L'origine de Bert

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Friday, July 31, 2026

Links - 31st July 2026 (2 - Migrants: Europe)

Brigitte Gabriel on X - "🚨 BREAKING: 6 DEAD IN GERMANY MASS SHOOTING: A 45-year-old man of Turkish descent opened fire at a facility for pregnant women and young mothers near Hamburg. All 6 victims were employees. Several others hospitalized. Suspect is in custody. Motive: domestic violence. Germany has some of the world's strictest gun laws. Six people are still dead."

Woman Who Helped Stade Shooter Flee Worked for State-Funded Pro-Migration NGO - "The 65-year-old woman who drove the Stade mass shooter away from the scene works as a family and migration adviser for a pro-migration organization that receives significant funding from the German government, according to exclusive information obtained by German outlet NIUS.  The woman, identified as Sylvia S from Bremen, reportedly drove the 45-year-old German citizen of Turkish origin to Monday’s custody-related meeting at a mother-and-child welfare facility in Stade, Lower Saxony. The man opened fire during the meeting, killing six employees—four women and two men—before fleeing in a grey Mercedes driven by Sylvia S. Police stopped the vehicle after a pursuit and detained both of them. The suspect, reportedly linked to the notorious Miri clan, remains in custody."  

Afghan Commits Mass Groping And Attempted Rape Against Underage Girls At Swimming Pool - "A 21-year-old Afghan migrant has been arrested for a mass groping attack and attempted rape against underage girls at a German swimming pool in Schwäbisch Gmünd.  At least four girls aged 12 to 14 were victims of sexual assaults last Saturday afternoon at the swimming pool, where the 21-year-old suspect reportedly groped their buttocks and thighs as well as trying to pull off their bikinis.  In one case, he attempted to penetrate one girl’s vagina with his finger, which police are investigating as a potential rape under the legal definition.  The girls successfully fought the man off before he was arrested by police officers.  The public prosecutor’s office requested an arrest warrant, but the presiding judge suspended it.   Now, the Afghan is free on the streets, with only the condition he not visit any public pools.  German news outlet Tagesschau has reported on the incident has not disclosed that the suspect is an Afghan migrant. This omission fits a pattern at the taxpayer-funded outlet that has been sharply criticized by the right. Other outlets, however, reported his nationality.  The story is very similar to a piece that ran just yesterday by Remix News, in which an Indian migrant sexually assaulted four underage Italian girls at a waterpark in Italy. The Indian migrant committed suicide inside his police cell just 48 hours later.  Last year, nine girls were sexually assaulted at a swimming pool in Germany by Syrian men, fueling national anger over migrant crime.  In 2023, in the German city of Stuttgart, police arrested a 23-year-old Syrian migrant who is accused of groping several women at an outdoor swimming pool over Pentecost weekend.  In total, seven women, ranging from ages 12 to 18, were sexually assaulted at the swimming pool in three different incidents. Three men in total were taken into custody, including a 23-year-old Syrian migrant.  In Cologne in September 2023, eight foreign nationals were arrested for surrounding and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in a swimming pool. The girl managed to break free and alert police, who detained the suspects shortly after.  In 2022, three 12-year-old girls were sexually assaulted in the Kaufbeuren public swimming pool in Bavaria by a group of six older teenagers described as having dark skin and speaking broken German. Police are still looking for the suspects.  The internal report stated, “(We) can confirm a surge in sex crimes at these establishments. In particular rape and the sexual abuse of children in bathing establishments have given us grave cause for concern. The perpetrators are, for the most part, immigrants.”  In 2022, violence in German outdoor swimming pools alarmed the Federal Association of German Swimming Champions (BDS) to such an extent that its president, Peter Harzheim, said he could no longer recommend that families visit such facilities on weekends.  While speaking to Bild TV, Harzheim claimed he would be “acting irresponsibly” if he attended an outdoor pool with his own three grandchildren."

Visegrád 24 on X - "The German government under Chancellor Friedrich Merz is funding a nationwide campaign promoting the slogan "Muslims: A part of you!" as part of its "Action Weeks Against Anti-Muslim Racism." The whole program is funded at the expense of German taxpayers.  The Federal Ministry for Family Affairs has awarded €624,997 in 2026 to CLAIM, the organization coordinating the campaign, which includes billboards, exhibitions, conferences, school programs and public events across Germany.  The funding has drawn criticism because CLAIM inherited the structures and staff of a previous alliance of around 50 Muslim organizations that was dissolved in 2025. Germany's domestic intelligence services tied that network to groups linked to political Islam, including Muslim Brotherhood circles and Hamas-supporter networks."
X Freeze on X - "Germany is spending taxpayer money on a nationwide campaign saying:  “Muslims: A part of you!”  But where is the same campaign for Christians?  Germany was built on deep Christian roots, yet Christians are constantly expected to stay silent while the government publicly promotes selective “equality”  No Arab or Muslim-majority country is running taxpayer-funded campaigns saying:  “Christians: A part of you!”  So why is Germany doing this only one way?  How is it okay to trash equality in the name of promoting one religion?"  

Over 280,000 Iraqi refugees in Germany: migration office
Clearly, this is karma for Germany for supporting the illegal Iraq War! If they didn't want refugees, they should not have supported illegal wars!Anthony LaMesa on X - "Denmark has really maintained Japan-adjacent peace, order, and security despite having significantly more liberal immigration and criminal justice policies (freedom of movement for 450 million Europeans, Schengen open borders, and humane prisons). Danish Social Democrats have achieved liberalism that works for citizens and their approach stands in stark contrast with DSA’s “no bedtime” thinking about borders and crime."
Jacob Shell on X - "Denmark was Bernie's model society in all his mid-10s speeches and interviews. The Danes have vigorous assimilation rules, including controlling where immigrants can live (to prevent formation of non-Danish linguistic ghettos and "parallel societies"). The Danish left also got on board with this kind of thing.  This obviously cuts hard against the grain of what the wider Western left has been advocating over the past decade-plus. Not sure what explains Danish exceptionality, but I suspect it has to do with a certain deep-rooted defensive prickliness, which the local left shares in as well, due to that land border with Germany."
Mj מירי on X - "Worth noting that Denmark’s model actually includes geography-based sentencing that targets immigrant heavy areas.  They basically have a two-tiered justice system wherein offences committed inside designated neighbourhoods called “skærpet strafzone” — enhanced punishment zones— receive harsher sentences than the same offences committed elsewhere. So immigrants are receiving tougher sentences than Danes.  Some immigrant and refugee groups, specifically from MENA and African nations, also receive lower welfare benefits than ordinary Danish welfare recipients, so immigrants can claim welfare, but they wont receive as much as a Dane.   I don’t think this would, or should, fly in the States. It certainly doesn’t fly in Canada."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Migrants and the Threat to Women’s Rights in Europe - "European statistics on sex crimes are a maze, if not a minefield, of inconsistent and changing definitions. Denmark is unusual for making it relatively easy to distinguish immigrant offenders. Since 2015, the country’s share of immigrants from “non-Western countries,” excluding their Danish-born descendants, has risen from around 5% to 6%. Yet from 2015 to 2019 they have accounted for around 11% of convictions for sex offenses and 34% of convictions for rape.  In Germany a new category of “rape, sexual coercion and sexual assault in especially serious cases including resulting in death” was introduced in June 2016, making it hard to measure the effect of the migrant influx. Even so, in 2017 and 2018, more than a third of the suspects in the new category were non-Germans. For all sexual-abuse cases, the share of non-German suspects rose from 15% in 2014 to 23% in 2016, 2017 and 2018, and 21% in 2019.  “Non-German” is a broad category. In Germany’s crime statistics, the term zuwanderer, or “newcomers,” was used until 2016 to identify suspects who were asylum applicants, failed asylum seekers and illegal residents. This definition was expanded in 2017 to include successful asylum seekers. From 2017 to 2019, zuwanderer accounted for between 10% and 12% of sex-crime suspects, and around 16% of suspects for rape, sexual coercion and sexual assault in especially serious cases. It is unlikely that zuwanderer accounted for much more than 2% of the German population.  In Austria, “crimes or offenses against sexual integrity and self-determination” increased by 53% between 2015 and 2018. Between a quarter and a third of suspects were foreign, but in 2018 only 19.4% of the population was foreign-born. Between 4% and 11% of the suspects were asylum seekers; the share of the population born in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria—among the largest sources of asylum seekers—was only 1.2%.  In the absence of official statistics, the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet reviewed the gang-rape cases heard in Swedish courts between July 2012 and December 2017. Of the 112 men convicted, it found that three-quarters were foreign-born (almost all of those from outside Europe), and 30% were asylum seekers.   I don’t claim this problem is unique to Muslim migrants. Rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment seem to be universal. Nevertheless, the behavior of Muslim men in Europe is important for three reasons. First, the scale of the migration and its likely continuation. Second, its political salience. Sexual misconduct by some migrants provides the far right with a tool to demonize them all. Third, the lack of frank discussion also helps Islamists, who recognize the problem but propose a remedy that would set back all women.  Talking about violence by Muslim men against European women is at odds with identity politics and its matrix of victimhood. Politicians, journalists and academics have been reluctant to acknowledge that the migrant sex-crime wave even exists. This is as much an issue of class as religion or race. Much of the crime and misconduct against women takes place in low-income neighborhoods. Somehow in the era of #MeToo, their predicament arouses less sympathy than that of Hollywood actresses.   I have been encouraged by French President Emmanuel Macron’s condemnation of Islamist ideology in his country. But he and other leaders are still much too reluctant to talk about the sex-crime wave, which signifies an erosion of women’s rights. Rapes in France surged by 31% and other sexual “aggressions” by 32% from 2016 to 2018. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist is the surest way to empower not only the far right but also the Islamists, whose solution entails even greater restrictions on female freedom."
From 2021. Time to pretend that per capita doesn't matter, that rise in rates is due to expanding methodology (which is a good thing) even if victim surveys disagree, and that the higher arrest and conviction rates are proof of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry on X - "I am translating this horrifying, heartbreaking testimony from Lili R. Many people who don't live in France might not understand how bad things have become.   "I am 26 years old, blonde, with light eyes, and I have always lived in the 6th arrondissement of Lyon, which is thought of as the poshest area in Lyon, and my daily life has become unbearable. I write this because, ten years ago, I could go out with my friends in the evening, at any hour, without being bothered, insulted, followed, or stabbed.   I mention stabbing because, three years ago, my boyfriend, along with two of his friends, on their way home, were approached by a group of men. They surrounded them, stole one of their cell phones. They tried to fight back, and my boyfriend, in spite of being a strong rugbyman, got stabbed, in the arm--while protecting his neck, which was the target. Someone tried to cut his throat.   As for myself, on a regular basis, men follow me, insult me because I refuse to talk back or because I say I have a boyfriend. One day, one spit on me. More and more, I am whistled at like a dog, or "ksksks"'d like I am a cat. Acts of this nature have happened to me perhaps thirty times in the past year.   Six months ago, we adopted a puppy. One evening, my boyfriend went out to walk him at 9pm, and three men tried to steal the puppy. Since then, we only go out in the evening as a couple, and I always carry pepper spray in my purse.   In our neighborhood, just in our block, there are three drug dealing spots, which work constantly. Day and night. With everything that entails: watchmen loitering outside our house, milling about, shouting, getting high and bothering people, especially women.   Every single one of the actions I mentioned (and they are only a part of what we have gone through) is the fact of men of sub-Saharan African or North African origin. A white man has never behaved towards me the way they have.   Is it racist to call out what my daily life has become as a woman, because of immigration? Is my reality, my daily life, racist? Am I not as legitimate as any other person to call out traumatising acts of violence, just because they are done by foreigners or immigrants?  To be clear, I am not talking about men in general, but specifically men, sometimes underage, who are of immigrant background.  Now, and for about four years, the way I live my life has had to change to live with this constant insecurity. Now I live with a pepper spray outside my front door, a taser, and a false pistol, after an attempted break-in. We have had an extra lock added to our door. We have a security camera in our apartment. In my purse, I carry a second pepper spray, as well as brass knuckles on my keychain. I never walk into a building without checking both sides of the street, in case a man is following me. I never make eye contact with you-know-who. I constantly cross the street. I no longer leave my home on my own after 9pm. I no longer use public transport for obvious reasons. I am afraid when I am alone at home. I am afraid when outside. Now, I am always afraid.   I do not want this future for my children who, fortunately, are not yet here. I do not understand people who do not see that France is turning into a cradle of insecurity because of immigrant men. Insecurity to women, but to men as well.   Therefore, for your future, and those of your children or your children-to-be: cast the right vote."
From 2024

Migrant Squats: How the Far-Left Keeps Undocumented Migrants on French Soil : r/europe_sub - " Notes from the territorial intelligence services, consulted by JDNews, reveal the collusion between certain associations and the far-left protest movement in illegally opening squats for migrants.  The alert was raised at the highest levels of the State, in the middle of summer, by the intelligence services. Migrant squats are skyrocketing. In February 2024, 157 squats were recorded by the Interior Ministry, 169 last December, and 244 by June. That’s a 55% increase in less than a year and a half. Southern France, particularly Toulouse and Perpignan, is especially affected, accounting for two-thirds of these illegal occupations. Most squatters are from sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb.  The largest squats are mostly made up of single men, adults or claiming to be unaccompanied minors, while smaller ones are mainly occupied by families with children. These newcomers, who entered the country illegally, do not find housing—even precarious—on their own. A system relying on a myriad of intermediary associations allows them to remain on French soil. JDNews obtained access to several recent notes from the National Directorate of Territorial Intelligence (DNRT), shedding light on this network of connections between migrant aid associations—often subsidized with public funds—and the far-left protest movement.
Public Buildings Targeted First
Nationwide, 69 associations and collectives, 18 of which are considered “disruptive,” have been identified for their ties to the No Border or anarchist-autonomist movements, requiring “increased vigilance.” Among these groups working on behalf of migrants, 550 individuals have been identified as activists or members; 230 were already known for “their proximity or belonging to various far-left movements, as well as for their subversive and violent potential regarding security and public order,” according to analysts. These individuals do not hesitate to pool their resources locally to open new squats.
Activists Present Themselves as Educators for Disabled Children
In Toulouse, where the far-left has a strong historical foothold, No Border activists target properties owned by the local public land establishment of the metropolitan area. These properties are known to have longer eviction timelines than private homes. Activists occupy the premises and then present themselves to authorities as belonging to an association for educators of disabled children, thereby delaying the State’s action to remove them. When legal decisions become imminent, associations of lawyers specializing in the defense of migrants step in, further extending eviction deadlines through multiple appeals. In Lyon, Grenoble, and Tours, school buildings are the main targets.  All this creates a deterioration in living conditions for residents: begging, altercations among squatters, incivilities, noise pollution due to drug or alcohol consumption—and sometimes even physical violence, theft, or burglary.
When the State is Put on the Spot
Some squat openings are even publicly claimed, under the guise of humanitarian action, by activists convinced of the legitimacy of their cause. Their strategy is to expose the State’s “failures” and flood the media so that public opinion focuses not on the illegal nature of their actions but on the allegedly “repressive” response of law enforcement.  The association Utopia 56, which has official civic service accreditation, regularly inundates the General Inspectorate of the National Police (IGPN) and the Defender of Rights with complaints. Human Right Observers, for its part, organizes copwatching operations—police surveillance—along the coast to disrupt efforts to stop illegal boat departures for the UK.  Historic associations such as Réseau Éducation Sans Frontières (RESF), La Cimade, and the Ligue des droits de l’homme “regularly march together with far-left collectives” during protests or days of action. One such example was on March 22 during a demonstration called by La France Insoumise “against racism,” which mixed support for Gaza with controversy over an antisemitic poster depicting Cyril Hanouna.  Two-thirds of the disruptive collectives identified by intelligence are, in reality, “de facto groups,” making it impossible—just like with Les Soulèvements de la Terre in the environmental field—to bring administrative or criminal charges, since they take care not to expose themselves directly to violent acts, leaving such actions to individual activists.
Authorities Respond—but Activists Adapt
Prefects dealing with this issue have sometimes succeeded in stopping these occupations. Thanks to the July 2023 anti-squat law, which strengthens housing protections and shortens eviction deadlines, the use of administrative rather than judicial procedures has risen sharply. In the first half of 2025, 36 squats were shut down, including 22 in Perpignan alone. In Fontaine-lès-Dijon, an illegal camp was cleared in early April. In Lyon, the emblematic squat on Quai Arloing was cleared last June.  But intelligence services report that activist groups are already finding ways around the law. They now open new shelters via the Airbnb platform: renting apartments for a few days, changing the locks, and moving in new migrants. Since the property owner authorized entry, accelerated eviction procedures cannot be triggered."

Bonaccini (President of the Italian Democratic Party and MEP) shocked La7 (tv network): "Without migrants, who will clean the hotels and pick the vegetables?" The web: classist and racist (video) : r/europe_sub - "Immigrants as new slaves. The incredible speech by Stefano Bonaccini, a Democratic Party MEP, on Omnibus on La 7 is a eulogy to slavery. What if there were fewer migrants? "I'd send Vannacci to work as a caregiver for Italian families, to clean hotel rooms, to clean restaurant kitchens, and to pick all the vegetables in the fields..." This video excerpt is making the rounds online, shared and re-shared, and sarcastically commented on. "They want underpaid workers above all," writes one user on X about migrants.  Bonaccini, a radical chic on La7: migrants as new slaves  The topic of immigration and jobs was discussed. The words of the former governor of Emilia Romagna are disconcerting, embarrassing. It's not a high-profile vision, no doubt about it. "The left's last mask is finally falling: indiscriminate acceptance so they can be exploited and underpaid in menial jobs, only to then demand their votes," criticizes another. Bonaccini makes a fool of himself with this brief argument, however brief. Some unmask a certain do-goodism in a flurry of unforgiving comments: "Having no real reason, other than ideological, to support the multicultural massacre they've promoted for years, they're always forced to use the issue of jobs, which Italians blah blah. Disturbing inadequacy." In reality, writes another, "they fear losing their vote (of immigrants, ed.), since they can no longer count on that of Italians."  The web: "The last mask falls on migrants: underpaying them for menial jobs."  Stefano Bonaccini raised the issue of foreigners' contribution to the Italian economy, which he drastically limits to strenuous work like fruit and vegetable picking, elderly care, cleaning, and catering. Bonaccini misses the complexity. Dig deeper, and the classist soul of a certain left emerges, captured in these few, significant words. "They're so radical they don't even realize what they're saying." This reasoning is based on a unique classism and racism. Fabio Dragoni, a columnist for La Verità, who shared the post, sparking a back-and-forth, commented: "One of the most classist and racist speeches I've ever heard... He wants slaves. The same dynamic that arose during the American Civil War." Another user expressed indignation: "They're unspeakable. The fight is against illegal immigration, not against those who live in Italy and work legally. Furthermore, he calmly maintains that there are workers who are underpaid and in the hands of gangmasters. Truly unspeakable." Here is the classist “vision” interpreted by Stefano Bonaccini."

PeterSweden on X - "IT HAS HAPPENED Sweden has made the UN update their guidelines so that r*pe is now considered a serious crime that warrants deportation. This comes after the shocking case in Sweden where a man from Eritrea was convicted of r*ping a 16 year old girl. But the court said he couldn't be deported it wasn't considered a serious enough offence for deportation.  Of course this story was covered up by the media.  But it was reported on X and caused massive outrage in Sweden."

The far-Left sees electoral gain in building a ‘new France’ defined by immigration - "as Mélenchon put it, he wanted “to connect the old France” with what he called “La Nouvelle France” (The New France)... it means the mainly immigrant population of the banlieues, the wretchedly poor suburbs which now encircle most major metropolitan centres in France. In 2026, the term “New France” is being mobilised as the key part of Mélenchon’s electoral strategy, bringing politics to a traditionally disillusioned and disenfranchised section of the population.  This is why Mélenchon has chosen figures such as Bagayoko, whose family come from Mali (and has a Palestinian flag hanging in his office), Aly Diouara, a National Assembly deputy for LFI of Gambian descent, and Rima Hassan, an immigrant of Palestinian and Kurdish origin who was born in a Syrian refugee camp as “the new faces of the LFI”. Saint-Denis has in effect become a testing ground for the “New France” and so far it seems to be working. Alongside the term “New France”, Mélenchon speaks of the “creolisation” of France, to describe the hybrid demographic of the banlieues. This is a term which he has borrowed from the poet and philosopher Édouard Glissant, a native of the Caribbean island of Martinique, a French overseas territory. It rejects the traditional notion of “integration” in favour of a blending of “behaviours, norms and languages” shaped by the immigrant experience.  Mélenchon thinks that this is a genuinely new French Revolution for the 21st century, one which he defines as “a concrete Universalism”. Unsurprisingly, however, there are plenty of people who belong to the “old France” who violently object to Mélenchon’s “extremism”. These come not just from the Right but also sections of the French Left who might otherwise have been sympathetic to the LFI. Fabien Roussel, a presidential candidate for the Communist Party in 2022, has, for example, denounced the LFI strategy. He claims it is a form of “communautarisme” – a taboo form of identity politics in communist circles – which might well “fracture France” even further. Mélenchon responded to Roussel that this was a form of “racialised politics” which risked dangerously alienating the “New France” of the banlieues even further... Seen from Britain, it seems that Mélenchon’s electoral strategy of the “New France”, replacing one “native” political constituency with another, is only doing explicitly what many on the UK Left would like to do by stealth. It remains to be seen, however, whether this ushers in a new age of social transformation for France, or only deepens the existing political chaos."

UK Labour and Mass Migration

Thread by @KingBobIIV on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

🧵 I have spent days going back through old Labour governments, Labour manifestos, speeches and Hansard, because I wanted to know when it apparently became "far-right" to suggest that rapid population growth and mass immigration can put pressure on housing, wages, jobs and public services.

Unfortunately for modern Labour, old Labour left an enormous paper trail.

1965, Harold Wilson's Labour government published its White Paper on Commonwealth immigration and openly acknowledged the problems caused by the concentration of immigration in areas "where there is already a housing shortage and pressure on the social services".

The problems were listed under four headings, housing, education, employment and health.

Labour understood sixty years ago that the poorest communities, where housing and services were already under pressure, would feel rapid demographic change first.

Source: UK Parliament/Hansard
Commonwealth Immigration debate, 2 August 1965

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1965-0…

The same 1965 Labour policy was not simply a discussion about integration, the government proposed reducing annual work permits from 20,800 to 8,500 and abolishing work permits for unskilled workers altogether, while simultaneously providing extra help in schools and communities affected by migration.

In other words, Labour believed you could treat immigrants decently, tackle discrimination and still recognise that numbers, concentration, housing and public-service capacity mattered.

Source: House of Commons Library
Immigration white papers, 1965–2025

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-…

By the Michael Foot era, Labour's 1983 manifesto explicitly stated, "We accept the need for immigration controls."

Foot's Labour opposed racial discrimination within the immigration system and wanted to repeal Conservative legislation, but it did not therefore conclude that immigration required no control at all, it argued for a different system of control.

That distinction seems to have become almost impossible to make in modern political debate.

Source: 1983 Labour manifesto
A New Hope for Britain, Labour manifesto 1983

labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/198…

Tony Benn's position was different and I am not going to rewrite history to make him fit my argument, Benn opposed immigration controls as the solution, but his entire economic analysis was rooted in the power imbalance between capital and labour, and in the ability of capital to search the world for lower labour costs while ordinary workers lacked comparable power.

His answer was stronger unions and control of capital rather than immigration restrictions, but the question at the centre of his politics was always the same, who benefits economically and which class pays?

Source: Tony Benn interview
Tony Benn on labour, capital and the global economy

pbs.org/wgbh/commandin…

In 1987, Labour's manifesto was still explicitly committed to a policy of "firm and fair immigration control", while also insisting that the law should not discriminate on grounds of race, colour or sex.

There was no intellectual contradiction, Labour could argue for equality before the law and firm immigration control in the same paragraph, because opposing racism did not require pretending a country had no right to control migration.

Source: 1987 Labour manifesto
Britain Will Win with Labour, manifesto 1987

labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/198…

In 1997, Tony Blair's landslide manifesto could hardly have been clearer, "Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception."

That was not a fringe movement trying to drag Labour to the right, it was written into the manifesto on which Tony Blair won 418 seats and the largest Labour majority in history.

Source: 1997 Labour manifesto
New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better, manifesto 1997

labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/199…

By 2001, Labour was welcoming workers with skills Britain "needed" while drawing a very clear distinction between selected economic migration and abuse of the asylum system, stating, "But asylum should not be an alternative route to immigration."

The principle was that Britain could welcome migration which met an identified need, enforce its rules, decide claims quickly and remove those who had no right to remain.

Source: 2001 Labour manifesto
Ambitions for Britain, Labour manifesto 2001

labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/200…

In 2005, Blair's Labour government published a five-year immigration plan based on "strict controls that work", proposing a points-based system, phasing out low-skilled migration schemes, restricting permanent settlement largely to skilled workers, English-language requirements, fingerprinting visa applicants, migrant identification documents and increased removals.

This was a Labour government arguing that migration should be selected according to Britain's economic and social interests ONLY.

Source: UK Government archive
Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain, 2005

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c7415…

Then, in 2007, Gordon Brown used the phrase "British jobs for British workers".

The slogan was controversial even then, but the political concern behind it was obvious, Labour knew its traditional voters were worried about employment, wages and the consequences of employers accessing a much larger labour market while British workers were told to accept stagnant wages and increasing competition.

Source: contemporary coverage of Brown's 2007 Labour conference speech

Gordon Brown and “British jobs for British workers”

theguardian.com/politics/2007/…

In October 2008, Labour Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said something so extraordinary in hindsight that it deserves to be read in full:

"This Government isn't going to allow the population to go up to 70 million.

There has to be a balance between the number of people coming in and the number of people leaving."

A Labour Immigration Minister explicitly said his government would NOT ALLOW the British population to reach 70 million.

Source: Hansard
Immigration Controls debate, 21 October 2008

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2008-1…          

This was not an invented quotation or a line retrospectively attributed to Woolas, his comments were reported contemporaneously in October 2008, when he also said that a cap on immigration would be needed if numbers rose above a certain point and that the points-based system could be changed.

The argument was explicitly about preventing Britain reaching 70 million.

70 million was seen as the maximum amount of people the UK could cope with before the infrastructure and services would collapse. This included water/sewage, healthcare, public transport and education.

The magic number. Go beyond that and the UK could descend in to chaos.

Source: The Guardian, 18 October 2008
Immigration minister calls for cap on newcomers

theguardian.com/politics/2008/…

In 2009, Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson admitted Labour had made mistakes on immigration and acknowledged that some communities had "legitimate concerns about the strain on jobs and services".

This is the point modern Labour so often seems desperate to avoid, the pressure is not distributed equally, a wealthy household with private healthcare, private schooling and secure housing experiences population growth very differently from a family competing for affordable housing, low-paid work and overstretched local services.

Source: The Guardian, 2 November 2009

Alan Johnson: Labour has made mistakes on immigration

theguardian.com/politics/2009/…

By 2009, official projections were warning that Britain's population was heading towards 70 million, and the debate was increasingly concerned with whether housing, water, energy, waste systems and infrastructure could keep pace with population growth.

The Environment Agency's own planning work was examining future water demand against population growth, because governments and infrastructure planners understood the rather obvious point that millions more people require millions more people's worth of water, sewage, housing and physical capacity.

Source: UK Government population and sustainability material
Demographic Change and the Environment

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c4f03…

On 2 February 2010, just three months before the General Election, Labour Immigration Minister Phil Woolas told Parliament:

"The Government agree that a population of 70 million is not desirable."

There is no ambiguity in that sentence, the Labour government formally stated in Parliament that a population of 70 million was not desirable.

Some experts think we're now 10 or more million beyond that number.

Source: Hansard
Population and Immigration debate, 2 February 2010

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2010-0…    

Then read Labour's actual 2010 General Election manifesto, because it explicitly said, "We understand people's concerns about immigration — about whether it will undermine their wages or job prospects, or put pressure on public services or housing — and we have acted."

Labour itself joined immigration to wages, job prospects, public services and housing, and the negative effevt this was having on the worling class, and the poorest towns and villages, in its General Election manifesto.

manifesto.deryn.co.uk/wp-content/upl… 

The same 2010 Labour manifesto promised to use an Australian-style points-based system to ensure that, as economic growth returned, Britain saw "rising employment and wages, not rising immigration".

That sentence is almost impossible to reconcile with the economic argument we have heard repeatedly in more recent years, that ever-higher immigration is necessary to produce economic growth.

Source: Labour Party manifesto 2010
A Future Fair for All, immigration section

manifesto.deryn.co.uk/wp-content/upl… 

In 2012, after Labour had lost the election, Ed Miliband gave a remarkable speech on immigration in which he admitted that Labour had been "too slow" to understand who benefited and who bore the costs of immigration, and he explicitly framed part of the argument around class.

His point was that immigration could make life easier for some people while making life harder for others, and Labour had failed to recognise that distributional divide.

Source: Ed Miliband immigration speech, June 2012

Ed Miliband outlines Labour's new approach to immigration

ein.org.uk/news/ippr-ed-m… 

Miliband then said, "The combination of immigration and an under-regulated labour market held wages down in hospitality, food processing and social care."

These were not highly paid City jobs, they were sectors employing large numbers of lower-paid workers, and the Labour leader was openly acknowledging that immigration, combined with weak labour protections, had held wages down.

Source: Ed Miliband immigration speech, 22 June 2012

ein.org.uk/news/ippr-ed-m… 

Miliband's argument went beyond wages, because he also acknowledged that Britain had opened its labour market to Eastern European migration too quickly and that the last Labour government had made mistakes.

Contemporary reporting summarised his admission plainly, Labour had allowed too many Eastern European migrants into Britain by lifting controls too early.

Source: The Guardian, 21 June 2012
Change rules on migrant workers, says Ed Miliband

theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/21… 

Later in 2012, Miliband continued the argument, saying immigration had significant economic benefits, "but not when it is used to undercut workers already here and exploit people coming here".

This used to be an entirely recognisable Labour argument, employers should not be allowed to use an international supply of cheaper labour to weaken the bargaining position of workers already living here.

Source: Ed Miliband Labour conference speech, 2012
Ed Miliband's conference speech transcript

labourlist.org/2012/10/ed-mil…
 
In 2015, Labour's General Election manifesto was still warning that exploitation of migrant labour "undercuts local wages and increases demand for further low-skilled migration".

Labour understood the cycle, employers gain access to cheaper labour, wages and conditions remain unattractive, fewer local workers enter those sectors, employers announce a labour shortage and demand access to still more low-paid migrant labour.

Source: Labour Party manifesto 2015
Britain Can Be Better, Labour manifesto 2015

manifestos.org.uk/manifesto/2015… 

Now come back to the present and remember the number Labour once said was "not desirable", 70 million.

Britain's population has passed that threshold while the country simultaneously faces an acute housing shortage, enormous NHS waiting lists and acknowledged failures in water and other infrastructure, yet we are increasingly encouraged to discuss each crisis as though population growth is the one variable that must never be included in the calculation.

For the current population figures, (estimates) see the ONS population estimates and projections.

Source: Office for National Statistics
UK population estimates and projections

ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…

Labour's own 2024 manifesto promised 1.5 million new homes, described the NHS as broken, acknowledged a housing crisis, promised infrastructure reform and said the immigration system needed to be "controlled and managed".

These problems are discussed throughout the same manifesto, yet the obvious question remains, how quickly must housing, water, sewage capacity, transport, schools and healthcare expand merely to maintain the same provision per person when the population is growing so rapidly?

Source: Labour Party manifesto 2024
Change, Labour Party manifesto 2024

labour.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

The class question has barely changed since Wilson's government identified housing shortages and pressure on social services in 1965.

The wealthiest experience mass immigration largely as an economic argument about aggregate growth, while the poorest are more likely to experience pressure through the affordable housing market, low-paid sectors of the labour market and reliance on local public services, which is precisely why Labour politicians from Wilson's government to Miliband repeatedly discussed concentration, wages, jobs and services.

Commonwealth Immigration debate, 1965
hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1965-0…  

None of this requires pretending *all* immigrants are "bad people", it simply requires applying the old Labour question to public policy, who benefits and who bears the cost?

If an employer benefits from a larger labour supply, while the state must provide additional housing, water, sewage capacity, healthcare, education and transport, and lower-paid communities experience the greatest local pressure, it is perfectly legitimate for a workers' party to ask whether the benefits and costs are being distributed fairly.

Labour write these rules. They made these arguments.

So when did making these same points start becoming a "far right" narrative?  

In 1965, Labour identified housing, education, employment and health.

In 1983 Labour accepted the need for immigration controls.

In 1987 it promised "firm and fair immigration control", in 1997 Blair said Britain needed "firm control".

In 2010 Labour explicitly warned about wages, jobs, public services and housing.

In 2012 Miliband admitted immigration combined with an under-regulated labour market had held down wages in several low-paid industries.

These are Labour's arguments, preserved in its own manifestos, government papers, speeches and Hansard.

So, why are we - the same working class - now labelled "far right" for making the very same arguments, for the very same reasons, that the Labour party has been making since the 1960s?

Links - 31st July 2026 (1 - Indigenous Peoples in Canada)

Canadian media ate up false news that Aboriginal title was no threat | National Post - "the Canadian Press told readers far and wide that private property was safe from Aboriginal title thanks to that day’s decision by the Supreme Court. It wasn’t true at all, but the national wire service hasn’t even bothered to issue a correction, let alone a retraction. What actually happened was this: the Supreme Court declined Thursday morning to hear an appeal from New Brunswick’s highest court about whether the indigenous Wolastoqey Nation, in its quest to claim half of the province, can go after private property in addition to Crown land. The Brunswickian judges had answered that question with “Kind of”: Aboriginal title can be found to exist on private property, for which the Crown will be liable (not the private owners); Aboriginal title can’t, however, be declared on private property, which would involve handing over ownership rights to the Indigenous people. This two-pronged system isn’t found elsewhere, including notably B.C., but this is how it will work in New Brunswick until the province’s appeal court, or the Supreme Court, decides otherwise. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case is not a ruling and has no legal bearing on the rest of the country, but you wouldn’t have gotten that from the ensuing Canadian Press report. The initial headline that circulated widely was this: “Aboriginal title can’t apply to private land, High Court rules.” This was wrong in two ways: the Supreme Court didn’t rule anything, and the decision for which appeal was sought found that Aboriginal title could apply to private land. The Canadian Press went on to open the story with the following line: “The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a ruling that Aboriginal title cannot be declared over private land, in a decision the federal government says will have an impact on the Cowichan Tribes case in British Columbia.”  Again, this was riddled with errors: the Supreme Court didn’t uphold anything (for it to do that, it would have had to hear the case). Nor did the court say whether Aboriginal title can be declared over private land — that remains the rule in New Brunswick only. The reporters added to the false impression by uncritically repeating an assertion by the federal government that the top court’s refusal to hear the appeal would impact a case in B.C... There was much applause for the Supreme Court for protecting people’s homes — which it didn’t do — and much gloating from those who insist that Aboriginal title poses no threat to property rights. This of course is not true: B.C. is still bound by the B.C. Supreme Court’s Cowichan Tribes decision from August, which paradoxically ruled that Indigenous groups and private owners can both somehow have exclusive ownership rights over the same piece of land, in part because some colonial officers a century ago didn’t consult the Indigenous locals to the modern judge’s standards.  And so, the matter remains unresolved. The University of Saskatchewan’s resident Aboriginal law expert, Dwight Newman, gave his assessment on Friday: “The outcome in the Wolastoqey case (out of New Brunswick), then, is moderately positive for those hoping to see a change in the Cowichan result. But only moderately so. British Columbia’s courts could yet go a different path than the New Brunswick court did, and then the Supreme Court of Canada may have to look at everything again.”  Plus, if the Supreme Court one day went with the milder version of Aboriginal title that New Brunswick judges have developed, but even this would be a disaster because of the sheer cost it would impose on government. If you think government’s finances are bad now, just wait until a court slaps down a $100 billion bill for “stolen” land. A map showing the Wolastoqey Nation’s title claim in New Brunswick... the Canadian Press didn’t acknowledge any of this. Later on Thursday, it quietly issued a new version of the story with no indication that a false report had ever been made. That would be fine if it were a minor typo, but not for a substantive problem that has been widely passed off as true...  Both of the journalists responsible for this misreport know better. In February, co-author Nono Shen interviewed “misinformation experts” for a story about the unfortunate tendency for incorrect information to spread online in developing situations, a theme she’s covered multipletimes, ashas co-author Wolfgang Depner. But it’s not all up to them: the Canadian Press should have stepped in and corrected the public record. That’s what its policies call for, anyway.  Ultimately, this means more ammo in the sling for those who continue to insist that the growing threat that is Aboriginal title isn’t a problem, for they can now point to an incorrect news story to show that your concerns over private property are paranoid and irrational. It’s a small political gain for the feds and provinces like B.C., who have been recognizing title claims without knowing the consequences, and preventing their lawyers from fully defending the public interest when Indigenous claims go to court. The public is catching on, but some current-event confusion can slow that down."

The Less Certain Future of Private Land in British Columbia
FULL TRUTH: Are Land Claims a Threat to Property Rights in Canada? Top Aboriginal Lawyer Interview - YouTube - "Lawyer Tom Isaac, chair of Castles’ National Aboriginal Law Group and a former BC chief treaty negotiator... warns the Cowichan decision creates real uncertainty for private landowners by undermining indefeasible title, with potentially catastrophic economic consequences."
Cowichan decision raises questions around fee simple titles | Insights | MLT Aikins
Weird. Left wingers tell us that Cowichan does not endanger private land ownership at all and anyone who suggests otherwise is spreading misinformation

How B.C.'s reconciliation law, DRIPA, is a major threat to democracy | National Post - "There is a growing political and constitutional crisis in British Columbia sparked by the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). The growing controversy around DRIPA and its impacts has become a major political severe headache for Premier David Eby, whose plan to suspend the law fell apart amid threats of blockade and lawsuits from Indigenous leaders. In this interview with NP’s Rob Breakenridge, Without Diminishment co-founder and National Post contributor Geoff Russ makes the case that DRIPA has evolved into a “quasi-constitutional veto” and “legal stranglehold” that threatens democratic governance, social cohesion, resource development, and even the names of B.C. municipalities. Russ warns that the rest of Canada should be paying attention, and that B.C.’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale."

Time to end the BC NDP's ideological nightmare and repeal DRIPA - "With all the debate in and out of the courts about whether a United Nations declaration should dictate our reconciliation efforts, Canadians might be forgiven for forgetting – or not knowing – our country already has an able process to resolve Crown/Aboriginal relations.   Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is the provision in our highest law that recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. Despite this, in 2019 an activist NDP government introduced a different and completely unworkable “reconciliation framework” throughout British Columbia.   The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) first found purchase in Canada as an uncalled-for recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which stipulated that the declaration form the basis for reconciliation in Canada, despite this country already having a constitutional framework in place for that very purpose.   In 2019, the B.C. government, under the late Premier John Horgan, passed legislation that brought UNDRIP into British Columbia law. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2019 directed each and every law in the province must conform to the ill-defined human rights concepts set out in UNDRIP.   Some UNDRIP provisions are not only vague, they stand in direct conflict with section 35 of the constitution. For instance, Article 26 directs complete Indigenous ownership of any claimed territory with no requirement to prove “exclusive occupation” of those lands as is required by section 35.   Using Article 26, the Eby government assumes every square inch of British Columbia’s land base is “stolen” land – what the Premier calls the “original colonial mistake” that he is intent on correcting. Again these assertions are in direct conflict with Canadian constitutional law. Proven Aboriginal title may ultimately cover around six per cent, but certainly not 100 per cent of the B.C. land base.  And Article 32(2) of UNDRIP stipulates Indigenous consent must be obtained before any government decision can impact that so-called territorial ownership interest. Section 35 of the constitution says no such thing. Most legal experts know that its practical effect is to create a veto power for Aboriginal communities over government actions.   No one has any idea what that provision means exactly. Is it a veto over Crown decision-making or not?  The Supreme Court of Canada already realized that requiring Aboriginal consent or agreement before governments could govern in the public interest would put a giant stick in the spokes of reconciliation.  The Eby government is apparently fine with that outcome.  The BC NDP said DRIPA would not confer a veto when it introduced the legislation in 2019, but the B.C. government under David Eby has since signed agreements with First Nations in the name of reconciliation that do exactly that.  It is ridiculous to think that the B.C. government can effectively run the province in the midst of these uncertainties. Which is why, perhaps, a growing chorus of people are saying the province is not being run effectively.   DRIPA is currently enjoying a moment of infamy as the driver of radical provincial reconciliation policy and a major factor in several precedent-setting court decisions. Meanwhile citizens, Indigenous law experts, First Nations, industries, politicians, potential investors, and media outlets struggle to make sense of the law’s intention and the societal upheaval it is creating.   The stated intention of the legislature at the time DRIPA was passed by MLAs of all parties was for legislators, not the courts, to reconcile all B.C. laws with the articles of UNDRIP. That expectation was blown out of the water by the Dec. 5 BC Court of Appeal decision in the Gitxaala case.  For the second time in four months, a B.C. court referenced the principles of DRIPA in its ruling. In the Gitxaala v. British Columbia decision, two of three judges overturned an earlier court decision and decreed DRIPA was in fact “justiciable” as in, a law that can be used in a trial and upheld in court, and that all the province’s laws must immediately conform to UNDRIP.  With that judgment, the DRIPA nightmare became a full-blown constitutional crisis...   Four months after the BC Supreme Court’s Cowichan Tribes v. Canada  decision recognized Aboriginal title on fee simple land and ruled Land Title Act protections for those private land titles don’t apply, the province has yet to fulfill its commitment to file so much as a petition for a stay of proceedings.   In fact, the only legal action the Eby government has taken of late – and it took it swiftly following the Cowichan ruling – was to support a declaration of Haida Nation Aboriginal title in the BC Supreme Court, including over the private lands on Haida Gwaii. The government did this with the full knowledge that a declaration of Haida Aboriginal title would – thanks to provisions in the Cowichan ruling – ensure the Land Title Act protections would not apply to private property within Haida territory.     Which can only mean the B.C. government intentionally created the same private property rights nightmare on Haida Gwaii that was, and is, being faced by private property owners in Richmond.    There is no world in which this can be called governing in the public interest.   In the case of the Gitxaala ruling, the Premier blames the court, claiming the judges over-reached. He said DRIPA was never intended to strike down B.C. laws or be wielded like a law in court against the government. It is up to legislators to determine B.C. laws, not the courts, Eby said following the decision...   But Eby confused matters when he described the Interpretation Act provision as having “the requirement that provincial laws and regulations be read so as to be consistent with the UN declaration.”   In an additional bout of mixed messaging, he also said this: “But where a decision-maker is faced with two possible interpretations of the public interest in making a decision, the Interpretation Act, in this circumstance, would, we intend, instruct the decision-maker to prefer the interpretation of public interest that is consistent with the principles of the DRIPA legislation.”  Now Eby has the temerity to accuse the court of being confused about his government’s intentions for DRIPA. This week, he committed his government to assisting the courts “in understanding this is work for British Columbians to do, not the courts.” All of which drew a rebuke from the BC Trial Lawyers Association, which said the Premier’s comments “reflect a troubling national trend in which politicians use the courts as punching bags to score political points.”   If the BC NDP government did not intend for DRIPA to direct B.C. laws to literally conform to UNDRIP, here’s the Premier’s chance to prove it.   But the remedy will require more than a few simple tweaks to DRIPA.  Leaning into government’s original intentions, Premier Eby might recall what then Indigenous Relations minister Scott Fraser told MLAs during a 2019 debate on DRIPA. Fraser said it was the intention of government to interpret UNDRIP in a manner consistent with section 35 in the constitution.   This never happened.   Fraser also assured legislators the law would not to create new rights for Indigenous peoples or strike down any existing B.C. laws. The legislation passed unanimously, with the Opposition BC Liberals trusting the government’s stated intentions.  Given the BC NDP’s actions in the name of “reconciliation,” particularly under Eby’s watch in the past three years, Fraser’s aspirations were a stunningly incorrect representation of what actually unfolded in the name of UNDRIP and DRIPA. Most certainly, the current B.C. government has not interpreted UNDRIP in a manner consistent with section 35 and has left a trail of new rights and unprecedented decision-making agreements in its wake, completely over-stepping the careful framework built by decades of constitutional law.  DRIPA was flawed from the outset and the Premier, who was attorney general at the time, should have known it... sections1(4), 2(a),2(b), 3, 6, and 7 of DRIPA remain both legally problematic and entirely undemocratic. Yet the province continues to celebrate “reconciliation” agreements signed under these provisions... Unfortunately, the federal Liberal government under Justin Trudeau enacted its own UNDRIP legislation in 2021, also with the unanimous, and perhaps similarly naive, support of all political parties. Regardless, Prime Minister Mark Carney is about to find out how equally ridiculous that adoption was when his government’s commitments to Indigenous consent under UNDRIP collide with the ‘elbows up’ push to advance major resource projects in the public interest.  Only a complete repeal of this enormous ideological mistake will properly rectify the mess the province now finds itself in. Then federal representatives will have to follow suit in the Canadian parliament to correct their own egregious mistake."

B.C.'s DRIPA law is irredeemable and must be scrapped | National Post - "DRIPA, which was passed by the government of former B.C. premier John Horgan in 2019, cannot provide a viable framework for reconciliation in British Columbia, because the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is not a viable framework for reconciliation in an advanced western democracy such as Canada, which already recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights in its Constitution... Sec. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this as the proper vehicle for reconciliation in Canada. While Sec. 35 has been criticized, it at least provides a balanced approach to reconciling the pre-existence of Indigenous societies with the imposition of sovereignty by the Crown.  UNDRIP is inconsistent with Sec. 35 and is contrary to what the Supreme Court has determined to be the constitutional obligations of governments and the rights they are supposed to protect. Governments simply cannot accept UNDRIP as an alternative pathway to reconciliation in the Canadian context.  Apparently the B.C. government’s view was that it never intended DRIPA to be legally enforceable by the courts, or to cause UNDRIP itself to be the law of the land. Yet in December 2025, the B.C. Court of Appeal disagreed with that interpretation of both DRIPA and Sec. 8.1 of the Interpretation Act, which states that, “Every Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration.” The court determined that, “Properly interpreted, the Declaration Act incorporates UNDRIP into the positive law of British Columbia with immediate legal effect.” This has created enormous levels of legal uncertainty in the province and opened the door for First Nations to litigate, and potentially upend, any provincial laws if they so choose.  Even American First Nations have cited DRIPA and UNDRIP in legal challenges to provincial government decisions, including the government’s approval of the Eskey Creek mine in northern B.C.  Recently, the Business Council of British Columbia surveyed its members and found that 98 per cent of them are “very concerned” about DRIPA “applying to all laws in the province. The same share of respondents also said that they do not believe DRIPA is living up to its original promise of creating greater investment certainty in B.C.” This is a far cry from how the province’s NDP government pitched DRIPA in 2019, when it claimed in a press release that the “legislation aims to create further certainty for investment and reaffirms B.C. as a world-class destination providing opportunities for business.”  Once hailed by the B.C. NDP as a sort of holy grail of reconciliation, blindly following the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, DRIPA is now clearly causing havoc throughout the province, as the business community is now bluntly stating.  Far from being a framework for advancing reconciliation in a “respectful and meaningful way,” there are now existential reasons to insist upon the full and outright repeal of DRIPA, to ensure that UNDRIP ceases to have any application at all in British Columbia."
DRIPA creates certainty - that indigenous issues will sink your investments
Clearly, Geoffrey S. Moyse, "a retired senior lawyer who served as legal counsel to the Province of British Columbia, advising six successive governments on Aboriginal law over more than 30 years" is ignorant and doesn't know what he's talking about and hates indigenous people

Meme - "THIS LEGISLATED EXTINCTION IS A FORM OF GENOCIDE." - SENATOR BRIAN FRANCIS. Lnu/Mi'kmaq - Prince Edward Island"
On not being able to pass on Indian status to all descendents. Everything a left winger hates is "genocide". The irony is that the more "indigenous" people there are, the sooner the gravy train will stop, because it will bring forward the point at which it will become unsustainable due to too many taxpayers having to pay off "indigenous" peoples

In Canadian first, Yukon to get Indigenous-only parking spots | National Post - "As part of their stated commitment to “decolonization & Indigenization” in health care, the Yukon is debuting Indigenous-only parking spaces at all its three hospitals.  In a social media post last week, Yukon Hospitals announced that the territory’s hospitals would henceforth feature reserved parking spots marked “Respectfully Reserved for Elders.”  Reserved exclusively for “First Nation, Inuit, and Métis Elders,” the spaces are marked with signs featuring commissioned art from two Yukon-based Indigenous artists; one prepared a stylized image of two elders, while another prepared the accompanying text reading “respectfully reserved for elders.”... Yukon Hospitals, like many Canadian government and health-care authorities, has publicly embraced the notion that its facilities are shot through with “systemic racism” that can only be alleviated via differential treatment for marginalized groups... That same plan has the hospital authority pledging to make “Yukon First Nations ways of knowing, doing and being part of everything we do.”... the territory, like B.C., has a policy of asking patients their Indigenous status in order to access culturally specific services such as access to traditional food or “traditional medicine.”... The threshold of Indigenous-only parking spots is a new one. Not just in the Yukon, but in Canada generally. In fact, the Indigenous-only spots appear to be Canada’s only instances of public parking spots being set aside based on the immutable characteristics of the driver.  The closest analogue would be instances in both Germany and South Korea where public parking spots were set aside exclusively for women. Germany has been installing women-only parking spots since the 1990s, following a wave of violent sexual assaults taking place in parking garages. The spots, labelled “reserviert fuer frauen,” are typically in well-lit areas located close to building entrances. No such “she-spots” or “Frauenparkplatz” are known to exist in Canada, although there are spots for expectant mothers, or parents with young children. The Yukon parking spaces do fit within a larger trend of Indigenous Canadians being given priority access to public spaces in the service of reconciliation.  One of the more controversial of which was the B.C. government agreeing last year to begin closing select provincial parks to non-Indigenous users."

Alexander Zoltan on X - "Probably the most shocking story I've ever written. The Cole's notes: a $12 billion Trudeau-era department dedicated to "nation-to-nation" communication & negotiation between Ottawa and First Nations has allocated $0 to tracking communication between Ottawa and BC First Nations."

IntegrityTO on X - "TTC wants to “decolonize wayfinding” You don’t have a serious transit system because you don’t have a serious TTC Board."
Jonathan Kay on X - "This whole racist TTC plan seems to involve putting little animal symbols on things, because apparently they think indigenous people are all four-year olds who don’t understand how words and street signs work, and so they need to look at little pictures"

Meme - "oh look, yet another colonial Christian nationalist white woman trying to tell indigenous people how it should be. 3825you"
"excuse me bigot?!? Thats anti-Indigenous racism or colourism you're spouting at me because I'm white presenting. Nice job. *showing certificate from Metis Nation of Alberta*"

Christina Victoria | Facebook - "The hypocrisy in these conversations is exhausting. People say you’re only allowed to speak on Indigenous issues if you’re Indigenous. But if you’re white-presenting, suddenly you’re “not Indigenous enough” to have a voice. And if you are openly Indigenous but hold an opinion they disagree with, then you’re called a traitor, a colonizer, or accused of “hurting your own people.” So which is it? Because it starts looking less like “listening to Indigenous voices” and more like only allowing Indigenous voices that repeat the approved opinion. Everyone else gets silenced. At the same time, many of these same people call things like the Alberta separation petition “authoritarian” or “anti-democratic,” while openly trying to shut down discussion, shame dissent, and block democratic processes they personally dislike. You cannot claim to defend democracy, Canadian values, the Charter, rights, freedoms, and open dialogue while also deciding certain people are not allowed to speak, question, disagree, or participate because of their appearance, beliefs, or political opinion. That is not reconciliation. That is ideological gatekeeping. And calling a white-presenting Indigenous person a “colonizer” because they don’t fit your stereotype of what Indigenous people should look like is still racism. Anti-Indigenous racism doesn’t disappear just because it’s wrapped in progressive language. Indigenous people are not required to prove their identity through skin tone for your comfort. And for the record: consultation is not the same thing as unilateral veto power. The duty to consult is meant to ensure communication, negotiation, and consideration of impacts — not to mean that one group alone has the absolute final say over every decision affecting millions of other Albertans as well. In a democracy, difficult issues are supposed to involve discussion, disagreement, compromise, and participation from everyone affected — not the silencing of people who hold the “wrong” opinion. You cannot preach democracy while demanding ideological obedience, and you cannot claim to support Indigenous voices while silencing Indigenous people who refuse to repeat your script."

Meme - *Parody of Every Child Matters poster* "Dig up or shut up"

Orillia mayor, council at odds over what to do with Champlain statue | National Post - "A small Ontario city has removed its monument to Samuel de Champlain, again, as city council rebelled against the mayor’s unilateral decision to return it to its waterfront plinth.  The monument to the French explorer was taken from Couchiching Beach Park on June 10 and stored away in a municipal yard after Orillia City Council voted 6-3 last month to take it down as part of continuing fallout from the Kamloops residential school “graves” controversy. It was originally erected in 1925 but removed by Parks Canada in 2017 for restoration amid reconciliation discussions. Mayor Don McIsaac then briefly returned it to its plinth last month. “The vast majority of Orillians want the monument returned. They’ve done surveys. They’ve done all sorts of reach outs and people want it returned”...  The back-and-forth removals came amid discussions and dissent from local First Nations leaders, who would not grant interviews on the latest development...  Following the monument’s return, controversy erupted once again. An Indigenous woman was arrested on May 21 for spray painting “Rama said no” on the monument’s steps. The debate about Champlain and reconciliation was rekindled.  On May 29, the city council successfully voted to remove the statue. It was tarped and fenced off for protection. But just over a week later, someone spray-painted the monument again.  On June 8, the statue was tarped again and two days later, it was removed."
Co-op Tory 🍁 on X - "Attacking Champlain in the name of “reconciliation” makes no sense. He built Quebec on a basis of conciliatory relationships with indigenous people. Champlain had genuine respect for indigenous people and approached their cultures and language with curiosity and admiration."
Left wingers just hate white people
It's only oligarchy to go against what most people want if it threatens the left wing agenda

Thursday, July 30, 2026

Links - 30th July 2026 (2 - Trans Mania)

Róisín Michaux on X - "Transgender Europe, the secretive Berlin-based NGO that works to replace sex with 'gender identity' in EU countries via strategic litigation, has secured EU funding of €1 million per year for the next 3 years. This is separate from the money it receives for individual projects from the EU budget."

“You can’t take someone to court for not wanting to go out with you”: Trans woman takes young man to court for rejecting her - "In Spain, a trans woman plans to sue a young man she was dating, alleging discrimination after he decided not to continue the relationship upon learning her gender identity on the fourth date. 😳   The case exploded on social media with thousands of divided comments: one side believes that no one should be judged for whom they choose or do not choose to have a relationship with; the other side sees it as a legitimate way to combat transphobia protected under the 2023 Trans Law.  Writers such as Lucía Etxebarria are already talking about “the judicialization of love”. Where is the line between free rejection and discrimination? 👇"
Clearly, all they want is to have the same rights as everyone else

Oxford professor cancels lectures after abuse from pro-trans protesters - "Dr Michael Foran, 32,

an associate professor of law at the university, was interrupted by protesters at two separate talks discussing gender law in recent weeks.  Footage obtained by The Telegraph showed activists standing in front of his lectern and telling the audience he was a “bigot” and “transphobic”.  The academic, who is an expert on gender law, confirmed on Sunday that he had cancelled his remaining two lectures because of the “escalating disruptive protests”. “This is deeply lamentable, but the disruption has undermined the academic nature of this series,” he said in a post on X. “Students shouldn’t face bullying or harassment when attending academic events.”"
Damn transphobes trying to suppress freedom of speech! They need to be jailed for harassing vulnerable minorities!

Richard Dawkins on X - "This unqualified bore says his secondhand opinions are “not up for debate.” Yes they are. At a university all opinions are up for debate. If you cannot defend your opinions rationally, either they are indefensible or you are too stupid to defend them. In either case you have no right to force them on students who have expressed their wish to attend a lecture by doing so."

Jonathan Kay on X - "Another exciting DEI initiative from @UWaterloo : Share your pronouns! Buttt ....
1. Pronouns cannot be more than "60 characters"
2. Using the (publicly posted!) pronouns without first getting permission can "devastate" people
3. "Mocking" this exciting system = DEI investigation"

Spanish Museum Launches Virgin Mary-Inspired Art Exhibit Featuring Trans-Identified Male Models In Lingerie - "The Museum of Guadalajara in Spain is under fire for an exhibition that “reimagines” the Virgin Mary using trans-identified male models and fetish-inspired imagery, drawing condemnation from women’s rights advocates and Catholic groups alike. Opened to the public on May 7 and running until June 21, Alonso Cano: Like a Virgin claims to be an attempt to develop a “contemporary ideological discourse on sexuality, gender, and the ‘re-appropriation’ of the female body in art.”  According to the official description issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports of Castilla-La Mancha, the exhibit is a collaborative project by students at the Elena de la Cruz School of Art and was inspired by one of the Museum’s most important pieces: Alonso Cano’s 17th century painting La Virgen de la Leche... the Ministry’s regional spokesperson, Ángel Fernández, has defended the exhibit as being a demonstration of the artistic and creative freedom for the students of the Elena de la Cruz School of Art.  “We are educating young people in a democracy, under a set of principles,” Fernández stated, arguing that one of the fundamental principles of democracy is “freedom of expression and artistic, literary, and scientific freedom, and the idea that we should be free individuals.”... In 2021, online zine Feminist featured the work of Argentina-based photographer Kenny Lemes. While five pieces of Lemes’ art were posted in total, one in particular featured a seemingly naked male cradling a baby, which was suckling at a rubber nipple that had been affixed to the male model’s own.  Lemes told the outlet that the purpose of the photo was to “[expand] the gaze on bodies,” claiming it was a “very important political act one discovers the potency of existing, proudly, on the edges of hetero-patriarchal thinking.” The zine was later forced to delete the photo due to overwhelming backlash, even amongst liberal feminist readers, who implored Lemes not to use real babies in highly controversial art.  In 2023, the Gender Museum (KØN) in Aarhus, Denmark, drew similar backlash after erecting a statue of a naked trans-identified male breastfeeding a baby. The nude figure, constructed in 2021 as a self-portrait by Aske Kreilgaard, is depicted with exposed male genitals and breasts to which he is holding a feeding baby."
Good luck if you insult Islam

Leor Sapir on X - "The data out of Oregon really are astonishing. A phenomenon once observed in about 1 in 20,000 adult men and 1 in 50,000 adult women (DSM-5) is now being diagnosed and medically treated in at least 1 in 250 17-year-old girls in Oregon."

Meme - Leor Sapir @LeorSapir: "It's always been the case that 1 in 250 teen girls is actually a boy with XX chromosomes and a vagina. curious, what's the threshold here? If it were 1 in 150, would that be cause for concern? 1 in 127? 1 in 3?"
Madeleine Callan @CallanMade50182: "Here we go. Leor more people are comfortable coming out these days. Acceptance in society changes these stigmatizing statistics."
Emma Johnson @JohnsonEmma: "Also: if the world is safe enough to ensure more people feel comfortable coming out, then why do trans people need special protections?"

Colin Wright on X - "This is truly shocking data out of Oregon. Between 2016 and 2023, nearly 1 in 100 insured children ages 8 to 17 received a gender dysphoria diagnosis. By age 17, around 1 in 240 insured girls were on testosterone and 1 in 630 boys were on estrogen."

Wesley Yang on X - "Transgenderism is proof of concept that there are absolutely no limits on what cult ritual from the outermost fringe of human extremity we can market to young children and normalize in less than a decade.   You could say that it's a portent of greater horrors to come, but brainwashing tens of thousands of quirky young people to yearn to be chemically castrated and dismembered and threaten suicide unless they get the ruinous self-harm they have been propagandized into believing is their sole chance to become their true selves is already at the outermost limit of horror from the childhood of humanity that the postmodern age has brought back to life in a monstrous and all-encompassing new form that implicates the professional and leadership classes of the whole of the Western world in a terminal moral and epistemic corruption.   Let no one gaslight you into saying or seeing otherwise."

Benjamin Ryan on X - "Over 1 in 250 Natal Girls Were Taking Testosterone By Age 17 in Oregon, From 2016 to 2023 https://open.substack.com/pub/benryan/p/ over-1-in-250-natal-girls-were-taking  This rate, from a study of data about insured adolescents in Oregon, represents an average over this period. Given swift increases in hormone uptake over time, the rate was likely much higher by 2023.  The use of gender-transition drugs among adolescents in Oregon soared between 2016 and 2023, charting a nearly 10-fold increase among biological girls and a 14-fold increase in natal boys. Across this period, about 1 in 100 insured youth ages 8 to 17 in the Pacific Northwest state were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a psychiatric condition involving distress stemming from a conflict between an individual’s natal sex and their gender identity.   By age 17, about 1 in 240 insured natal girls were taking testosterone and about 1 in 630 natal boys were taking estrogen in Oregon. These figures are nearly three-fold higher for natal girls and nearly twice as high for natal boys as figures from a study published last year that analyzed national data on commercially insured youth from 2018 to 2022."

Wilfred Reilly on X - "AS A MINOR, one in every 250 Oregon girls is not only "diagnosed" as trans - that's 1/98 - but is being "medically treated.""

Agnes Wold on X - "It is a purely iatrogenic epidemic. Once you open clinics for teenagers where you promise that psychic and social problems are due to X, and X can be treated by Y (here: hormones and surgery), you will recruit a variety of unhappy young persons to your clinic.>"

Wampater on X - "But think about all that lovely money ... 'Gender reassignment surgery market size was valued at USD 2.98 billion in 2025 and is projected to hit the market valuation of USD 6.06 billion by 2035 at a CAGR of 7.35% during the forecast period 2026–2035.'"
As usual, TRAs are trying to pretend that cosmetic surgery is "gender affirming". This is one reason left wingers keep making up terms and concepts - so they can make more straw men

Big Think on X - "Why wouldn't older populations of women come out at similar rates if society is more accepting? Also if society is more accepting, why do they keep wailing about a non-existent trans genocide?"
The doublethink and cope need to go into overdrive

Ray Yuan Zhang- Build Back Trust in Public Health on X - "This is the data on (unfortunate) suicide. I can find data from 2019 to 2023, during that time, rates of gender-affirming medical treatment among adolescents increased substantially, while Oregon youth suicide deaths and suicide-related emergency department visits remained relatively stable. At the population level, these trends do not show an obvious corresponding decline in suicide outcomes. It is, from an ecological level, access to 'lifesaving' gender affirming care has no impact on suicide."
The cope is that transphobia increased during this time, exactly cancelling out the effects of "life saving" trans "treatment"

Meme - Ugly MTF: "Hello fellow lesbian, do you want to suck my girl dick?"
Black woman: "Ew"
Ugly MTF: "This is transphobic! I'm a lesbian. You genital fetishist! SUCK MY DICK!"
Black woman: "I'm a lesbian. I'm not into men."
Naturally, left wingers were gaslighting and claiming this never happened

High school female athlete sues after unknowingly wrestling male, who sexually assaulted her during match - "A male wrestler sexually assaulted the female wrestler in December 2025 during a high school girls’ wrestling tournament, an event sponsored by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association.  The female athlete, Kallie Keeler, and her mother, Stephanie Brown, are suing state officials after those officials directed Keeler to take the mat without telling anyone that she was about to wrestle a male and after the officials waited 53 days to report the sexual assault to law enforcement, in violation of a mandatory 48-hour reporting law.  “A 15-year-old girl was sexually assaulted because of political cowardice. Washington state officials insist on pushing gender ideology at all costs—even at the expense of girls’ safety and privacy,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, director of the ADF Center for Parental Rights. “Our client’s story is proof of the grave harms caused by lying about biology. This must end—otherwise, girls will continue getting hurt and violated. We are urging the court to require state officials to change their policy to ensure that girls’ privacy and safety are protected when they compete in the sports they love. No girl should have to unknowingly wrestle a boy. And at a minimum, parents must be notified before their daughters are matched against male opponents.”   “Tragically, because of district policy, a 15-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a male opponent on the wrestling mat,” Anderson continued. “Kallie’s mom was in the gym with her daughter, but she could not protect her because the district’s written policy prohibits notifying parents or anyone else when their daughters will be matched against male athletes. She and her mother promptly reported the assault to school officials, who sat on the information for nearly two months. Washington state failed this family, but it isn’t too late to protect other girls. State officials must change their policies and prioritize girls’ safety in sports.”  Keeler, who was 15 at the time of the incident, was matched against a male athlete without her or her mother’s knowledge. During the match, the male athlete sexually assaulted her. She appeared visibly distressed while competing and tried to communicate what was happening to her mother, who was recording the match. As ADF attorneys explain, the assault was not a wrestling move—it was a flagrant foul and criminal conduct—sexual assault in its truest form. She left the mat crying, but her coaches did nothing... If she returns to wrestling, she can be matched against a male athlete again without notice and over her objection."

Kristen Waggoner on X - "Let’s make one thing very clear: signing up for girls’ wrestling is in NO way a permission slip for sexual assault.  As @ADFLegal  explained in our lawsuit: “Digital penetration falls outside the scope of implied consent to participating in athletics because, under normal circumstances of girls wrestling, it is not a reasonably foreseeable hazard from the perspective of a girl wrestler. Nor is sexual assault or groping generally accepted by society as part of any lawful athletic contest.”    Also: girls who sign up for girls’ wrestling aren’t consenting to wrestle boys. Kallie Keeler was betrayed by multiple adults in authority, who knowingly allowed her to wrestle a male without her knowledge or consent. They bear responsibility for what happened to her—and they are continuing to put female wrestlers in harm’s way through their actions and policies.  That’s why, besides suing governing bodies @wiaawa , @waOSPI , and the Puyallup School District, we’re also suing:
- State superintendent Chris Reykdal
- Kallie’s principal
- Her school district’s Title IX coordinator
- Her opponent’s coach
  … and not just in their official capacities, but as individuals.   I’m also glad to hear the local prosecutor is reportedly still considering action against those who failed to report the sexual assault, as required by law. These mandatory reporters should have reported the incident within 48 hours but waited 53 days. They should face consequences.  We won’t rest until Kallie gets justice—and girls in Washington state get their sports back."

Jennifer Sey on X - "To use a leftie term, I’m feeling especially triggered by the response to what happened to Kallie Keeler. All the anon accounts screeching that it's a normal part of wrestling, just an "oil check" (an illegal move by the way, that this was not), that she's too wimpy and weak to be a wrestler if she can't handle it.   Bullshit.   She was assaulted. A man stuck his fingers inside her vagina and held them there.  This incident echoes dark patterns that I have witnessed and even been caught in the midst of for decades.  Bad men will hide behind shields of respectability while abusing girls and women in plain sight.   As a former gymnast and whistleblower, I see the parallels to Larry Nassar immediately. Nassar hid behind the respectability of his medical degree and his role as USA Gymnastics team doctor. After he abused young female athletes for 30 years, finally women came forward in droves to report the assaults. Those victims were attacked for months until there were too many to ignore.  My coach hid behind his "coach" title, while claiming to keep athletes safe as a spotter, then molesting in plain view. Athletes were shamed into silence.   Predators will exploit any opening to find, abuse and assault their victims."

Jonathan Kay on X - "This is fantastic. Someone asks Canada’s Chief Science Officer what a woman is, and the Liberals start howling that the question is prohibited because “it’s pride month.” The same guy then says that referring to “men and women” is “highly offensive”"

Green councillor forced to study Equality Act after cancelling authors - "A Green councillor who compared gender-critical authors to Holocaust deniers has been forced to study the Equality Act.  Helen Elliott-Boult, a Green councillor for Stroud district council (SDC), justified the cancellation of an event featuring two authors critical of transgender ideology, set to take place at Stroud Brewery in the Cotswolds. The event was cancelled because of fears for “the safety of members of our trans community”.  Council officers have mandated that Ms Elliott-Boult attend training, reinforcing that gender-critical views are protected by law in the UK... Stroud has become an unexpected battleground for debates over gender ideology in recent years. In 2025, local police treated graffiti that stated “men can’t be women” as a hate crime.  Gloucestershire Constabulary launched an investigation into slogans daubed around Stroud ahead of the town’s annual Pride march, including the phrases “you can’t change sex”, “being female is not a costume”, and “trans women are men”.  Police said the graffiti was “targeted towards transgender people” and the incident was being treated as a “hate crime”."

Green councillors ‘pushed lies to allow trans women in single-sex spaces’ - "The Green Party has wrongly advised its councillors that trans women are still allowed in single-sex spaces, The Telegraph can reveal.  The Association of Green Councillors (AGC), which provides support to the party’s councillors, has issued guidance to its members stating that trans women do not have to be excluded from single-sex spaces.  But this goes against the code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).  Critics have now accused the Greens of “lying about what the law says”, raising concerns about how Green-run local authorities will manage single-sex spaces in public buildings.   Campaigners warned that Green Party councillors could even put their local authority at risk of legal action if they followed the advice."

Trans suspects can demand strip search by female officer - "Police chiefs have been plunged into a fresh row over equality guidance after suggesting trans women suspects have the right to request a strip search by a female officer.  The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) guidance suggests men who identify as women can request a female officer to strip-search them and “efforts will be made” to find an officer of their “lived-in gender”.  Women’s rights campaigners said the interim guidance, drawn up after the Supreme Court ruling that sex under the Equality Act means biological sex at birth, would be challenged in the High Court.  Campaigners said senior police chiefs had fallen “hook, line and sinker for gender ideology” and the Tories described the advice as “madness”... While the guidance does say that female officers can refuse to search a trans woman, women’s rights campaigners argue that female officers would fear being labelled “transphobic” if they did, which could harm their careers. Sex Matters and the Women’s Rights Network have applied to the High Court for the guidance to be overturned, saying it hands “male detainees who have an erotic interest in cross-dressing, get a sexual thrill from exposing themselves in front of women or simply enjoy humiliating and intimidating women, an easy way to do so inside the custody suite”.  Sex Matters argues that the guidance also contravenes the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which says a strip search can only be carried out by someone of the same sex as the detained person... “This madness needs to end. The police must focus on enforcing the law, not trying to undermine it.”"

Meme - *Man seeing 2 women being intimate on a bench*
Man: "You ladies just haven't been with a real man yet!"
*Shocked women*
Woman 1: "He said 'ladies'!"
Woman 2: "I passed!"
Man: "Wait, they said he? I passed!"
Woman 1: "Wait, he says 'they'?"
Woman 2: "You Passed!"
This is a piss take of a silly PizzaCake comic

Meme - Eve Keneinan @EveKeneinan: "When your ideology leads to you a burning hatred of reality, it isn't reality that's the problem."
Radfem Lioness @Adr...: "i hate human sexual dimorphism with a burning fury"
@atelier Loop @tatami...: "Translated from Japanese. Skeletal Structure of Male and Female Core Body (Repost) I like the way it's displayed side by side for comparison."

Transgender woman performed sex act in full view of staff at Cardiff hospital - "A transgender woman has been jailed for masturbating in front of nurses at a Welsh hospital. Serial sex offender Paula Stanton, 62, of Severn Avenue, Barry, has been jailed after she admitted carrying out an act outraging public decency by masturbating at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff earlier this year... In November 2019 Stanton was handed a five-year sexual harm prevention order for outraging public decency. She was again handed a five-year long sexual harm prevention order in August 2025 for indecent exposure offences.  The defendant has 12 previous convictions for 19 offences, five of which are sex offences committed between 2019 and 2025. Many of Stanton's previous convictions include outraging public decency offences as well as indecent exposure offences. An earlier offence by Stanton involved a sex act while wearing lingerie in a window as women walked past. Another offence saw Stanton performing a sex act in a car."
Women masturbate in front of healthcare workers all the time, so if you think this is unusual, you're just a transphobic bigot. In fact, this act was due to transphobia, so the solution is to give trans people "equal rights"

Canada adds forced or coerced sterilisation to Criminal Code - "The law, passed in the House of Commons last week, follows reports of healthcare professionals sterilising people without their free and informed consent as recently as 2024."
Jonathan Kay on X - "This is great news. Many children “affirmed” into genderwang sterilization procedures have comorbid psychiatric conditions that prevent them from giving meaningful consent"
TRAs will just find a cope to get away with it

The Undercurrent on X - "If you don’t think radical ideology can threaten this country, you weren’t watching the transgender movement.   In barely a decade we went from biology being a settled fact to being told gender identity overrides it, that kids can decide their own sex, and that anyone who hesitated was a bigot. It started as a fringe academic idea. Then it was in the schools, the hospitals, the boardrooms, and the government.  It didn’t take a majority. It took a small, disciplined movement that knew which buttons to push, compassion, victimhood, the fear of being called cruel. And it worked.  That’s the part to sit with. It was never about one issue. It’s proof that a determined movement can rewrite an entire society faster than anyone thinks possible. If it happened once, it can happen again.  Pay attention…."

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes