Links - 2nd August 2025 (2 - General Wokeness)

Canadian universities have an Islamist problem - "In what was once considered an inconceivable scenario, a London-based law firm acting on behalf of Hamas submitted a legal challenge to the U.K. Home Office demanding its removal from the British government’s list of proscribed terrorist groups. The case has a Canadian connection, too: Charlotte Kates, co-founder of the Vancouver-based terror group Samidoun, contributed an “expert report” as part of the legal challenge “against the criminalization of Palestinian resistance in Britain.” Many in Canada’s top universities share a similarly worrying, warped school of thought: organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban have been unfairly classified as terrorist entities by western colonial systems and laws that are riddled with racism and “Islamophobia” (a popular grift of Islamist groups in the West to silence and punish critics and to evade legitimate scrutiny). Influential figures within faculty departments, student unions and diversity, equity and inclusion offices are not just excusing but actively promoting extremist ideologies, including radical Islam and support for terrorism. Cloaked in the language of academic freedom, social justice and human rights, they are jointly funding studies and platforming individuals who condone terrorism as a legitimate act of resistance and undermining the critical work performed by Canada’s national security agencies with accusations of bigotry. The Toronto Metropolitan University’s arts faculty is one such example. The faculty recently funded a research paper, which argues that the process of designating Islamist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS as terrorist organizations by Canada’s security apparatus is deeply flawed because of “systemic Islamophobia” and racism. Titled “Racialized Knowledges: Understanding the Construction of the Muslim “Terrorist” in the Policy Process,” the paper discusses how “policymakers rely on white logic to depict state institutions as neutral, obscuring their inherent anti-Muslim orientation.” It also claims that Canadian security agencies “maintain the association of ‘terrorism’ with Muslims,” regardless of who commits the violent act. For context, roughly 70 per cent of all listed terrorist groups in Canada are explicitly of the Islamist variety. In another case of terrorism whitewashing, the University of Toronto’s Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies hosted a seminar in February titled, “Silenced Voices: The Impact of Terrorism Designations on Palestinian Advocacy in Canada.” The event’s organizers argued that Canadian media coverage and political discourse unfairly portray pro-Palestine activists in a poor light, using “framing techniques that align with criminalizing narratives, often using labels such as ‘terrorism’ and ‘violence’ to delegitimize Palestinian voices.” The keynote speaker was Basema Al-Alami, a PhD candidate at U of T’s law school. According to her university bio, Al-Alami’s research focuses on “the intersection of counterterrorism, entrapment law and anti-Muslim bias in Canada’s legal system.” Her PhD research alleges “systemic issues in national security practices, particularly the litigation and over-policing of Muslims in post-9/11 Canada.” In another example from earlier this year, the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies invited Nada Elia, a Palestinian-American professor at Western Washington University, to give a talk on “Weaponizing Feminism in the Service of Genocide.” In an article titled “Weaponzing Rape,” Prof. Elia argued that, “Israel is weaponizing claims of sexual violence for propaganda purposes,” and that there is “no reliable evidence to document any of the alleged crimes.” According to the watchdog group Canary Mission, she has previously “defended terrorists and called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel.” It is clear that Islamists, empowered by the cover of progressive activism on campuses, are waging a calculated campaign to erode the core values of western democracy. Their campaign goes far beyond dissent or protest — it is ideological jihad aimed at infiltrating educational institutions, weakening our legal foundations, distorting our security interests and disrupting our cultural, social and political stability from within. The fallout from normalizing violence on university campuses is already visible, but a deeper danger lies ahead: when universities allow extremist ideologies to take root, they risk shaping a generation of graduates who no longer see terrorism as a crime, but as a justifiable form of resistance. This radical shift in young minds carries grave consequences — not only for the Jewish community, but for the security, unity and the democratic fabric of Canada itself. With the Israel-Hamas war reviving the spectre of jihadist terrorism and ramping up youth recruitment in Canada, universities should not be platforming voices and ideologies that undermine our security and unity, priorities that Prime Minister Mark Carney alluded to in his post-election victory speech. Governments must seek accountability from university bosses to protect the integrity of our education system and restore trust in our institutions. The unconscionable attempt by young, indoctrinated barristers to get Hamas removed from the U.K. terror list is a consequence of the years-long infiltration of Islamist ideology into the British education system. With the Trump administration demanding that Ottawa do more on the continental-security file, Canada can ill-afford to end up in a similar situation."
Denouncing terrorists is racist and Islamophobic, but calls for Jews to be massacred are just academic freedom and freedom of speech

Christopher Dummitt: How Canadian universities can avoid the American dumpster fire of de-woking - "institutions of higher learning in the United States (as in Canada) are politicized. They make for good targets for Trump’s populist anti-elite ethos not only because they are elite universities, but also because they have advertised themselves as such, and have acted as places of left-wing social justice activism... what can we do to avoid the American dumpster fire? The good news is that some universities seem to be getting the message. Over the last couple of years, several Canadian universities have announced policies of institutional neutrality . While individual faculty can speak politically, some universities have announced that they will be politically neutral. This is fine, as far as it goes. But it’s far from enough. The leftist tilt at universities goes much deeper than public pronouncements. It can be seen in everything from who is hired, and who isn’t; which subjects get funding, and which do not; and which types of diversity issues get treated as problems, and which are ignored. On this, there is no sign that any university is seriously looking at the now long-term trend of decreasing male enrollments in higher education. The reality is that most Canadian universities continue to act as institutions of leftist activism in ways that will require more than just institutional neutrality statements to unravel. Large segments of the university world — though by no means all — emphasize their role as activists. They celebrate it. The Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences that met in Toronto last week, brought together researchers from all over the country. As part of their program, they hosted a “ Big Thinking ” series to highlight what the Congress thought of as the most important research. Every single one of the “Big Thinking” events — the sessions that the Congress wants the public to know about — were focused on topics including wildfires and climate change , “ benefits and challenges” of implementing DEI in post-secondary research , and far-right (but not far-left) extremism. There was no ideological diversity in these sessions — no sense that there could be anything other than a leftist-version of what counted as “justice.” The more than 41 per cent of the Canadian population who voted Conservative in the last election would not have seen their ideas of justice represented anywhere in these discussions. Some universities have whole departments focused on social justice — and again, here, the notion of what is justice is politically-slanted. Job advertisements continue to call on candidates to demonstrate their commitment to DEI and social justice. These are political litmus tests — though universities act as if they are politically-neutral. This is what happens in politically-lopsided institutions. People come to see their own beliefs as simply normal and neutral. A recent open-letter from over 200 Canadian professors called out this sort of taken-for-granted activism by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). The letter noted CAUT’s activist tilt on issues from Israel to DEI, and also the bizarre choice of the organization to announce a travel advisory for researchers going to the United States. CAUT has announced no travel warning for any other country — not to war-torn Ukraine or the Sudan, nor has it warned of authoritarian surveillance, even in countries like China or Russia... If you sell yourself as a political institution — committed to highly politicized versions of social justice — and then populate yourself with only those from one political persuasion, you’d have to be crazy for thinking that those who come from the other side of the political spectrum won’t consider that you are exactly what you claim to be: and then act accordingly. A dystopian vision of what this could lead to is currently on display in Trump’s America. Maybe we could act now before it comes to this in Canada too?"

Apologizing for slavery would be a distortion of history - "One of the first petitions to Canada’s new Parliament has landed, and the topic is slavery. Endorsed by Gord Johns, an MP from British Columbia who managed to survive the recent NDP annihilation, it demands an apology to Black-Canadians from the Government of Canada... The institution of slavery was not brought to the New World with the arrival of the European settlers. Slavery had been practised since time immemorial over most of North and South America... the English conquerors also imported the philosophy of abolition, then starting to make headway in England and its colonies... There is, however, one blot on Canada’s record in the struggle for emancipation. Slavery was a widespread practice on the West Coast, from California to Alaska. Indigenous tribes sailed up and down the coast in their great war canoes to take captives for enslavement and human sacrifice. Even white sailors were sometimes enslaved. To their discredit, the governments of Spain, the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Russia preferred to look the other way, allowing Indigenous slavery to flourish on the West Coast until the 1890s. (If you think I’m making this up, read “Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America,” by the anthropologist Leland Donald). If Canada should apologize to anyone, it should be to those Indigenous slaves’ descendants, who even today often experience diminished social status in their communities. To be honest, I don’t advocate for trans-generational apologies from those who have done nothing wrong to those who have experienced no wrong. In the real world of politics, the demand for an apology is usually a hand extended not in friendship but in extortion. Former prime minister Stephen Harper learned that lesson when he made his famous apology for Indian residential schools, only to touch off a cycle of multi-billion-dollar class action lawsuits with no end in sight. We can’t change the past, so let’s try to be just in our own time. That’s enough for a human being to aim at."
Left wingers need to condemn the interference in indigenous people's rights that is abolition. Slavery needs to be re-legalised for indigenous peoples

Tulane scientist resigns citing university censorship of pollution and racial disparity research - "In her resignation letter, Kimberly Terrell accused the university of sacrificing academic freedom to appease Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. Terrell, the director of community engagement at Tulane's Environmental Law Clinic claimed the clinic had been “placed under a complete gag order” that barred her from making public statements about her research."
James Watson and Satoshi Kanazawa must be laughing

McGill group’s anti-Canada event crosses the line - "A group in Montreal called QPIRG-McGill is hosting what they call a “decolonial anti-Canada day BBQ and fundraiser” on July 1. Their Instagram post spells it out: “Join us for a decolonial anti-Canada day BBQ and fundraiser on July 1st, 2–6 pm! We will meet at Parc Jeanne-Mance (near the corner of Mont-Royal and Parc). There will be vegan and gluten-friendly options. Grab free food and mingle with tablers from the Palestinian Feminist Collective, Spring Network, Health Workers Alliance for Palestine, the Mohawk Mothers, and more! Fundraising proceeds will go towards various local decolonial struggles — details TBA.” This isn’t activism. It’s contempt for Canada disguised as a community event. Let’s be clear: If you’re fundamentally “anti-Canada,” what exactly are you still doing here?... What gives anyone the moral license to condemn the existence of this country while enjoying its full range of protections and privileges? This isn’t a protest against a specific injustice or policy failure. It’s not a call for reform or improvement. This event — and many others like it — is based on the idea that Canada itself is illegitimate. That it’s not a nation to be made better, but a nation to be dismantled. The slogan might as well be: Burn it down, then ask for seconds at the buffet... What’s disturbing is how casual the hostility has become. This isn’t fringe. These ideas are becoming normalized. And they’re often embraced in institutions that owe their existence to Canadian taxpayers — schools, arts organizations, advocacy groups, and more. Even if McGill University isn’t officially endorsing this particular event, its name is attached to the group. The silence from leadership speaks volumes. We are watching a growing segment of activist culture move beyond criticizing governments or policies and into scorning the very country that enables their voice. And we let it slide under the banner of progress. It’s not progress. It’s cowardice."
We are still told that left wingers don't hate their countries

KLEIN: Protests or public chaos? It’s time to restore order in Canada - "There’s a growing sickness spreading across our country, and no one in Ottawa seems willing to stop it. Our streets have become battlegrounds of protest, not over wages or working conditions, but foreign conflicts and imported ideologies. Hate is on full display in our public spaces, and for what? Political posturing? Internet clout? We have allowed protests to morph into intimidation. Canadians walking downtown now see foreign flags raised higher than our own, hear chants that call for the destruction of others, and watch as police hesitate to enforce even the most basic laws of public order. Let’s call it what it is: This isn’t free expression — it’s public chaos... when your rally spills into hatred, harassment, or violent rhetoric, it’s not protected expression anymore. It’s an attack on civil society — and it’s time we shut it down... we’re watching our identity erode — piece by piece. The federal government seems more focused on virtue signalling abroad than solving problems at home. It’s easier for them to condemn Israel, tear down statues, or issue another land acknowledgment than it is to fix inflation, reduce crime, or secure our energy future. Look around: Prices are out of control, violent crime is on the rise, our military is stretched thin, and our economy is coasting on fumes. But the message from the top is: “Don’t worry, we’re leading the world in apologies.” Enough. Canadians want a country they can be proud of — not a government that treats pride as a problem to be solved... When your government treats your industry like an enemy and your values like an inconvenience, what’s left to unite behind?"
Luckily they push the left wing agenda, or they'd get their bank accounts frozen

Danny Boyle: Slumdog Millionaire was cultural appropriation - "Danny Boyle has said his hit film Slumdog Millionaire was cultural appropriation. The British director, who also made the films Trainspotting and 127 Hours, said that he was proud of Slumdog Millionaire, but that “you wouldn’t even contemplate doing something like that today”... It was shot in Mumbai, partly in Hindi, and used a local crew, but the award-winning director said he couldn’t make it today. He would instead be “looking for a young Indian filmmaker” to direct the picture, because his directing of the film was “cultural appropriation”... “At the time it felt radical. We made the decision that only a handful of us would go to Mumbai. “We’d work with a big Indian crew and try to make a film within the culture. But you’re still an outsider. It’s still a flawed method. Even if I was involved, I’d be looking for a young Indian filmmaker to shoot it.”"
"Authentic" "representation" is super important, but only "minorities" are allowed to do it. White people must go extinct

Joe Oliver: Having silenced critics, university admins think they can do no wrong - "Elite American universities have been the brunt of severe criticism by alumni, donors, the public and politicians in a culture war that could have profound implications not only for academia, but for broader societal values and democratic politics... elite universities brought this existential crisis on themselves by failing to respond meaningfully to legitimate concern about civil rights violations and a lack of viewpoint diversity. A passionate defence of academic freedom was presented by an associate professor of political science at McGill University, Debra Thompson, in a commentary that ran in the Globe and Mail last month. However, the 2,600-word article minimized the failure to deal with two core problems — ideological uniformity and rampant antisemitism — which is indicative of the broader problem. Academics and their governance bodies understate their deficiencies and are disinclined to do anything meaningful about them — unless they’re coerced by the law, or through financial penalties... Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, admitted there’s a lack of viewpoint diversity at his school. “We think it’s a real problem if — particularly a research university’s — students don’t feel free to speak their minds, when faculty feel that they have to think twice before they talk about the subjects that they’re teaching,” he said . Since Harvard ranked dead last in free speech (itself shocking) in rankings put together by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, it would be hard pressed to use that defence, especially when pervasive class disruption, trespass, intimidation, vandalism and calls for violence have nothing to do with free speech. A 2022 Macdonald-Laurier Institute study by Christopher Dummitt and Zachary Patterson found that professors “vote overwhelmingly for parties of the left and 88 per cent self-identity as left-leaning, with only nine per cent voting for conservative parties.” Given the illiberal intolerance of diverse opinions, and the tendency for self-censorship and biased peer reviews, the result is an academic monoculture, especially in the soft sciences, which is inimical to conservative perspectives, including pride in our history and support for the free market... As a grateful alumnus of McGill and Harvard, I take no pleasure in identifying their failings, but I’m struck by how different the environment was when I attended classes in the 1950s and ’60s. Back then, there was tolerance for diverse views, and it was unthinkable that students would be threatened or demonized based on their religion, ethnicity, race or country of origin. Of course, most students are not harassed now, but Israelis and Jews appear to be the exception. Administrators and faculty at Harvard (and other universities) have trouble accepting how they are perceived by the public: elitist, privileged, subsidized by taxpayers, charging high tuition, bloated by administrative staff, captured by DEI and other racially discriminatory admissions and hiring policies, and frequently advocating ideas that defy common sense. Operating in a groupthink bubble can lead to responses that underestimate and devalue criticism. The indoctrination of a woke mindset has implications beyond pampered university campuses. The division of society into the oppressed, who are perpetually victims, and oppressors, who are settler-colonizers and always the guilty party in any conflict, churns out students who loath western history and civilization and have contributed to the worst outbreak of global antisemitism since the defeat of Nazism 80 years ago. Trump is using a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel, but the problems he is addressing are acute. Having brought on the onslaught, universities risk perpetuating it through their own denial, which is not likely to be the most successful of strategies. Nor do they serve the public interest."

Chris Selley: Angst over flying the Canadian flag was pure media invention - "One of the stupidest arguments to emerge during Canada’s pandemic experience was the idea that by flying the Canadian flag, the Freedom Convoy types had ruined the Canadian flag for everyone else. And that Canadians, as a result, were hesitant to display the flag lest they be thought of as anti-vaxxers, COVID-deniers or outright Nazis. It’s not true, and the idea was completely absurd. If you’re driving through, say, Vermont and see the stars and stripes flying on someone’s front lawn, do you assume they supported the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol? When you see the St. George’s Cross waved at an English soccer game, do you assume the flag-waver supports the English Defence League? When you see the French tricolour do you instantly think of Marine Le Pen and the far-right Front National? You don’t, because that would be stupid. People advancing causes that they feel to be of national importance tend to deploy national flags. Rarely are those causes universally supported. Few causes are. At the time I ascribed the narrative mostly to COVID-induced hysteria. The Globe and Mail’s and Toronto Star’s comment pages always reflect a somewhat, shall we say, limited perspective on Canadian society. But the pandemic trapped opinion writers behind their keyboards and in their online echo chambers more than ever before. It was febrile. People across the political spectrum went just a bit nuts, and I don’t exclude myself. But with the pandemic behind us, with the keyboard class mostly resigned-to-happy with how it went (better than America is all that really counts, right?) I was a bit surprised to see this narrative exhumed, dressed up in a Hawaiian shirt and dragged around town for Canada Day in triumph. The narrative: We have our flag back!... Normal people did not haul down their Canadian flags for fear of being seen as right-wing extremists (which not all Freedom Convoy participants were, of course, but culture wars need their caricatures). The only poll I’m aware of on the subject came from Counsel Public Affairs on the occasion of Canada Day 2022 , when flag angst should have been at its peak. It found that a not-so-whopping 14 per cent of Canadians would not be “proud to fly the Canadian flag,” while 76 per cent would be proud to. Respondents who opposed the Freedom Convoy were actually slightly prouder to fly the flag than those who supported it: 78 per cent versus 76. So the whole narrative is garbage. It’s not a real thing, except in the decadent, idle minds of the most precious Canadians who saw pushback against lockdowns as something akin to the fall of Rome. That poll showed that, even amidst a divisive crisis, the flag remained popular and a source of pride. It’s frankly disturbing to see such obvious nonsense hold sway in Canadian media, which are supposed to be anti-nonsense."
Time for more "bodies" to be discovered at residential school sites, so the left will want to destroy the country again

Inside the Gen Z activist group threatening to ‘shut down London this summer’ - "“We are going to build a movement that is going to take control of the British state,” a softly spoken voice tells the packed basement of a community centre in central London. Perched on creaky fold-up chairs, around 100 activists look back at Sam Holland, one of the fresh-faced organisers of Youth Demand, a group affiliated with Just Stop Oil and founded in opposition to the war in Gaza. Most of those in attendance are in their early twenties with anarchical haircuts to match their political views. Many are also wrapped in black-and-white keffiyehs, scarves that have become a symbol of Palestinian solidarity in the West. “Nothing short of a revolution is going to get us out of this mess,” Holland continues assuredly, clad in a button-down shirt almost entirely distinct from the patchwork of rumpled fabric worn throughout the room. He is standing on either side of a Palestinian and Lebanese flag, which have been haphazardly sellotaped to the wall. The swarm of activists before him, many of whom spent much of April blockading roads for the group’s biggest civil disobedience campaign yet, put down their cups of tea and responded to Holland with rapturous applause. This proposition may be easily dismissed as the delusions of a fringe group, but Youth Demand are convinced that “a revolution” to dismantle centuries of political institutions is just around the corner, and they are the ones who are going to tip it over the edge. The group emerged over a year ago from the youth wing of Just Stop Oil (JSO), which in April carried out their last ever protest after saying its objectives had been met. JSO insisted it had won because their demand that there should be no new oil and gas licences is now government policy. Youth Demand has emerged to fill the void. Ahead of a full-blown revolution, the group has two immediate demands: for the UK to stop all trade with Israel, claiming the Government is “enabling genocide in Palestine by sending money and arms to Israel”; and to “make the rich pay” by raising £1tn in tax by 2030 to “pay damages to countries harmed by fossil fuel burning”. “Until these demands are met,” the group says, “we will be in nonviolent resistance against this rigged political system and the people with blood on their hands”. The group, convening in the capital from across the country, has piled into Golden Lane community centre on a muggy Saturday afternoon to discuss the next step on the path to “shutting down London”... Members have spray-painted Labour HQ and the Ministry of Defence red, and laid body bags outside the homes of Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy. They also staged a “dirty protest” by appearing to defecate in Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire duck pond in what they called a “parting gift” to the Tories over the war in Gaza, and the state of the UK’s “crumbling schools, s*** in the rivers and a collapsing NHS”... David Currey, one of the two campaigners who tried to storm the Eurovision stage, said: “The costs and the potential what-ifs [during the Eurovision stunt] became insignificant. It was the right thing to do... Rupert Read, a former spokesperson for campaign group Extinction Rebellion and now co-director of the Climate Majority Project, has expressed concern about Youth Demand’s tactics, which he said only succeed in “p*****g people off”. “I would just gently say: Haven’t we been here before? Insulate Britain and JSO tried this. They gained attention, but nothing else except oodles of hate.” He said JSO had “wisely hung up the hi-vis” and now was “high time for a reassessment of tactics… to deal with profound problems that will only get sorted when we get most people actively onside”."
If you don't let left wing activists shut down the country, that's a Danger to Democracy. You need to focus your attention on "far right extremists" saying mean things online
When I say left wingers want social collapse to bring on the Revolution, I get laughed at. As usual, "this is not happening, and it's good that it is"

Achieving Net Zero / Everywhere Warming Faster than the Rest of the World

Cavemen in a circle: "Now that we've achieved net zero, what do we do now"

"Finland is warming faster than the rest of the world"
"Canada warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, report says"
"Australia Is Heating Up Faster Than The Rest Of The World"
"South Pole warming three times faster than rest of Earth: study"
"Study: New England Is Warming Up Faster Than The Rest Of The World"
"Israel warming up almost twice as fast as rest of world, data shows"
"China's heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world"
"Africa is Warming More, and Faster, Than Rest of World - Report"

Links - 2nd August 2025 (1 - Islamophobia in the UK)

Fears mounting over free speech as Labour plans to define Islamophobia - "The Policy Exchange think-tank has said Labour's working group should be suspended, warning an official definition of Islamophobia would 'almost certainly turbocharge cancel culture'. After a review by Whitehall troubleshooter Baroness Casey found public bodies covered up evidence about Asian grooming gangs 'for fear of appearing racist', Policy Exchange said Labour's measures 'would have made exposing the grooming scandal even harder and slower'."
Of course, on reddit people were claiming that the article provided no evidence for the claim in the headline. So much for media literacy - left wingers can't even read and understand articles, much less get the "subtext"

University staff face punishment if they breach Labour’s Islamophobia definition - "University staff and students will face disciplinary action if they breach Labour’s new definition of Islamophobia, a cross-party group of peers has warned. More than 30 peers have written to the working group responsible for the new definition to warn that the proposals risk having a “chilling effect” on free speech... The peers cited the case of Sir Trevor Phillips, who was suspended by Labour for Islamophobia in 2020 after the party adopted a non-statutory definition drawn up by an all party parliamentary group jointly headed by Wes Streeting. They said: “The fact that your definition will be ‘non-statutory’ does not mean it will not have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly if it enjoys the stamp of government approval and various organisations feel obliged to embed it in their equity, diversity and inclusion policies, as well as workplace training course. “Our principal concern is that if your Working Group comes up with a definition and it is taken up by the Government it will have a chilling effect on free speech and exacerbate community tensions... Among the signatories to the letter are Lord Young, the director of the Free Speech Union; Lord Frost, the former cabinet minister; Baroness Hoey, the former Labour MP; and Baroness Deech, the chair of the Lords Appointments Commission... “The definition, if it is taken up, will have wide-ranging implications for what people in public life, and those who work for public bodies, or attend schools or universities, are able to say about Muslims and the religion of Islam, with – inevitably – serious repercussions for those who fall foul of the definition, even if those repercussions fall short of criminal prosecution. “Indeed, the Home Secretary has said she would like to see more ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents’ (NCHIs) recorded against people guilty of ‘Islamophobia’ and, presumably, she will urge the police to operationalise your definition, once it’s been taken up by the Government, as part of the NCHI regime.”"
Of course, on reddit people were claiming that the Daily Mail's article could not be trusted and there was nothing to worry about. Guess the experts (who were mentioned in the Daily Mail article too, which also mentioned other experts) didn't get the memo

The Blogs: UK islamophobia definition: Blasphemy law in drag - "If there’s one thing British politicians hate more than telling the truth, it’s letting anyone else do it. In the end, the UK Labour government—in what might be the most refined form of cowardice since Neville Chamberlain waved his paper in the air—has crossed the Rubicon and unveiled its grand initiative to define “Islamophobia.” Not as a legal concept based on clear incitement, mind you, but as a pseudo-theological construct dressed up in civil service PowerPoint. A working group led by Dominic Grieve KC (who apparently moonlights as the Archbishop of Woke) is drawing up a non‑statutory definition of “anti‑Muslim hatred.” The public consultation closes July 20, and the stakes couldn’t be higher; not for Muslims, who deserve equal protection under the law like everyone else; but for everyone else, who might soon find that articulating facts about Islamism, communal crime, or religious misogyny is now treated as a hate offence. One thing should be clear: this isn’t about protecting Muslims from abuse, which any decent society already does under existing hate-crime law. This is about ring-fencing a set of ideas from scrutiny. It is about criminalizing dissent and dressing it up as anti-racism. And it is no accident that Labour adopted the APPG’s definition (which literally frames “expressions of Muslimness” as untouchable) while simultaneously refusing to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in full without footnotes and caveats. You’re allowed to hate Jews, just not too obviously. But question grooming gangs or Islamic schools and prepare for disciplinary proceedings. This is the old blasphemy law, rebooted through the language of diversity consultants. One can only marvel at the consistency of British elites: they won’t stop Hezbollah flags in London, but they’ll happily police your adjectives on Twitter. Say “Islamist” too many times, and a Home Office intern will slide into your inbox. The secular state is no longer secular; it is sharia-adjacent, appeasement-coded, and deeply unserious about liberty. Meanwhile, Angela Rayner is backpedalling like a clown on a unicycle. After supporting this definition in full Labour-speak, think “centering lived experiences” and “tackling systemic racism,” she now insists it won’t amount to censorship. Of course not. And Hamas Ministry of Information is a press freedom NGO. This is not some fringe initiative. It is a foundational moment in the UK’s cultural decay. The definition will shape police guidance, university codes, corporate HR manuals, and every institution terrified of being called racist by an anonymous DEI officer with a clipboard and zero intellectual curiosity. Speech will die not by legislation but by memo. Ask yourself: in a world where British Jews are attacked in broad daylight, where police stand idle at anti-Israel marches, and where synagogues require fortress-level security, why is the government spending taxpayer money defining microaggressions against Islam? Why is it that every measure to “protect minorities” ends up protecting one minority alone? Britain isn’t sleepwalking into censorship. It’s marching proudly, accompanied by the soft clinking of virtue-signalling glassware at Westminster receptions. And here’s the punchline: you can still criticize Judaism, Zionism, Israel, and every rabbi from here to Jerusalem with state-sanctioned gusto. But call out jihadism or quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and you’re a racist. That’s not anti-racism. That’s surrender. Islam is not a race. Ideas don’t need protection—people do. And a free society doesn’t hand out fatwas in bureaucratic prose."
Of course, on reddit people were claiming that the Islamophobia definition mirrored the IHRA anti-Semitism definition, so there were no issues here

Why Britain’s elites give a free pass to Islamism - "The BBC’s recent documentary about Gaza has been revealed to be thinly veiled pro-Hamas propaganda. The Beeb’s decision to produce and air it reaffirms a disturbing truth: the British establishment is incapable of reckoning with Islamism...   When it comes to Islamism, the British establishment has an undeniable blind spot. Instead of facing up to the threat of radical Islam, the liberal media and state agencies have hidden behind a façade of multicultural tolerance. Anyone who dares criticise Islam or its extremist offshoots is tarred as a far-right ‘Islamophobe’.  This has reached a point where the UK now has quasi-blapshemy laws protecting Islam from criticism. Earlier this month, a man was attacked with a knife outside the Turkish consulate in London while he was burning a Koran. The attacker was arrested – but so was the man he had attacked. Just a week before, another man was not only arrested in Manchester for setting fire to a Koran, but the police then also released a picture of his face, his full name and even the street he lives on. This was despite the obvious risk of violence this could subject him to. The message was clear: ‘Islamophobia’ may not technically be illegal in the UK – yet – but if you criticise Islam, you may still find yourself in trouble with the law as well as a violent mob. For the British establishment, Islam is treated less as a religion and more a racial badge. To attack Islamist extremism is supposedly to attack a ‘brown-skinned’ community – a notion that smothers debate and only deepens divides between Muslims and non-Muslims.   Apparently, to criticise political Islam – or heaven forbid, the religion of Islam itself – is to engage in crude ‘populism’. Concern about Islamism is considered the preserve of a low-brow, working-class sentiment. Anyone who raises the alarm must be little more than an uneducated, racist rabble-rouser.  In turn, many in the elite see themselves as the protectors of Muslims, as shielding them from the hordes of neo-fascists in the working classes (even though these are largely imaginary). Others fear being seen as Islamophobic. This is exactly what allowed horrors like the grooming gangs to go on for so long. It has also let Islamist terror attacks unfold unchallenged.   No doubt this same patronising view of Muslims contributed to the BBC’s screw-ups over that Gaza documentary. In the Beeb’s black-and-white worldview, Muslims must always be the victims. Even if those Muslims might be members of Hamas, which is waging a genocidal, anti-Semitic war against Israel. A society that refuses to recognise the dangers of radical Islam will struggle to protect its citizens from the consequences – whether that’s terror attacks or the shutting down of free speech by mob rule. The free pass we’ve given to Islamism must be revoked immediately."

Rupert Lowe MP on X - "This is Britain. We do not have blasphemy laws, and we must not have blasphemy laws. Burning the Quran is not a crime. Free speech means protecting the right to offend, including Islam. More politicians should have the courage to say so."
Adnan Hussain MP on X - "What Rupert actually wants to say is:- Free speech means protecting the right to offend Muslims."
Rupert Lowe MP on X - "Yes, I do believe the right to offend Muslims must be protected. The right to offend anyone must be protected."
Adnan Hussain MP on X - "It's deeply worrying, Rupert, that you invest so much energy into advocating for the right to offend a minority community. Free speech comes with limitations and protections, clearly you're not happy with those protections extending to a Muslim minority, why?"
Rupert Lowe MP on X - "The establishment’s total unwillingness to criticise Islam in any form has paved the way for your absurd attitude. It's arrogant, it's entitled, it's sinister. The approach has to change."
Isn't it Islamophobic to perpetuate the stereotype that Muslims do not understand British values like free speech? Adnan Hussain should be jailed

Robert Jenrick on X - "In February a man was arrested for allegedly burning a Quran. Now he’s been charged with intent to cause distress ‘against the religious institution of Islam’. Parliament abolished blasphemy laws in 2008. They mustn’t be reintroduced by the back-door."
Tom Harwood on X - "In no liberal society should ‘causing distress to a religious institution’ be a crime."
Matt Ridley on X - "It took centuries to abolish the crime of blasphemy and many suffered in the cause. We are decivilising."
Jonatan Pallesen on X - "Here in Denmark we finally cancelled the blasphemy law in 2017. That was the final remnant, and we were heading towards a fully free and liberal society. Then in 2023 we made the Quran law, going backwards again."

UK Stabbing Suspect Pleads Muslim | Babylon Bee - ""I'm afraid there's little that can be done at this point," said lead Crown Prosecutor Aleister Burlington. "We thought we had all the evidence needed to convict the suspect, but pleading ‘Muslim' is an airtight defense. Had we realized he was a Muslim, we would have never brought the charges in the first place. We were under the impression that this was a horribly violent stabbing and weren't aware that it was a traditional, ceremonial Islamic stabbing."  The suspect's barrister emphasized the importance of entering the plea. "There's simply no way my client can be charged with a crime," said Ellington Bedfordshire. "At the time he committed the stabbing, he was a practicing Muslim, thereby absolving him of any guilt in the incident. His inherent Muslimness weighed heavily into his decision to go stabbing in the first place. By entering our plea of ‘Muslim,' it is our hope that this case will be thrown out altogether, as it should. Muslim."  At publishing time, the UK court had apologized to the suspect and instead brought charges against the stabbing victim for getting in the way of the attacker's knife."

Lord Talbot on X - "What did I say a few days ago? Islam is using labour until it is strong enough to dump them and take over. Well, here they are saying it themselves."

RadioGenoa on X - "A Muslim attacks a British couple just because they eat pork. They also want to dictate to us what we should eat or drink. For Keir Starmer problem in England is Islamophobia."

Islamist gangs are taking over Britain’s jails – and radicalising criminals - "The young man grinning in the sun is Baz Hockton – a troubled and dangerous individual with a string of convictions. Not long after this seaside trip, he will be jailed for stabbing two men with a knife.  Then, while in custody in January 2020, having converted to Islam, he carried out the first terrorist attack within the walls of a British prison, at the high-security Whitemoor jail, in Cambridgeshire.  The events of that day, when Hockton and terrorist plotter Brusthom Ziamani strapped on fake suicide belts, armed themselves with makeshift metallic weapons and tried to murder a prison officer, represented a huge wake-up call for the authorities about the threat posed by Islamist extremists in jail.  But, in some quarters at least, not enough appears to have been done to counter it... Frankland, a high-security prison where Abedi is serving life for 22 murders, has become “overrun” with Islamist gangs who threaten to attack or kill other prisoners if they don’t join up.  HMP Frankland is by no means an isolated case.  Former inmates have spoken about a war in a number of prisons between Islamist gangs and rival groups involving acts of grotesque violence. The skirmishes are not as frequent now, but it’s not because authorities have seized back control. Instead it is said to be because the Islamist gangs have won the power battle, with many inmates converting to their side and leaving others who will not increasingly fearful for their safety. “It’s a real problem, very complex and it won’t go away any time soon,” says Steve Gillan, general secretary of the Prison Officers’ Association (POA). “Some prisoners are intimidated into joining a gang. Others do it for protection, because there’s safety in numbers, or they think there’s a status to be in a Muslim gang – they think they’ll be treated better, always allowed to go to prayers on a Friday [for example], and have better food in the evenings at Ramadan.”... Gary*, who served a long sentence at a number of jails across the country, says Islamist gangs have now established a “foothold” in the six Category A, high-security prisons, as well as several others.  “They are feared. They pretty much run the prisons,” he says. “A lot of them have merged with drug gangs – being able to sell drugs and accumulate wealth is a very powerful thing in the prison system.”  Gary describes how some prisoners are pressured into joining Islamist gangs while others, who are prepared to convert, are welcomed in – even those, in the hierarchy of criminals, considered to be the lowest of the low: sex offenders. “In Islam, if you convert, all your previous sins are washed away. The Muslim gangs stood by that principle for people in for sex offences. It fractured the culture of the prison system. I was there watching it for years on end, it was obvious it was going to turn into a big problem,” he says.  In 2022, a disturbing report by Jonathan Hall KC, the reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, found that faith-based self-segregation by prisoners had provided a “fertile base for violent Islamist activity” in which attacks on non-Muslim inmates, staff and the public were “encouraged”. The report said charismatic or violent prisoners acted as “self-styled emirs” to radicalise the wider Muslim prison population, exerting control through a network of “enforcers” over access to prayer meetings, the prison kitchens and showers. In some cases, Sharia courts had been set up in jails to rule on matters of Islamic law, delivering punishments such as flogging.  Hall said the prison authorities had “underappreciated” the impact of Islamist groups for too long, partly due to a tendency to regard Islam as a “no-go area”. Gillan, whose union represents over 30,000 prison officers and other staff, agrees: “A lot of staff backed off because they were frightened of being accused of racism. They were a wee bit cautious about identifying individuals for fear of reprisals,” though he adds that officers are now more confident to call it out, thanks to greater awareness of the problem, improved training and more intelligence sharing... a lawyer visiting clients at HMP Frankland – which houses some of the most dangerous inmates in the country and possesses one of the country’s three separation centres – claimed prisoners had been placed in segregation for their own protection after standing up to Islamist gangs."

Islam Channel watched by millions facing Ofcom investigation - "Britain’s most successful Muslim TV channel has been accused of glorifying violent Islamist movements, inciting hostility against the West and portraying jihadist causes in a sympathetic light.  The Islam Channel is now facing an investigation by the broadcasting regulator over claims it breaches rules on impartiality and incites extremism.  A complaint submitted to Ofcom accuses the channel of repeatedly broadcasting material praising the Oct 7 attacks and comparing Israel to the Nazis.  It is also accused of giving airtime to extremists, failing to maintain impartiality in its political coverage and misleading viewers over key facts.  The channel – which claims it has two million viewers daily and is estimated by official figures to be watched by 60 per cent of British Muslims – could be penalised over its content if an Ofcom investigation finds against it. A report highlighting multiple alleged breaches of the Broadcasting Code by the Islam Channel between November 2024 and January 2025, has been submitted to the regulator by Dr Taj Hargey, the director of the Oxford Institute for British Islam.  Dr Hargey, regarded as a liberal thinker within British Islam, claims the channel consistently portrays Islam as under siege from an oppressive West; presents Hamas, Iran and Islamist Jihadi groups as legitimate “resistance” movements against Western secular liberal democracies; and fails to include the Israeli government or pro-Israel speakers in its coverage of Gaza.  He also accuses it of promoting a narrow Wahhabi-Salafi version of Islam while excluding Muslims belonging to Shiah, Sufi and Ahmadi denominations, as well as secular liberal Muslims.  Dr Hargey alleges that the Islam Channel repeatedly presents a one-sided view of events. He claims that its news programme, Islam Channel News, used the sentencing of Southport killer Axel Rudakubana to attack the UK government’s counter-terrorism programme Prevent while omitting the fact that he was in possession of an Al-Qaeda training manual.  Dr Hargey also points to the channel’s alleged attempt to champion convicted terrorist Aafia Siddiqui as an innocent Muslim victim of the “War on Islam”, in a documentary broadcast in January, without mentioning her links to Al-Qaeda and her attempts to kill US officers... The Channel’s presenters and guests are accused of promoting an unquestioning view of radical Islam, with no mention of the violation of women’s rights under the current Taliban regime in Afghanistan or Iran’s theocracy.  Dr Hargey also accuses the channel of failing to mention the Oct 7 Hamas attacks during a programme on the Gaza conflict in December and of repeating claims that Israeli forces target journalists without allowing the Israeli government or Israeli Defence Forces to respond. In the letter of complaint to Ofcom, Dr Hargey alleges: “The station’s persistent lack of impartiality, spread of harmful rhetoric, and engagement in political advocacy appear to directly contravene the principles set out in the Broadcasting Code.”  The Islam Channel was founded in 2004 by businessman Mohamed Harrath, who was granted refugee status by the UK in 2000 after fleeing Tunisia, where he had set up the Tunisian Islamic Front to provide what he said was non-violent opposition to Ben Ali’s dictatorship.  Mr Harrath was arrested in South Africa on terrorism charges in 2010, after the Tunisian authorities added him to Interpol’s Red Notice list. He was later released without charge and accused the Tunisians of using Interpol to harass him. In a Christmas Day broadcast last year, Mr Harrath compared the situation of Muslims in Britain to that of the Jews in 1930s Germany under the rise of the Nazis, stating: “There is a targeting of the Muslim community. . . There is another way to learn from history. From the Jewish community. They were well off in Germany and they thought nothing would happen. . . We have to fight. We have to fight back.”... The channel was awarded the Responsible Media of the Year award at the British Muslim Awards in 2014 and 2015.  But it has also been found to have been sanctioned by Ofcom in the past for “serious and repeated” breaches of the Broadcasting Code... In November 2010, the channel was censured by Ofcom for allowing presenters to advocate marital rape and domestic abuse.  In September 2023, Ofcom found that its one-hour documentary The Andinia Plan amounted to hate speech against Jewish people.  Dr Hargey told The Telegraph: “Islam Channel epitomises hideous Islamic fundamentalism in the UK. It purports to represent British Muslims, but its sectarian ideology is nothing but an insidious initiative to mainstream Muslim extremism and fanaticism in this country.  “It revels in their ‘them and us’ narrative, inhibiting any effective social cohesion. Ofcom needs to take decisive action to mitigate the channel’s incendiary language and partisan guests who do not subscribe to traditional British values.”"

Lion of London Bridge, Roy Larner 'on anti-terror watch list' - "The 'Lion of London Bridge' who was hailed a hero for fighting off knife-wielding jihadis during the terror attack said he is on an anti-terror watch list after being contacted by far-right anti-Islam supporters.   Roy Larner, 49, screamed, 'f*** you, I'm Millwall,' as he took on the knife murderers when they struck in June 2017 while he was enjoying a pint in the Black & Blue restaurant in Borough Market, in Southwark, south-east London.  But Mr Larner has since been placed on the Government's Prevent programme over fears that he could become an extremist after he was contacted by far-right yobs. He has had to attend de-radicalisation classes and police are monitoring him"
Keywords: de-radicalization classes

Basil the Great on X - "🚨☪️FORMER LABOUR MP SAYS: "A time will come that there will be a law in place all over the world that there can be no disrespect to our prophet" They want a Blasphemy Law for Islam. They say it openly in Public. They must be stopped."

Islamophobia training cancelled over teachers’ anti-Semitic posts - "A training session for psychotherapists on tackling Islamophobia was cancelled after three academics leading the event were accused of posting anti-Semitic material on social media.  Messages posted or shared by the trainers on X described Israel as a Nazi state and referred to “a Zionism problem” in healthcare institutions.  The event, organised by the professional body for psychotherapists, had been intended to help therapists and wellbeing practitioners become aware of the impact of Islamophobia on mental health.  But the British Association of Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP) cancelled the session after complaints about the three trainers prompted an internal investigation into their social media activities.  The speakers at the May 15 event were to have been Ghazala Mir, a professor of health equity and inclusion at the University of Leeds; Dr Tarek Younis, senior lecturer in psychology at Middlesex University.    An investigation was launched by the BABCP after UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a legal charity, brought a number of their social media posts to its attention.  These included Prof Mir allegedly sharing posts which claimed that the “Zionist movement” placed “assets” from the state of Israel into the House of Lords and making references to “Zionist paymasters”.  Her posts also describe Israel as responsible for “genocide and apartheid”, both terms which are regarded as anti-Semitic by many Jews.  She also shared posts that equated Zionism with Nazism and described Israel as a Nazi state, a comparison regarded as anti-Semitic as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.  On Oct 1 2024, Prof Mir reposted a tweet expressing “pure joy” at an Iranian missile attack against Israel  In May 2024, Dr Younis wrote on X that “our healthcare institutions have a Zionism problem” and stated the following month: “Our work isn’t done until all Zionists are removed from our institutions and are shamed, alongside all racists, into nothingness”.  Dr Younis has also compared Zionists to fascists in a social media post. Earlier this year Dr Younis wrote a report on the psychological impact of Palestinian dispossession, which was submitted in support of the legal bid to have the ban on the terror group Hamas lifted in the UK."

Kent news: Christian patient forced out of hospital chapel by 'Muslim doctors' - "A retired author was left outraged after being told to move by "a group of Muslim men" in a hospital chapel.  Graham Wanstall said he was visiting Kent and Canterbury Hospital as a patient when he went to the facility's chapel for a moment of reflection and prayer.  However, not long after he had been in the chapel, a group of men entered and immediately asked him to move "very abruptly".  Wanstall, from Dover, said he felt "belittled and humiliated" by the men who he said were doctors at the hospital... Wanstall has said that while he has been liaising with the hospital, he is calling for separate spaces for Muslims to practice their faith.  He told GB News: "The signage says chapel, and when you go in, it's just a chapel. There's a cross, maybe a picture of Christ, an altar and chairs.  "There are no signs of any other religion, and it doesn't say multi-faith room. But I understand, unofficially, they use it because they haven't got their own room.  "I don't go around preaching to anybody about my faith, but I strongly object to being interfered with when I'm in a Christian chapel and when I'm effectively thrown out and asked to move, I strongly object to that."

Right-wing YouTuber charged over video criticising Muslim councillor - "Craig Houston, who has nearly 70,000 subscribers, was arrested on Friday after a report of an online communication offence. The charge is understood to relate to a video in which Houston criticised Soryia Siddique, a Labour member for Glasgow city council’s Southside Central ward... In his original video — which has not been removed from YouTube — Houston accused Siddque of “fanning” racism by complaining that ethnic minorities were underrepresented, saying this was “bonkers”... In a clip for ElectHer, a campaign group which helps women get into politics, she said she had been surprised by how “pale, male and stale” the environment she entered was."
Right-wing YouTuber charged over video criticising Muslim councillor : r/unitedkingdom - "Imagine if I described the politics of a council as black, female, and whale..  I wonder how quickly the police would come knocking?"
If you call out a "minority"'s racism and sexism, you need to be jailed

Links - 1st August 2025 (2 - Mark Carney)

Blanket mandate letter worrying sign for Carney era, observers say - "The prime minister’s decision to forego separate mandate letters for his cabinet is being met with raised eyebrows. Former MP Kevin Vuong told the Toronto Sun the decision to issue a single mandate letter — instead of the customary individual directives to each cabinet minister — is yet another concerning diversion from the norm that’s become typical of the Prime Minister’s Office under Carney. “No budget, no itineraries and now no mandate letters. Somebody should tell Prime Minister Carney that that’s not how a democracy works,” he said. “By refusing to share, we have no choice but to ask: What does he have to hide? Is there something in his ministers’ mandate letters that he doesn’t want Canadians to see?” On Wednesday, Carney issued a single mandate letter — free from Justin Trudeau-era platitudes like diversity, climate change and social justice and instead emphasizing trade, the economy and rebuilding Canada’s relations with the United States. “This seems to be a government that is running less on emotional intelligence and virtue signalling,” said Stephen Taylor, a partner at Shift Media who nonetheless added Carney’s decision to withhold mandate letters does little but consolidate the power of the PMO. “There’s some good words in the mandate letter, but a cabinet appointed full of Trudeau ministers just makes it suspect because that’s the government that will be implementing that agenda.” He said a cabinet boasting members such as Steven Guilbeault and Gregor Robertson should give Canadians pause. Alex Brown, a director with the National Citizens Coalition, said forgoing mandate letters is another worrying sign of this government’s tendency to err on the side of unaccountability. “Justin Trudeau produced 38 of these mandate letters in 2021,” he said. “And yes, all 38 of those ended up being historic dumpster fires, but to just cut the corner here already — by the end of the summer this group will have only sat in the House of Commons for 20 days in total.” While he said the mandate letter had some encouraging signs, Brown said what it lacked most of all was substance aside from almost peripheral mentions of key issues like immigration and housing. “It’s as if they ran the Conservative election platform through ChatGPT and asked them to distil it to 1,000 words and then take out the details,” he said. “It’s so high level it’s almost insulting — it doesn’t get into anything specific.”"

Joe Oliver: Team Carney is already in need of a reset - "What a Trudeauesque beginning to the Liberals’ fourth consecutive term — theatre, false starts, evasion and unaccountability, but absent the sunny ways! The technocrat’s prologue risks rivalling the drama teacher’s denouement. Prime Minister Mark Carney presents a reassuring figure because of his economic chops. Yet he initially directed his finance minister not to table a budget this year. When such blatant contempt for accountability produced a backlash, he backed off and now a budget will come in the fall. What it most needs to do is address Canada’s economic decline. Over the past decade, we have had the largest increases in government spending and debt in the G7 and the second slowest growth in real GDP per capita in the OECD, ahead of only Luxembourg. Carney plans to hide the ballooning deficit by distinguishing operating and capital budgets and reclassifying much expenditure as investment. Credit agencies and investors will not be fooled though the PM presumably hopes a credulous public will be. The overarching public concern that helped get Carney elected was Donald Trump’s tariffs, which, in spite of warm atmospherics at their White House meeting, the president has not yet reduced — as he has for China and the U.K., his most formidable foe and one of his best friends, respectively. And now we learn that Carney had earlier reduced most of Canada’s retaliatory tariffs to zero, which may explain why Trump was so complimentary at their meeting. During the campaign candidate Carney stoked the fear factor and promised to keep his “elbows up.” It turns out he has kept his head bowed and his hands up, and now he has to make up $20 billion in lost revenue from the cancelled retaliatory tariffs. Give him credit for chutzpah but not for candour — which seems to be a pattern. His ministers have also made missteps. Steven Guilbeault, Trudeau’s minister of climate change, now minister of culture and identity, could not let go his radical obsessions and last week undermined the prime minister’s apparent willingness to at least consider new pipelines. Just how sincere that willingness is can be questioned, however. Despite claiming to favour resource development, Carney will not commit to removing the regulatory and statutory impediments to development. Talk is cheap. The Liberals do not seem to realize that the world, not just the U.S., is moving away from exorbitant green policies. Former U.K. Labour prime minister Tony Blair recently said net-zero policies are increasingly viewed as “unaffordable, ineffective, or politically toxic” and efforts to phase out fossil fuels in the short term are “doomed to fail.” Canadians increasingly understand that for economic, strategic, health and social reasons we should develop, not shut in, our immense natural resources, and they have lost patience with gestures that hurt but cannot meaningfully reduce global emissions. For her part, new Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand startled many observers by reciting Hamas talking points while condemning Israel’s war in Gaza. Then her boss threatened sanctions against Israel if it continues military action aimed at securing the release of its hostages and disarming the genocidal terrorist organization that started the war with a massacre. No wonder Hamas just thanked Canada. Carney and Anand seemed either oblivious to or unconcerned by the fact that one-sided criticism risks exacerbating domestic antisemitism and increasing the vulnerability of a community experiencing unprecedented attacks against its institutions, as well as harassment, threats and violence directed at its people. In 2023, according to police reports, 70 per cent of religiously-motivated hate crimes targeted the Jewish community, which represents less than one per cent of Canada’s population. Federal, provincial and municipal governments have failed inexcusably to protect Jewish citizens from illegal aggression that would not be tolerated if directed at any other identifiable minority. As a result, antisemitism has been almost normalized. The prime minister has an ethical obligation to provide moral and practical leadership to counter this assault on Jewish Canadians’ human rights. Mr. Carney currently benefits from a clear political advantage beyond the goodwill of Canadians who want him to succeed. After a decade of performative vacuity and dysfunctional policies, Canadians will warmly welcome even a semblance of normality and common sense. If errors continue, however, buyer’s remorse will set in quickly. It is too early to be definitive, and we may simply be witnessing a beginner’s missteps, but the start has not been encouraging."

Jesse Kline: Following 'most consequential election,' Carney takes extended summer vacation - "When Prime Minister Mark Carney adopted “elbows up” as a de facto campaign slogan, Canadians thought he was referring to the forceful way his government would tackle the economic crisis caused by the trade war with the United States. But judging by his post-election plans, it seems more likely that he was actually referring to the proper way to hold a beer on the summer barbecue circuit. Less than a month ago, Carney was hammering home the point that this was the “most consequential election of our lifetime.”... Given this government’s ambitious agenda, and the fact that Parliament has been out of session since Dec. 17, 2024, one would expect Carney and his new cabinet to buckle down and get to work fixing the myriad problems Canada faces and fortifying the economy to withstand the effects of U.S. President Donald Trump’s fast-moving tariff war. Instead, we learn that following the throne speech on May 27, our new MPs will put in less than a month’s work before breaking for the summer on June 20. The Liberals won’t even bother tabling a budget until the fall. Even teachers are wondering how a group of public servants could have it so good... In his first 100 days in office, Trump issued 142 executive orders, upended the global economic order, signed five bills into law, laid off tens of thousands of public servants and launched a major crackdown on illegal immigration. By the time our Parliament actually gets down to business in September, 140 days will have passed since the election and Carney will have been prime minister for 185 days. Aside from the three-week spring session, Parliament will not have convened for a full nine months — enough time to make a human baby! Yet Carney will have practically nothing to show for it — no legislation (unless his government miraculously gets a bill through the House and Senate during the spring session), no budget, not even a coherent counter-tariff policy ."

Most Canadians want feds to focus on gun crime, not confiscation: Poll - "55% of those polled say Canadian gun policy should focus on introducing tougher measures to stop illegal firearms from being smuggled into Canada from the United States. Just 26% want the government to instead ban the sale and ownership of certain models of firearms, and to compel owners to turn over their property via the Liberals’ “buyback” program. “The poll shows that Canadians know the real problem is illegal gun smuggling, not firearms owned by licenced Canadian gun owners,” said Gage Haubrich, the federation’s prairie director. “Planning to spend potentially billions of dollars on a program that Canadians don’t think is effective is a waste of money.” Introduced by the Trudeau Liberals, Canada’s gun policy has largely focused on disarming licenced Canadian gun owners over closing Canada’s porus borders to smugglers illegally importing weapons from the United States... Experts, observers and even Canada’s police chiefs have long stated that most crime guns seen on Canadian streets are prohibited firearms that were never legal for sale in this country. The Liberals have been trying to enact their firearm confiscation program since 2020 with little success. As of last September, $67 million has so far been spent on the program without confiscating a single gun. As well, a key plan in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s gun platform during the recent federal election — revoking gun licences for those convicted of domestic violence — is already Canadian law. A 1985 amendment to the Criminal Code — Section 109 — states those convicted of violent crimes against a person are subject to mandatory firearms bans. As well, specific regulations separating intimate partner violence as a separate aspect to the offence, was introduced by the Justin Trudeau Liberals in 2019 as part of Bill C-75. Licenced gun owners in Canada are already subject to automatic and daily criminal record checks."
Time to let even more suspects out on bail and crack down even harder on legal gun owners, as part of anarcho-tyranny

Melissa Lantsman on X - "Not even 48 hours in.   Mark Carney announces he won’t introduce a budget this year. Because he is a very smart economist and you are not a very smart economist.   A Liberal Minister is already fighting pipelines — saying no new ones should get built.   Parliament has been shut down since December — and the former failed Immigration and Housing — now Justice Minister is talking about working from home.   The new Housing Minister who nearly tripled housing costs as Vancouver’s Mayor — is telling everyone the cost of housing is fine.  These people are here to do exactly the same thing they did over the last 10 years."

William Watson: Get the Ozempic! Cabinet has grown by almost two-thirds in two months - "On March 14, new Liberal Leader Mark Carney earned widespread praise for naming a cabinet with just 24 members, including himself. It was symbolic of a new, slimmed-down, more disciplined post-Trudeau approach that would get government spending and employment under control. I don’t know how many Canadians voted Liberal because of the smaller, leaner cabinet but the favourable reviews certainly helped build Carney’s momentum heading into the election. But now the election is over. And just two months less a day later the cabinet is up to 29 people, including Carney — an increase of 21 per cent. Plus 10 helpers, also known as secretaries of state, which, if you count them (and why shouldn’t you?) takes the growth to 62.5 per cent. In less than two months! If Mark Carney had let prices get that out of control when he was governor of the Bank of Canada or England, he would have been turfed and fast. True, the helpers won’t always come to cabinet meetings, which is something. But even without them, cabinet is still 29. If you’ve ever tried to run a meeting with 29 people, you’ll know useful exchange is hard."

What Liberals are planning for federal budget, ‘middle-class tax cut’ - "Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and interim NDP leader Don Davies both said it's unacceptable that Carney will not produce a fiscal plan anytime soon. "There is no road map forward, no economic vision and no willingness to lead," Poilievre said in a statement. "Canadians were told that Mark Carney, the supposed serious economist, would bring competence and clarity. Instead, we're getting delays and disfunction." Davies said Parliament needs to be able to scrutinize the Liberal government's spending plans and Ottawa should not delay federal spending in light of the economic crisis brought about by U.S. tariffs. "It's Parliament's most basic function to authorize and scrutinize spending. We need an economic plan tabled in the House of Commons in June," he said in a statement."

Michael Higgins: Liberal caucus submits to Carney as it did to Trudeau - "Contrary to what many in the West believe, some countries dislike democracy, preferring the strongman, the firm ruler, the dictator.   So it is with the Liberals who have shunned accountability and democracy in favour of the autocratic leader.  Considering the problems the Liberals had with the last guy, it must be the case that some turkeys really do vote for Christmas.   On Sunday, a majority of the Liberal caucus voted down a motion to adopt the rules set out in the Reform Act, a decade old law to give MPs more power. One of the central planks of the Reform Act would give caucus members the right to trigger a review of the party leader...  The Liberals, despite overwhelmingly voting in favour of the act, have always chosen not to adopt it.  But the failure not to vote for it this time is baffling.  Former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau refused to relinquish power and attempts to get him to go bordered on the farcical.  During a caucus meeting last October, a letter from MPs was read to Trudeau urging him to step aside. The letter was signed by two dozen Liberal MPs, but such is the fear ingrained in MPs that the letter presented to Trudeau at the caucus meeting did not contain any names.   Trudeau responded defiantly within 24 hours saying that he would be leading the Liberals into the next election. Many Liberal MPs critical of Trudeau preferred to remain anonymous with New Brunswick MP Wayne Long being one of the few who was open and vocal.  The calls within the party for Trudeau to go kept getting louder and yet the prime minister held on to power tenaciously, gripping it with his fingernails as events tried to prise him from it. By December, a majority of his caucus was demanding he resign; then Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland quit cabinet and with a twist of the knife accused Trudeau of “political gimmicks,” and perhaps most damning was the lack of public support, the approval rating for Trudeau was at an all-time low and support for the Liberals stood at a mere 16 per cent.  In the face of all this, Trudeau went skiing and it wasn’t until January that he bowed to the inevitable.  And yet on Sunday the Liberals had the power to vote for Reform Act rules, which would make such a shambolic state of affairs history, and they refused to do so... MPs were reluctant to vote for the new rules “out of the fear that such support will be seen as challenging the authority of their party leader.”  Fear of retribution and a culture resistant to change has resulted in the “subservience of caucus to the leadership.”   In 2015, with Trudeau being voted one of the most stylish politicians on the planet, no Liberal would have foreseen that the leader would have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of office.  Now the Liberals have Mark Carney, the world’s rock-star banker and “a quiet genius” according to some reports.  Still, some MPs, chastened by the Trudeau experience and afraid that history might repeat itself, were looking to implement the Reform Act rules."

Canada's populist movement will have its day - "  Having deluded themselves into believing that the status quo is tenable, many on the left celebrated the result of the recent federal election as proof that Canada could withstand the wave of anti-establishment politics that has swept the West in recent years.  The Trump trade war overtook the many other crises affecting Canada as one of the top election issues, but it did not extinguish them. If anything, Trump’s attempt to reshape the global economic order will only exacerbate the problems this country is facing. Canadian cities remain mostly unaffordable and riddled with drugs and petty crime, and the broken immigration system will not repair itself.   Prime Minister Mark Carney has portrayed himself as an agent of change. While he still deserves the benefit of the doubt, his new cabinet does not. The most glaring of these is Gregor Robertson, the former mayor of Vancouver and the new minister of housing. In one of his first media appearances as minister, Robertson asserted that it is not his intention to bring down house prices. Robertson’s words were in keeping with the Liberal government’s track record. Ahmed Hussen, who served as housing minister from 2021 to 2023, infamously tried to explain the federal government’s at-best lackadaisical effort to address the cost of housing by asserting that “mom and pop” landlords would be at risk if home prices fell too drastically.  Following the Conservative party’s seizure of affordability as their key issue, the Liberals made a show of shuffling Hussen out of the housing portfolio and replacing him with Sean Fraser. Formerly the most incompetent and damaging immigration minister in living memory, the choice of Fraser spoke volumes about Hussen’s ability to run the file.   With Fraser in charge, the government made a series of announcements related to the housing supply, but to little avail. He, too, explicitly said that the government’s “goal is not to decrease the value” of homes. This all occurred in 2023 when the Liberals began tanking in the polls. When Trump started rambling about annexing Canada and launching a trade war, the Liberals seized the opportunity. The American president was all they needed to activate their base and garner the support necessary to remain in office.  For millions of older voters, the Canadian election became an opportunity for them to stick it to Trump by voting for Carney, the guy they thought would put his elbows up and hopefully catch Trump on the nose. The Liberal party has evidently taken its victory as a validation of its decade in office, in which the country went into perceptible decline.  The Liberal vision of Canada’s social contract involves redistributing wealth to the top of the age pyramid. Whether it’s enlarged pension payments, maintaining the exorbitant rent charged by “mom and pop” landlords or providing cheap labour to big businesses through mass immigration, the Liberal economic platform can only be described as “gerontocratic.” As housing minister, Robertson has clearly embraced the Fraser-Hussen school of thought when it comes to prices and affordability. This is a serious mistake for any government. Generational inequality is at the heart of the populist movement in Canada — not convoys, bigotry or misinformation. It’s why young people and blue-collar workers flocked to the Conservatives in large numbers.  As long as young Canadians continue to feel their quality of life decline through rising debt, tightening employment, restrictive housing supplies and worsening mental health, they will become increasingly disillusioned.  Youth unemployment is the highest it has been since 2012. In 2022, the number of Canadian-born people who left for the United States increased by 50 per cent over pre-COVID levels. This is fuel for anger and populism, and it is justified.  Mark Carney still has a long way to go before the next federal election, which gives him a lot of time to set himself apart from the Trudeau government. Yet he will never accomplish this so long as his party continues to pander to the comfortable and the selfish.   Considering that the Liberals plan to allow in 400,000 people a year by 2027, we should not expect demand for housing to slacken or for prices to meaningfully decrease. Crime, drug addiction and homelessness are still rampant, and the Liberals are unlikely to seriously address any of these issues.  Former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s government oversaw the great decline of Canada into a more barbarous, low-trust and hopeless society. Unless Carney has a plan to truly turn the page, his political ascension will only have deferred the Liberals’ day of reckoning.  The longer that Canada’s present condition persists, the more vicious and hard-line the blow-back will become. Establishment parties across Europe have learned this the hard way, with many right-wing populist parties having decimated their more moderate rivals."

Terry Newman: Where's the 'crisis,' Carney? - "In late March, pollster Nik Nanos found that Canadians’ top concern was “the potential negative fallout of Donald Trump and the threatened tariffs.” That concern quickly shifted. By mid-April, 34.3 per cent of those polled ranked Trump and U.S. relations as the biggest issue. A month later, by mid-May, that number plummeted to 19.3 per cent, with jobs and the economy taking precedence.  So, what happened? Did Carney give Trump the old “elbow’s up” so hard he submitted?... Hardly. Closer to the opposite, actually.  Six days into the campaign, on March 28, Carney gave Trump a heads up in a phone call that he’d be talking about him during the campaign. In that same call, Carney flattered Trump, calling him “transformative president.” The PMO’s press statement, of course, did not mention these details. There were four more weeks until election day, after all.   Sounds like any “crisis” ended there. Why else would Carney feel comfortable enough to share his campaign strategy with Trump? That’s not the kind of card one shows their professed political enemy. It’s something a politician would reveal only to someone they trust, as it could easily backfire.  Carney made Canadians the butt of an inside joke between himself and an American president. Imagine how powerful that would have made Trump feel.  After this cordial chat, Carney kept piling on the crisis rhetoric. At a mid-April Hamilton campaign event, Carney warned that Trump’s “strategy is to break us so America can own us.” This was reportedly met with boos, assumedly directed at the U.S. president.  Carney also suggested there was going to be a historic change in Canada’s relationship with the U.S., often repeating the claim that the “old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military co-operations is over.” Much of Carney’s “our old relationship is over” rhetoric appeared to be based upon the idea that Trump was serious about making Canada the 51st state.  “As I’ve been warning for months, America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. These are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so America can own us. That will never … ever happen,” he said at his election victory speech.  But signs of exaggeration were clear as early as February, during the Canada-U.S. Economic Summit, signs that Canadians should not have bought into any of this. According to the CEO of the Canadian American Business Council, Beth Burke, Trump’s comments were something that “most Americans don’t take seriously.”...   This threat — which helped galvanize Liberal support — evaporated post-election. And when asked about Canada becoming the 51st state by a reporter during Carney’s visit to the White House on May 6, Trump responded, “I do feel it’s much better for Canada. But we’re not going to be discussing that. Unless somebody wants to discuss it.”  This suggests the annexation threat may have never been more serious than the “Oh, Canada,” meme which helped spread it in early December...  Either way, the post-election meeting between Carney and Trump did not go as the Liberals’ “elbow’s up” campaign rhetoric suggested.  The warm feelings between the two were palpable. Trump opened by congratulating Carney, complimenting him on how he ran his race, which we know they discussed prior in that phone call.  When asked by a reporter whether he’d like to see his first trade deal be with Canada, Trump replied, “I would. I would love that. I have a lot of respect for this man… He ran a really great election, I thought.” Trump doesn’t usually gush over people who attack him. He tends to take negative comments quite personally.   Carney thanked Trump for his hospitality and his leadership, calling him a “transformational president,” saying he wanted to transform Canada much the same. I guess that’s why he’s been photographed signing all those fake American-style executive orders.  By the end of the meeting, Trump tried to reassure confused reporters that, “Regardless of anything, we’re going to be friends with Canada.”  Weighing in on the Oval Office meeting, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, too, confirmed that Canada-U.S. relations were firm, telling National Post’s Stephanie Taylor that the last 90 days were “behind us.”  When asked whether Carney and Trump’s meeting was a restart for Canada-U.S. relations, Hoekstra’s face suggested that even the premise of the question was absurd.  “A restart or a reset? No way! … We are great friends. We have been great friends for such a long period of time. You’re not going to change those personal relationships. You’re not going to change those economic relationships, national security… The relationship, from my perspective, and, I think, the president’s perspective, was never in jeopardy.” Well, then.  There were other signs things had improved well before election day. Retaliatory tariffs Carney threatened to wage against Trump went elbows down as early as April 16, when his government — mid-election campaign — had decided, according to Bloomberg News, citing an Oxford Economics report, “suspend almost all of its retaliatory tariffs” dropping them to “nearly zero.”  As for Canada’s military and security relationship with the U.S., it appears the period of deepening integration is not, in fact, over. It’s been reported that Trump said Canada wants in on Trump’s Golden Dome — a missile defence shield that can identify and intercept incoming projectile threats and destroy them mid-flight — with Carney’s office confirming that discussions are ongoing.  Asked Wednesday by Global reporter MacKenzie Gray about this apparent about-face on deepening security relations with the U.S., Carney responded with gibberish,”We are in a position now where we cooperate when necessary, but not necessarily cooperate.”   Now, we could chalk all of these crisis flip-flops up to Carney’s superior negotiating skills in going to bat for Canadians, except for that little problem of that early campaign friendly phone call between himself and Trump.  In late March, Carney told reporters “I’ve managed crises before. This is the time for experience, not experiments.”  He’s managed something, alright — a masterclass in political theatre."

Education student punished for questioning decolonization sues UWO

Education student punished for questioning decolonization sues UWO

"The point of the University of Western Ontario’s education program should be to teach its students how to teach — but instead, it seems to be teaching students what to think by sabotaging the success of students who don’t agree with decolonization.

That’s at least the impression you get from a lawsuit served upon the university by alumna Margaret Munn. She alleges she was subjected to unfair treatment and ideological pressure during her studies, including harassment-like behaviour from her faculty’s associate dean, and is now seeking more than $1 million in damages with the help of the Free Speech Union of Canada and her lawyer, Lisa Bildy...

On her first day in a class titled “Indigenous Education: Towards a Decolonizing Pedagogy,” she questioned the relevance of the course to teaching students math or chemistry. The professor, according to Munn’s statement of claim, responded with a non-answer, pulled her aside after class to list injustices suffered by Indigenous people, and reported her to the associate dean, Kathryn Hibbert...

The decolonization professor reported her to the associate dean again for believing that it was wrong to stop others from wearing Halloween costumes for “cultural appropriation” reasons. Munn is originally from Scotland — and she’d seen Scottish garments used by non-Scots all the time.

The decolonial professor and two others took issue with her making a “transphobic” comment by misgendering the famed Ontario shop teacher Kerry/Kayla Lemieux, who at that time had gone viral for donning a Z-cup chestpiece in the classroom. (The next year, he went back to presenting as male).

November started with a meeting with the faculty’s teacher education manager, who has since left for Wilfrid Laurier University. Munn was allegedly told that her comments on cultural appropriation “did not foster a safe environment.” She was also told to rewrite a reflection essay for her decolonization professor because her earlier submission was offensive and not properly reflective.

The decolonization professor, per the statement of claim, went on to convene the faculty’s diversity, equity and inclusion committee, which made a non-binding recommendation to Hibbert that Munn be expelled.

Munn was also made to meet with the associate dean and the teacher education manager on Nov. 7, in which the associate dean, according to the statement of claim, stated she took the DEI committee’s recommendation of expulsion seriously.

Munn was also reported, allegedly, by an instructor for submitting an assignment that “contained certain sentiments regarding gender and the need for education to be apolitical,” and for stating that people are innocent until proven guilty and that “ogling isn’t a crime” in a class discussion about a teacher’s duty to report potential abuse.

“During the meeting, Munn was accused of being racist, colonialist, transphobic and an advocate of child abuse (apparently for saying that she had received corporal punishment as a child and was none the worse for it),” according to the statement of claim. “Munn was told not to attend (the decolonization professor’s) classes, although she was still expected to complete the assignments.”

Munn learned the next day that her practicum placement was suspended; the associate dean later explained that this was because an investigation had been opened. On Nov. 16, the associate dean told Munn that she had been interviewing students and instructors, and had amassed new allegations. The associate dean also told Munn to stop debating in class and to stop using examples from Scotland in classroom discussions about Canadian education. All coming from an administration that supposedly valued diversity.

On Nov. 25, the associate dean met again with Munn, telling her she was now being investigated by the Student Code of Conduct office (Munn later learned that there was no such investigation). According to the statement of claim, the associate dean also told Munn that, as an immigrant, she “had not yet internalized her Canadian duty to advance Indigenous reconciliation.” Canadians don’t have such a duty. 

In December, Munn alleges she was falsely accused of plagiarism, and was reported by two instructors to the Ontario College of Teachers. In January, according to the statement of claim, Munn was told in a meeting with the associate dean not to challenge Indigenous faculty members. She at least learned that the faculty’s investigation into her conduct was complete — but it had involved interviews with nameless accusers whom she could not face, and resulted in her being placed on conditions to remain in the program. One condition barred her from debating any policy or law that teachers had to follow. 

Another condition ruled out questioning marginalized people entirely: “You will demonstrate through your behaviour, attitude and responses that when someone from a historically marginalized community is telling you what is culturally acceptable for their community, you will listen and learn, and not debate their cultural knowledge and experience.” 

Munn was made to jump through hoops for the rest of the semester. She had to complete glitchy online Indigenous learning modules and discuss the content with the associate dean, retake the decolonization course and more. She alleges that the faculty constantly reinterpreted her conditions such that she was unable to fully comply. For example, at a faculty ceremony, she refused to shake the associate dean’s hand — as punishment, the faculty refused to give her a classroom placement once again. Bildy, Munn’s lawyer, described the process as “Kafkaesque.” 

In late March, per the statement of claim, the associate dean “criticized Munn’s lack of professionalism and warned her that she could choose not to attest to a student’s suitability (to the Ontario College of Teachers) even if a student successfully completed a B.Ed. Program.”

Munn ultimately found a classroom placement and received positive reviews, but she was now months behind her fellow students. More trouble followed the next year: the Thames Valley District School Board, where she had taught adults for years on contract, wouldn’t hire her. She ultimately graduated in 2024.

Some justice has already been done: Munn’s treatment by her associate dean was tried before a university senate board in 2023, which found that the associate dean treated Munn unfairly in a number of ways...

“Although she has now managed to find a (temporary) contract position at a local school, the reputational damage caused by Western is such that she will never achieve the employment security she had expected to achieve with her degree,” explained the statement of claim.

Munn’s experience was “immensely stressful,” said Bildy, who added that ideological pressure in the education profession seems to be growing. Bildy was also the lawyer of the late Ontario principal Richard Bilkszto, who took his own life in 2023 in the course of suing the Toronto District School Board for bullying that allegedly occurred after he questioned an anti-racism instructor’s teachings.

“It would seem to me that there is a general feeling of unease amongst teachers who do not agree with the prevailing ideological orthodoxy,” Bildy said. “If you don’t share that worldview, you do not get to express your opinion. It’s very simple. If you do, you are very likely going to face consequences for that.

“Your union is likely not going to assist you. And you may find yourself before the Ontario Teachers College as well, facing a threat to your license. So most teachers who do not share that orthodoxy just keep their mouths shut and hope for an early retirement. It’s very sad.”" 

 

Weird. We are told that universities aren't about indoctrinating students and that students are just naturally learning from being exposed to new ideas and meeting new people.