanography, mathematics and statistics contradicts that conventional wisdom. They find no statistically significant change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s — even though emissions have risen 121 per cent since then, from 24 billion metric tonnes in 1970 to 53 billion in 2023. They are not alone. John F. Clauser, 2022 winner of the Nobel Prize for physics, is one of 1,960 scientists and professionals from around the world, including 146 Canadians, who have signed the Clintel World Climate Declaration, whose central message is that there is no climate emergency. These results pose two basic challenges to the core beliefs of climate alarmists. If warming has not accelerated in the past half century, where is the crisis? And if a doubling of GHG emissions is supposed to directly impact temperatures, why have temperatures not shot up? The latter question also applies to the 1970’s, when go-to experts and the mainstream media were hyperventilating about a return to an Ice Age, though GHG emissions had doubled in the previous 30 years. Meanwhile, European economic growth has stalled, in large part due to the high cost of energy, which makes industry uncompetitive and drives energy-dependent companies to the United States. Germany, now the sick man of Europe, is de-industrializing, a direct result of former chancellor Angela Merkel’s reckless abandonment of nuclear energy and her country’s consequent reliance on Russian gas. The German automotive sector is also in crisis, the loser in a failed bet on EVs. Tellingly, the issue of climate change has been virtually absent from the American presidential campaign, even though the two candidates have opposing views on the subject. Donald Trump has made some headway condemning Kamala Harris for senseless green policies that damage the economy and hurt American workers. The one climate issue that has been high-profile is fracking. In a dramatic reversal from her position in 2019, Harris now supports it, which is important in Pennsylvania, a state crucial to her election chances. If she wins, she will back subsidies for renewables and discourage fossil fuel development. If Trump wins, it will be “Drill, baby, drill,” a rejection of climate alarmism and a retreat from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, all of which would reverberate globally. Although most Canadians claim to be concerned about global warming, it is no longer high on their priority list and they were never prepared to pay much to deal with it, in any case. Axing Ottawa’s key climate policy, the carbon tax, has become a powerful vote-winner for Conservatives across the country. Ontario Minister of Energy and Electrification Stephen Lecce has come out in favour of every source of energy to produce electricity, including nuclear for base load and natural gas to back up wind and solar. Without gas, the province would suffer from brownouts and blackouts, ballooning costs and an uncompetitive industrial sector. Despite all this, Canadian politicians are not yet ready to acknowledge publicly three increasingly evident realities that contradict climate orthodoxy: Net zero is unattainable without devastating economic and social costs — and may be unattainable, period. Canada cannot on its own make a discernible difference to the global climate. And, therefore, climate policies are mainly an extremely expensive form of virtue-signalling... A new Conservative government should focus on adaptation and research, which are effective and affordable ways to deal with extreme weather and moderately rising temperatures... the time is coming when common sense and rationality re-emerge — first gradually and then probably suddenly. One day we will look back with deep regret and wonder how collective madness captured the Western world and caused it to sacrifice hundreds of trillions of dollars to a false idol."

Opinion: Not zero — global fossil fuel use is still rising - "According to the International Energy Agency, between 2015 and 2023 alone, governments and industry spent US$12.3 trillion (in $2023) worldwide on clean energy. That’s over six times the value of the entire Canadian economy in 2023. Despite this spending, between 1995 and 2023 global fossil fuels consumption increased by 62 per cent, with oil consumption rising 38 per cent, coal 66 per cent and natural gas 90 per cent. And despite the trillions spent on alternatives, the share of global energy provided by fossil fuels declined by only four percentage points, from 85.6 per cent to 81.5 per cent. That’s not really a surprise. Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades. According to a recent study by eminent scholar Vaclav Smil, the first global energy transition — from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels — started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about seven per cent of the world’s energy supply as of 2020. Coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around 1900. It took more than 150 years from oil’s first commercial extraction for it to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide. Natural gas didn’t reach this threshold until the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of development. Now consider the current push by governments to force an energy transition via regulation and spending. In Canada, the Trudeau government has set a target to fully decarbonize electricity generation by 2035 so that all electricity is derived from renewable power sources such as wind and solar. But merely replacing Canada’s existing fossil fuel-based electricity with clean energy sources within the next decade would require building the equivalent of 23 major hydro projects (like British Columbia’s Site C) or 2.3 large-scale nuclear power plants (like Ontario’s Bruce Power). The planning and construction of significant electricity generation infrastructure in Canada is, to say the least, a complex and time-consuming process, often plagued by delays, regulatory hurdles and substantial cost overruns. The Site C project took around 43 years from initial feasibility studies in 1971 to environmental certification in 2014. Construction began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of at least $16 billion. Similarly, Ontario’s Bruce Power plant took nearly two decades to complete, with billions of dollars in cost overruns. Given these immense practical, financial and regulatory challenges, achieving the government’s 2035 target is highly unlikely. As politicians have attended one high-profile conference after another and set ambitious targets for a swift energy transition, global reliance on fossil fuels has only increased. As things stand, achieving net-zero by 2050 looks impossible."
Clearly, they aren't spending enough, and the cost needs to be absorbed by greedy companies, since everyone knows that renewables are the cheapest form of energy

Terry Newman: Trudeau to Canada — starve your kids for climate change - "Whatever your opinions are on climate change and the carbon tax, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the least convincing, worst imaginable representative for these (or any other) causes. Trudeau hopped on a plane to fly 8,280 km to take the stage at the Global Citizen Now Event at the G20 Leaders’ Summit Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to lecture the audience and Canadians about our country’s role in saving the entire planet. He opened by insisting it is morally selfish to put food and lodging concerns above contributions to the carbon tax. He told the audience: “It’s really, really easy when you’re in a short-term survive, I gotta be able to pay the rent this month, I’ve gotta be able to buy groceries for my kids, to say, OK, let’s put climate change as a slightly lower priority.” Then, as if he were a proud undergrad reciting textbook material, he mentions Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but then doesn’t address these very real practical concerns... This is smug and fresh coming from the son of a former prime minister, someone who has never had to worry about money a day in his life. More to the point, how does someone save the planet when they’re struggling to pay their mortgage and feed their kids? Trudeau also made the nonsensical claim that women are the most vulnerable to climate change, paying the heaviest price in terms of “economics, quality of life, and even their lives.” How could climate change affect a woman and not her father, husband, and sons? Are tidal waves and droughts targeting women, while parting like the Red Sea to avoid male family members? Is there an all female island out there, with ancient Amazonian women, particularly susceptible to climate change?... what does Trudeau think struggling Canadians worried about paying for rent and groceries will use carbon tax rebate cheques for? Why, “insulating their homes” and “taking their bike more often,” of course. Trudeau ends by suggesting that Canadians fears and anxieties are being played on in order to manipulate them into feeling powerless, suggesting he is the leader who treats Canadians like “thoughtful active agents of change” who are “not just blind consumers of politics and propaganda,” and that he is not the one pitting people against each other. No comment. Despite all of this, Trudeau said he was hopeful about the next election and his climate policies, suggesting it’s because he speaks with young people. If he does, he’s speaking with only select environmentalists and activists because young people have made it very clear that they are in survival mode. Ultimately, Justin Trudeau does not understand that a successful approach to climate change or a carbon tax would have to be affordable for all Canadians, without differential treatment. Canadians would have to believe it actually had an affect on climate change. They would have to trust whomever was promoting it and all information about its economic and environmental benefits would have to be transparent. While a noble thought, Canada and its taxpayers are not personally responsible for saving the planet. Its citizens know full well that many countries will never give up on fossil fuels. Trudeau knows this, too. Why is he trying to deceive Canadians, putting the responsibility on our wallets and at our doorsteps?"

The impending implosion of Trudeau's 'win-win-win' EV battery deal - "Whirl with me back in time all the way to September 2023, when the federal and Quebec governments announced that they would be partnering with Swedish battery maker Northvolt to plunge headlong into the bright green future. Canada and Quebec would be laying out about $2.7 billion in capital, and more in downstream subsidies, to facilitate the construction of a vast, hypermodern battery plant in the province’s hinterland to help meet the world’s unlimited appetite for electric vehicles, creating thousands of jobs and contributing to global environmental health. “It’s a win-win-win — for workers, for communities, and for the environment,” trumpeted the prime minister. What could go wrong? Ominous signs began to appear in September of this year, as the Financial Post remarked, while politicians offered reassurance. Northvolt’s balance sheet had turned out to be crawling with tulipomaniac investments and discouraged customers, and the political will behind Europe’s fast-forward transition away from internal combustion vehicles was beginning to sag. Soon, amid news of bailout talks among owners and creditors of Northvolt, the company slowed construction timelines on a heavily subsidized German factory like the one now being assembled in Quebec. This added to political problems for a German coalition government that has since gone kablooie. Bargaining over a private cash injection for Northvolt has now entered a murky phase... Northvolt is considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States and that one major investor has already written the value of the company down to zero. Reuters added insult to injury Monday with an exclusive on Northvolt’s chronic failures to meet internal production targets. The good news is that the federal government’s subsidies to the factory were contingent on the factory coming onstream, which was originally supposed to happen in late 2026, and Quebec has only paid out about a third or so of the $1.4 billion it promised. The bad news, as the Globe and Mail reported Tuesday morning, is that Ontario pension plans and Quebec’s Caisse de dépôt have a lot of capital tied up in Northvolt — nobody’s saying exactly how much — and there is little certainty about where those investors stand in the event of a bankruptcy filing. The Quebec factory is itself undergoing “strategic review” by Northvolt management, and of course might end up still being finished, on some timeline, by some owner or other. But Trudeau’s “win-win-win” is definitely looking shaky for all three of the enchanted victors from long-ago 2023, when nobody could possibly have seen any of this chaos coming."
Only capitalism could lead to electric vehicle companies going bankrupt though electric cars are the future! Greedy companies are more evil than they're greedy, which is why they're willing to go bankrupt to thwart the green transition

'Net zero’ greenhouse gas emission targets ‘wishful thinking’: report - "In reality, he says, the emission cuts called for by the UN by 2030 could only be achieved by “an unprecedented economic collapse … during the next seven years.”... the share of fossil fuels used to power the world’s primary energy supply has decreased by only 4%, from 86% in 1997 to 82% in 2022... promises of net zero emissions by 2050 — 26 years from now — are based on overly optimistic predictions of the time it will take for technological advancements to reduce emissions and the fact that even when peak emissions are finally achieved, the move away from fossil fuel energy will be slow and complex. As one example, he notes that, “estimates provided by the International Energy Agency indicate that, compared to 2020, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles by 2040 will require over 40 times more lithium and up to 25 times more cobalt, nickel, and graphite, with more of these materials needed for new wind turbines, PV cells, transmission lines, and large storage batteries. “Concerns arise due to the substantial time required to identify potential mining sites and develop the actual mines. The time required, assuming such scale is even possible, poses serious questions about the adequacies of potential mineral and metal production.” Smil estimates the economic costs of achieving net zero emissions in high-income countries such as Canada would be at least 20% of GDP, “posing significant economic challenges.” It would also require unprecedented international co-operation among global economic and geo-political competitors, including China, the world’s largest emitter which burns more than half of the world’s coal, the United States which is the world’s second-largest emitter, and Russia, the fourth-largest emitter, which depends on its fossil fuel exports for economic stability."

Cleaning after solar panels: applying a circular outlook to clean energy research - "In this paper, we study the link between renewable technology adoption and the resulting waste, drawing parallels from our experience with the WEEE Directive to suggest policy recommendations and highlight future research directions. Our ideas are driven by the observation that the sharp reduction in solar panel installation costs along with improvements in their energy conversion efficiency has driven a rapid growth in the adoption of this technology. We note a potential caveat to such rapid growth in adoption: existing installations being retired earlier than their projected 30-year lifetime. In this context, we build a model of the technology adoption and replacement behaviour of solar panel end-users. We conduct a numerical analysis to calculate the solar panel replacement incentives of US residential households, and project the resulting waste from residential panels. We find that annual new waste introduced into the market can exceed the volume of new installations within the next decade, which can more than double the levelized cost of energy for solar generation and jeopardise the cost competitiveness of this technology in the foreseeable future. These observations reflect the importance of a circular economy outlook in renewable energy system design and call for further research in this area."
Weird. Solar energy promoters tell us that solar cells have a super long lifespan, even longer than advertised. As usual they ignore systems costs in order to missell their agenda

Labour has just let slip the true cost of net zero - "Les jeux sont faits, Ed Miliband. The chips are down, the game is up. We knew Labour was no closer to solving the energy trilemma than scientists are to explaining dark matter. That, for now, we cannot have net-zero emissions, security of supply and affordability. We knew that using public money to import gas to manufacture CO2 was less a display of moral leadership on climate change than it was brazen hypocrisy. Perhaps most importantly, we knew that the pursuit of net-zero policies, regardless of cost, would impact our lives in ways the gentleman in Whitehall could not possibly foresee. It already is, as anyone who has driven into a clean air zone can attest. Yet the ruling class insisted on living in some alternate reality where there were no trade-offs; just cheap, abundant, secure renewables. So we should thank Bill Esterson, Labour chair of the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, for letting the cat out of the bag. “We will all have to change our lives” if we are to decarbonise the grid by 2030, he has just admitted. Keir Starmer is offering no such candour; at Cop29, the climate jamboree many world leaders had the good sense to snub, the Prime Minister not only set us another target (an 81 per cent reduction in emissions by 2035), but peddled the line that he “won’t be telling people how to behave”. This will surely only be true in the most literal sense. Impose congestion charges in British cities, and people might be forced to travel by other means, or not at all. Foist mandates on car manufacturers to sell a certain number of EVs on penalty of hefty fines, and they may be forced to cut sales of petrol vehicles, pushing prices up and consumers out. Introduce green levies on energy bills – they now make up 16 per cent of electricity bills – and households will have to cut spending elsewhere. Did the Government “tell” us to change our behaviour? No, it just left us with no alternative. And we are only in the foothills of the transition. Yes, the UK last year became the first country to halve its emissions since 1990 – a milestone about which the eco-zealots remained surprisingly quiet. But this was achieved by accelerating existing trends, such as abandoning much domestic production, and we could rely on renewables because fossil fuels were there to provide baseload power. The next half will be far more painful – though the climate cult will likely dismiss such concerns, insisting that clean energy sources are low cost and jobs will be provided aplenty. Clearly, when wind turbines are running the marginal cost of energy produced is close to zero, whilst energy produced by gas has a positive marginal cost because we have to purchase the fuel. But gas-fired power stations are easy to build and link to the grid. Wind turbines, on the other hand, are costly to install and maintain, especially offshore. They don’t have a long life, are in places far from population centres, and are expensive to link to the grid. They also need backup when the wind doesn’t blow, or if it blows too hard. But these issues are hidden by government subsidy and delusional eco-hype... the country that birthed the industrial revolution, and created the oil refineries and steelworks that transformed people’s lives, now has the world’s highest electricity prices – and only the ghost of an industrial sector. Some 199 years ago, the first steam locomotive carried passengers in the North East. Why did this breakthrough happen on our small island? For the same reason we pioneered large factories, mass electrification and gas for cooking: because we had cheap energy. No country in the world has ever prospered without it. That Labour fails to accept this is as alarming as its belief you can grow an economy by lavishing money on the public sector. It is making us poorer by the day, telling us we’re imagining it – and then giving an exasperated sigh when we complain. “The clean energy transition is unstoppable,” said the fanatical Miliband yesterday, as Vauxhall announced the closure of its Luton factory. “Unstoppable because clean energy is the route to energy security. Unstoppable because it is the economic opportunity of our time.” A noble lie is still a lie."

Kerry suggests Africans without electricity must pick 'the right kinds of electricity'
He must think they are really naive

Council sparks fury after pledging $22,000 to coal protesters - "The City of Sydney pledged to donate $22,000 of taxpayers' funds to the Rising Tide group 'to use on whatever they choose' at a meeting on Monday night. It came just hours after the group disrupted the shipping channel into the world's largest coal port in Newcastle Harbour, north of Sydney, on Sunday... 'We have food relief centres and homeless shelters with lines out the door, and we give money to a fringe climate change action group because it 'feels good'... Labor councillors Zann Maxwell and Mitch Wilson backed the donation in response to the decision last week by the Minns government to increase penalties for protesters who disrupt law-abiding citizens by blocking railways and trains. Mr Maxwell said the laws increasing penalties were 'rushed through parliament without community consultation'. 'They infringe upon basic liberties and protections expected in our democratic society,' Mr Maxwell said."
Blackmail is great when it pushes the left wing agenda. Good luck if "far right" protesters block railways, trains and ports

'Tyre slasher' allegedly deflates tyres in Woodlands carparks, arrested for being public nuisance - "The police have arrested a 23-year-old man for allegedly committing mischief to vehicles.  This came after a car owner found all four of her vehicle’s tyres deflated at a multi-storey carpark in Woodlands... the suspect is a 23-year-old NUS student named Benjamin Chia Yit Loong.  Between 10am and 12pm on 19 Nov, he allegedly deflated tyres of five cars and placed flyers on the vehicles’ windscreens... The content of the flyer suggests that the tyre slashings were carried out by a climate activist group that is against the use of sport utility vehicles (SUVs).  As per the flyer, the climate activist group responsible for the act is known as ‘The Tire Extinguishers’.  Its page suggests that they are an international activist group that encourages people to deflate tyres on SUVs... For being a public nuisance, Chia faces a jail term of up to three months, a fine of up to S$2,000, or both"
When you pick the wrong country for climate change hysteria terrorism