Categories
Corruption Just my own thoughts Opinion Politics The Courts The Law Uncategorized

Why Trump shouldn’t be charged. And if he is, he walks.

Visits: 20

Why Trump shouldn’t be charged. And if he is, he walks. Pence who didn’t have the power to declassify wasn’t charged. Biden will not be charged, so Trump who had the power (and did) declassify should not be charged. And that phony obstruction charge? If Trump declassified the documents, he was correct in saying he had no classified documents.

“The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process.” As long as it’s before the fact and several people were witness to the President doing just that.

Parlatore said that even if the report is true that there is a tape where Trump acknowledges the existence of a classified document in his possession connected to Iran and that it reveals the former president knew the material was classified and that he was not permitted to share it, prosecuting Trump might not be the best decision “because there are all of these other problems. Classification is not binding on the jury. You have to actually take these documents, show them to the jury, and then prove to them that it constitutes national defense information.” Former Trump attorney said.

 

Loading

97
Categories
Corruption Links from other news sources. Uncategorized

One of the snitches from the Obama days snitched on Joe

Visits: 26

One of the snitches from the Obama days snitched on Joe. It’s being reported that one of the informants who’s been used during the Obama days is the one who spilled the beans on Joe.

The individual behind the information that then-Vice President Joe Biden was involved in a criminal bribery scheme with a foreign national is a “highly credible” FBI confidential human source who has been used by the bureau in multiple investigative matters dating back to the Obama administration, Fox News Digital has learned.

The information in the FD-1023 form, according to the whistleblower, reveals “a precise description of how the alleged criminal scheme was employed as well as its purpose” and details an arrangement involving an exchange of money for policy decisions. 

But the far left extremists are claiming this was intel provided by Rudy and the Ukrainians. And even AG Barr dismissed it.

Loading

102
Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Revolt of the Dutch farmers

Visits: 13

Article was first published here.

The Dutch have a particular horror of fascism. They bravely resisted the Nazis during the Second World War, as the German occupation of the Netherlands cut off food and fuel shipments. During the “Hunger Winter,” which lasted from 1944 until the Allied liberation in 1945, at least 22,000 Dutch people died from malnutrition.

That experience branded the national character with a strongly libertarian streak. It also explains why, post-war, the Netherlands created the most successful agricultural economy on the planet out of the ruins.

Though smaller than the state of West Virginia, they became the world’s second-biggest exporter of food after the United States. And despite the temperate climate, farmers have developed a thriving fruit and vegetable industry, including growing bananas in greenhouses. Not even their damp lands have held them back; Dutch engineering has allowed productive farming to flourish below sea level. There’s a floating dairy farm in Rotterdam Harbor that provides the city with milk, butter, and yogurt while shoring up flood resistance. As a dairy farmer myself, in Scotland, I’m inspired by what my fellow farmers have pulled off.

The Netherlands’ particular history also explains why, at least initially, the Dutch were enthusiastic early members of what became the European Union; they were driven by a determination that a war on the continent should never happen again. But now Dutch farmers are turning against the EU—and their own prime minister—in a bid to fight for their most basic liberties.



That’s because EU climate laws have led the Dutch government to commit to reducing nitrogen emissions by 50 percent by 2030. To achieve this, the government has threatened to withdraw farmers’ licenses to farm because of their high nitrogen emissions, mainly stemming from cow dung and fertilizers. Without their licenses, farmers won’t be able to borrow money, putting many in financial peril. Farmers feel they are being scapegoated even though they farm efficiently. Nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands have fallen 50 percent since 1990—while airlines and other emitters show little restraint in the face of climate change.

Why, the farmers ask, are they being singled out?..

Loading

71
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption Education Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Professor no longer in the classroom after allegedly forcing Christian students to fund Planned Parenthood

Visits: 20

Professor no longer in the classroom after allegedly forcing Christian students to fund Planned Parenthood

A Christian student, who sued his business professor for forcing her class to fund an entity which fundraised for Planned Parenthood and other progressive political causes, said that his Christian beliefs propelled him to fight back.

“My money is in the hands of Planned Parenthood,” Nathan Barbieri, a Michigan State University College of Business sophomore studying finance, said. He told Fox News Digital in an interview that he was “very upset” about it. 

“For me, as a Christian, it’s our calling. We’re supposed to expose the bad things that happen and not just sit back and… be abused. That’s our job,” he said. 

Barbieri is one of two students suing his former business marketing professor, Amy Wisner, who identifies as an “intersectional feminist.” The university told Fox News Digital that Wisner is no longer employed at the institution. Her Instagram similarly reflected that she is a “former business communication professor.”

The lawsuit was filed Thursday by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group defending religious freedom and First Amendment rights. 

 

Nathan Barbieri Professor michigan state university amy wisner lawsuit christian planned parenthood

Nathan Barbieri speaks with Fox News Digital about suing his former professor for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights.  (Fox News Digital)

According to the lawsuit, the “far-left” professor compelled each of her 600 students to pay $99 for a membership, which collectively could have amounted to at most $59,400 for an entity called ‘The Rebellion Community.'”

 

Wisner said, “The Rebellion community is a safe place to coordinate our efforts to burn everything to the f—ing ground,” according to the lawsuit. A post of Wisner’s Facebook page said, “100% of membership fees are donated to Planned Parenthood.” Other causes it supported included those “dismantling oppressive systems.”

The university said that its business school personally refunded students for their contributions to “The Rebellion Community,” but Barbieri said it wasn’t enough. 

Professor michigan state university amy wisner lawsuit christian planned parenthood

“Intersectional feminist” Amy Wisner formerly taught business classes at Michigan State.  (Fox News Digital)

“I funded that. And until that money is brought back, until it is out of [the professor’s] hands, it’s still with Planned Parenthood, or it’s still being going towards an unethical organization,” he said. 

The lawsuit is seeking to bring about a policy change at the university. 

ADF’s senior counsel Tyson Langhofer said“We’re basically asking for all the money that she received to be given back to the students and then to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Nathan has two more years at the school. He doesn’t want professors to be able to do this. So we’re asking the court to order the university not to allow this to happen in the future.” 

“I hold true to my Christian beliefs,” said Barbieri. “[My faith] really pushed me to get out there and do something about it, because I knew if I didn’t, you know, and if nobody else did, what stops this from happening again and again.”

The second student who sued the professor, echoed Barbieri’s concern. “I shouldn’t have to pay for my professor’s political activism… This is a matter of free speech and I hope that the university changes its policy so that other students never have to pay expensive fees toward causes they don’t believe in,” Nolan Radomski told Fox News.

Additionally, the “Rebellion Community” is controlled by the professor herself, which raised additional ethical concerns, the lawsuit said. 

“I’ve seen a lot of bad actions in my litigation, but this is definitely one of the top ones because she’s got 600 students at her mercy, and she did abuse that power,” the ADF attorney said. 

michigan state university professor lawsuit planned parenthood

Former Michigan State University professor (left) and one of the students behind lawsuit, Nathan Barbieri. (Instagram/screenshot | Fox News Digital)

“Not only was it wrong in what she was doing. I mean… you shouldn’t be taking money for political activism from your students, especially forcefully because you can’t pass the class without this. But definitely finding out, seeing Planned Parenthood and organizations like that are completely against my religious and my political beliefs really struck me,” Barbieri said.

ADF counsel explained that “professors can’t force students to fund political organizations as a requirement for an academic course.”

“What Professor Wisner did here was completely out of the ordinary. She basically fabricated a requirement, put it on the syllabus to join this website, which had nothing to do with the course, and she could have used the free platform that the university provides, which every other professor uses,” ADF counsel said. “And then to do that solely that so she could fund her own political activism. And so not only did she use this as her own ideological mechanism to force the students to listen to her activism, but then she forced them to fund her outside activism and kind of double down on that. And I think that’s a that’s a problem. And public universities just can’t allow that to happen.”

 

Loading

86
Categories
Uncategorized

Special Assistant to Sen. Fetterman Says the Senator ‘Okay with Overturning the 2nd Amendment” (Video)

Visits: 11

Thanks to James O’Keefe and the OMG

The underlying theme of this story is, once again, elected officials obtaining and sustaining their power through the devices of deceit and withholding their true intentions from the public and, even worse, the ones they should represent. How would we ever know what they have planned? Will they continue to conceal their ploys and attempts to revoke our freedoms? Without citizen journalists willing to take on corruption around us and expose it for the world to see, they WILL succeed in this goal.

The story features Special Assistant Luke Borwegan, who is not only the primary aid to the Senator, but is also tasked with holding the iPad for his reading abilities and, according to Borwegan, is the one who has to follow him around at all times.

Luke tells the journalist that Fetterman would “be okay with overturning the second amendment.”

Yes, that’s a direct quote from Borwegan.


I have said for some time that Fetterman was not elected but was installed.  Seriously, what other idiot would show up at a Senate presser in his campaign attire of hoodie and shorts? If he had started dressing this way after his stroke, we could pass it off as an after-effect, but he dressed like a walking advertisement for the Hell’s Angels before then.

And like FJB, he has to have handlers aides follow him around.

 

Loading

88

Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Miracles and Madness: Israel at 75

Visits: 22

I’m putting this out there to show what Israel has overcome to reestablish herself in a land promised by God. That promise still stands today. I for one would like to see the original borders as found in the old testament.

In 1948, a handful of Jews performed an act of political resurrection when they re-established a state in the land of Israel. Daniel Gordis asks: Has it fulfilled its founders’ dreams…

By Daniel Gordis


Twenty-five years ago, my friend Rabbi Daniel Gordis and his family packed up their house in Los Angeles and immigrated to Israel. Those were the days when there were still people who believed in the Oslo peace process, the Israeli left was a force to be reckoned with, and much of Israel’s phenomenal growth had yet to happen. That was the year of the Jewish state’s 50th anniversary.

Much has changed since then. The peace process with the Palestinians is dead—as is much of the Israeli left. Yet Israel has made peace with countries that would have been unthinkable not a decade ago. And the country’s now known as the start-up nation, an economic powerhouse famous for its high-tech scene.

On the occasion of Israel’s 75th anniversary, marked this May week, I reached out to Danny to help make sense of this complicated, tumultuous, beautiful, often indecipherable place: How did the Jewish people manage to pull this off after two in every three European Jews had been slaughtered? What does he consider Israel’s greatest achievement? Its greatest failure? In light of ongoing political turmoil, what does he expect a 100th year to look like?

There are few Israelis today better suited to answer those questions than Danny—rabbi, academic, American-Israeli, and the author of eight books, including the just-published Impossible Takes Longer: 75 Years After Its Creation, Has Israel Fulfilled Its Founders’ Dreams?

We’re thrilled to publish an essay based on that important new book below—and to have him on this week’s episode of Honestly:

 

Seventy-five years ago this week, the art museum in the young city of Tel Aviv—which then had less than 200,000 inhabitants—was packed for an unusual ceremony. The Jewish community of Palestine (known as the yishuv) was about to perform a resurrection: 36 men and one woman were about to sign Israel’s Declaration of Independence, ending almost 2,000 years of Jewish homelessness, and reestablishing political sovereignty in the Holy Land for the first time since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE at the hands of the Romans.

There is a brief film clip of David Ben-Gurion—the man who had led the yishuv for more than a decade and would soon become the new state’s first prime minister—proclaiming with a tremulous voice, “We hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.”

Those who have heard that clip dozens of times may well have never asked themselves what might seem an obvious question: Why is it that we only hear the “We hereby declare” portion of Ben-Gurion’s reading the Declaration aloud? Why not the rest? And nothing else from the proceedings?

The only moving picture camera around belonged to a cinematographer who owned a company that produced weekly newsreels. At the last minute, the government-in-waiting commissioned him to film the momentous occasion, but he had only four minutes of film in stock to cover a ceremony that was expected to last a half-hour—there was not enough film to record a moment that would alter the history of the Jewish people, and in some ways, much of the world.

Ben-Gurion therefore arranged to signal him at the most important points in the proceedings to indicate when the camera should roll. After the ceremony, though, the new state’s press handlers cut up the film into four parts and sent them out to various news agencies for use in newsreels. As a result, less than a minute of the original movie survived in Israel.


David Ben Gurion, who was to become Israel’s first prime minister, reads the country’s Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948. (Zoltan Kluger via Getty Images)
In many ways, that little story is a metaphor for Israel itself in those early days. That the cinematographer was contacted only at the last minute highlights the haste and cobbled-together nature of everything that transpired in those fragile weeks. The meager four minutes of available film reflected the scarcity felt everywhere in the country about to be born. That most of the film was sent abroad reflects Israel’s early need to tell its story and to justify itself—so much so that there was little footage for the new country to keep for itself.

Scarcity was hardly the nascent country’s only problem: even in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, international support for the creation of a Jewish state was tepid at best.

Just six months earlier, in November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly had voted—by the slimmest of margins—to create two states in Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab. A majority of two-thirds was required, and in the days leading up to the vote, it was far from certain that the Zionist delegation had the votes.

Today, it is virtually impossible to recapture the tension in the room. The vote took only three minutes, but what was at stake was nothing less than the future of the Jewish people. Resolution 181, commonly known as the “Partition Plan,” passed—but barely. The vote was 33 in favor, 13 opposed, and 10 abstentions. Matters would soon get more ominous: on April 3, Sir Alan Cunningham, then serving as the British high commissioner to Palestine, wrote in his weekly intelligence briefing, “It is becoming generally realized. . . that the United States [sic] aim is to secure reconsideration of the Palestine problem by the General Assembly de novo.” Merely four months after the vote, before Israel even existed, the United States was spearheading a move to undo the resolution. But Harry Truman, sensitive to the potential electoral costs of reversing the U.S. position, at first wavered but then stood by America’s original stance in favor of partition.

Both the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine were disappointed by the borders the UN allocated to them, but while the Jews agreed to the plan, the Arabs rejected it. They made clear that if a Jewish state was created, they would attack it. When, six months after the UN vote, in May 1948, the British were about to depart Palestine, the leadership of the yishuv had to decide whether to act on the UN’s endorsement of the idea of a national home for the Jewish people and declare statehood. There was nothing easy about the decision. If they did not declare independence, the opportunity might never return. If they did, five neighboring Arab states had vowed to annihilate them.

On May 12, 1948, the yishuv’s leadership asked Yigael Yadin—later a leading archaeologist but at the time, the commander of the yishuv’s military forces—what their chances were of surviving the onslaught that would follow if they declared independence. “Fifty-fifty,” Yadin responded. Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, attempting independence might result in yet another slaughter.

Two days after they asked Yadin that question, on May 14, Ben-Gurion read the Declaration of Independence aloud at the Tel Aviv Museum. Israel was born—and war did follow. Almost immediately, the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and even Iraq (which did not share a border with the new state) attacked Israel from every direction.

As expected, the conflict was brutal. Approximately one percent of the civilian Jewish population died (in the United States today, that would be 3,600,000 people). Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were pressured to leave in some cases, and in others, expelled outright; they became refugees, and would never return. Ultimately, though, Israel was not defeated. It expanded its borders beyond what the United Nations had allocated, emerging from the war with borders at least marginally defensible. And tragically, because the Arabs rejected the UN proposal and declared war, the Arab state that the UN had voted to create never came to be.

When the war ended in early 1949, Israel had survived. It was poor, overwhelmed by a massive flood of Jewish refugees from Europe, militarily far from secure, rejected by the Arabs, and far from embraced by the international community. It was an inauspicious beginning, to be sure. But the citizens of the young country did not need to think too far back to know what would happen if they failed. So, in what is one of humanity’s most astonishing stories of national rebirth and flourishing, they held on against all odds, and step by step built the country that Israel is today.


This month, with Israel celebrating 75 years of independence, Israelis and the world are taking stock of what has and has not been accomplished since May 1948. In many ways, what has transpired seems virtually miraculous—those black-and-white images of a ragtag country created in the aftermath of the Holocaust have given way to brightly colored images of a modern, thriving country pulsing with life, creativity, and energy that bears scant resemblance to the country Israel was not long ago.

Militarily, the fledgling army that barely held on in the 1948 War of Independence (and again, in the early days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War) has become a military power so overwhelming that no Arab army has dared attack Israel in the last half-century. Slowly but surely, much of the Arab world has come to accept Israel’s existence. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979; Jordan followed in 1994. The UAE and Bahrain followed with the Abraham Accords in 2020, and then came Morocco and Sudan. More recently, Saudi Arabia and others have been making overtures toward some form of normalization.

Economically, the accomplishment has been no less extraordinary. In its earliest years, Israel was out of money, and had no way to feed or house the hundreds of thousands of Jewish displaced persons making their way to the young state from DP camps in Europe after the Holocaust, or the approximately 700,000 Jews from Arab lands who were essentially expelled from North Africa and who then also came to Israel. There was mandatory food rationing and poverty was rife. In the 1950s, an Israeli’s standard of living was approximately that of an American in the 1800s. Though German reparations (equivalent to about $8 billion today) in the 1950s helped Israel avert economic disaster, the specter of economic collapse would reappear. In the 1980s, the annual rate of inflation was 445 percent, and again, Israel seemed on the verge of financial doom.

Today, those challenges, too, are gone. Privatization of national companies and better fiscal policy (credit for both of which goes largely to Benjamin Netanyahu) saved the economy, which is now robust. Today, Israel’s high-tech sector is so powerful that only three countries other than the U.S. have more companies registered on the NASDAQ.


The modern miracle of Tel Aviv. (Lior Mizrahi via Getty Images)
The rebirth of the Jewish people in its new state extends far beyond the easily measurable such as military or economic indicators. The Jewish people in Europe were sick, early Zionists had said. Jews were fearful. They were commonly banished. They were excluded from many elite professions. But much of the sickness was internal, too. What kind of people do not speak their own language? Could there be authentic Russian culture without the Russian language? French culture without French?

Eliezer Ben-Yehuda thus took it upon himself to revive ancient Hebrew and transform it into a modern language. Today, the millions of Israelis who speak the language of the Bible take it so for granted that they do not realize that an Israeli bookstore, with hundreds of linear feet of shelves of books written in a language that not long ago virtually no one spoke, is miraculous. Israel is home to some 55 theatrical companies that put on over 1,000 plays a year that are seen by some three million people (in a country of nine million). Israel has 84 recognized orchestras and ensembles that present tens of thousands of performances a year. There are 163 museums, visited by some seven million people a year. The Israeli film industry, long a rather sad and unproductive story, now releases some 60 films a year, some of them world-class. Israeli publishing houses release about 8,500 volumes a year—mostly in Hebrew.

Two months ago, Israel was ranked fourth in the UN’s latest World Happiness Scale (way higher than the U.S., which was #15 on the list). Only three Scandinavian countries ranked higher. The Jewish state has a higher birth rate even among secular Jewish women than any other OECD country.

Why the happiness? Why the birth rate? Perhaps because Israel has eradicated heartbreak as the foundational characteristic of Jewish life.

From its outset, Zionism had been a political movement designed to bring about a state that would breathe new life into a people that had barely staggered out of the first half of the twentieth century. Its goal was to fashion a Jewish people that would no longer wait to see what history had in store for them, but instead would shape their own destiny. Those people who assembled in the Tel Aviv Museum on May 14, 1948 were there to begin transforming that dream into a reality.

Has Israel succeeded? Has it lived up to its founders’ dreams? If what it sought to do was to create a new Jew, Zionism has succeeded beyond measure.


Seventy-five years later, however, many of the issues with which Israel grappled in its earliest days remain unresolved and are now the foundations of some of the country’s most serious challenges. The Arabs who fled Palestine but refused to recognize Israel are today’s Palestinians. David Ben-Gurion’s decision not to draft young ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men—because he was convinced that ultra-Orthodoxy was a remnant of European Judaism that would soon disappear—now exempts more than 11,000 young men a year and threatens the very foundations of the image of the IDF as a people’s army. And though the Declaration of Independence promised that Israel would pass a constitution, that never happened—a decision that has led Israel to the gravest internal crisis in its history.

The most glaring disappointment of the past 75 years, the source of much of the world’s opprobrium regularly directed at Israel, is the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which just this week erupted once again into warfare.

Sadly, time does not heal all wounds. Indeed, the passage of time sometimes hardens hearts. Among Israeli voters, support for a two-state solution was at its highest in 2007, when it peaked at 70 percent. But it has fallen since then. In 2018, according to the Israel Democracy Institute, 46 percent supported a two-state solution, while in 2021 that number had fallen to 41.5 percent. Among the Palestinians, the numbers are even less encouraging. One highly regarded polling organization found in early 2022 that 32 percent of Palestinians favored a one-state solution, 52 percent favored continued armed resistance, and 58 percent were explicitly opposed to a two-state solution.

Tragically, there is no solution in sight.

But if, several months ago, most Israelis on the eve of the celebration of 75 years of independence might have pointed to the ongoing conflict as their biggest source of disappointment, what now has them most concerned is the deepest—and, many believe, the most dangerous—internal divide in Israel’s history. This time, the crisis is not about Israel and its hostile neighbors, but disagreement among Israelis themselves about the kind of country the Jewish state should be.

When Israelis went to the polls for the fifth time in three years on November 1, 2022, bringing Benjamin Netanyahu (now Israel’s longest-serving prime minister) and the right back to power, the new Justice Minister, Yariv Levin, began to push forward a legislative plan to dramatically alter Israel’s judicial system. Levin and his partners claim that it is time to defang Israel’s Supreme Court, which under Chief Justice Aharon Barak in the 1990s had taken for itself vast power.


Citizens in Tel Aviv protest against the government’s controversial judicial overhaul bill on March 25, 2023. (Ahmad Gharabli via Getty Images)
Yet many Israelis on the left and in the center (and, by now, many on the center-right as well), believe that what was being proposed was not judicial reform, but regime change. The planned changes, they argued, would render Israel either a non-democracy, or at best, an illiberal democracy like Poland or Hungary. Unlike many first world democracies, Israel has a unicameral parliament, rather than two houses that might push back on each other. To make matters even more worrisome, the executive and legislative functions are already blended in the Knesset itself. Therefore, the proposal that the Knesset (rather than an independent committee, as is now the case) would select judges and that judicial review by the Supreme Court would be ended led many Israelis to fear that the “reforms” would effectively end all checks and balances in Israel’s governmental system.

If the government had expected the opposition to grumble but then to let the reform pass, they badly miscalculated.

Young Israeli professionals, long assumed to be nonchalant about the Zionist project of their grandparents and great-grandparents, took to the streets by the hundreds of thousands, waving tens of thousands of Israeli flags, demanding an end to the proposed reforms. They blocked highways. Reserve IAF pilots refused to show up for training and missions, even as matters with Iran are heating up. Hundreds of Israel’s leading economists warned the government that these reforms would essentially ruin Israel’s economy, and soon enough, Bloomberg, Moody’s and others had downgraded Israel’s ratings. Israeli high-tech companies began moving their assets abroad. All the military, economic, and diplomatic progress Israel had made through the decades seemed to be slipping through the country’s fingers.

So far, the massive social protests—which have been held for the past 16 consecutive weeks in more than 100 locations, bringing more than 200,000 people to the streets on a given Saturday night—have managed to delay the judicial reforms. But the proposed legislation remains very much on the table, and the rifts within Israeli society that it has surfaced have brought Israel to the precipice. A number of Israeli journalists and intellectuals could not help but note that when the United States was 75 years old, it was gearing up for its Civil War.

But the crisis Israel now faces has also underscored the power of the dream that fueled the creation of the Jewish state. To have participated in these protests, as I have with my family, has meant bearing witness to an extraordinary exhibition of love of country, of devotion to Zionism, of almost completely violence-free protests by hundreds of thousands of people for three months. What we have seen is (whatever little bit remains of) the left, along with the newly reenergized center, joined by many on the right who were so deeply worried about the split in the nation that they, too—though they favored the reforms—said it was time to end the legislative push, not because the idea of reform was wrong, but because the way the government was ramming it through was tearing the country to shreds. These protests have had a single symbol: the Israeli flag. “We love this country as much as you do,” said the left and the center to the right. “And it’s ours no less than it is yours.”

“All they want is to code, go public, have exits,” it was said of this younger generation of secular Israelis who live right where the Declaration was signed in 1948. “Their Zionist-pioneer grandparents and great-grandparents must be turning in their graves,” people said.

But no. Not at all. Those Zionist-pioneer grandparents and great-grandparents must be staring down at their kids’ kids with proverbial tears of pride and joy, a deep sense of satisfaction that three quarters of a century in, the young, successful, secular Ashkenazi elites love this country. They took to the streets to defend it, to protect it, to preserve it.


What will Israel be like in 25 years, when it reaches its 100th anniversary? We cannot know, of course. But one great source of hope is that what is emerging in Israel is a newly energized political center. A wide swath of Israeli society that wants Israel to be Jewish and democratic, both universalist and particular, at home in both the West and in the Middle East.

That desire to be both deeply Western and profoundly Jewish at the same time was apparently at the core of David Ben-Gurion’s decision not to include the word “democracy” in Israel’s Declaration of independence. “As for western democracy, I’m for Jewish democracy,” he wrote in his diary. “ ‘Western’ doesn’t suffice. Being a Jew is not simply a biological fact, but. . . also a matter of morals, ethics. . . . The value of life and human freedom are, for us, more deeply embedded thanks to the biblical prophets than western democracy.”

That was good as far as it went, but the absence of a constitution has left many critical questions unanswered. How Jewish should the Jewish state be, and how should it be Jewish? How much power should the Supreme Court (still seen as a bastion of secular elitism) have? How much power should be wrested away from the secular descendants of the Ashkenazi (European) founders, now that the more traditional and reverential Jews of the Levant (Mizrahim) constitute a majority of Israel’s Jews?


In 1948, Israel’s Prime Minister Ben Gurion (center left in jacket) bids farewell to the last contingent of British troops to leave the Holy Land. (Getty Images)
Our family—my wife, our three kids, and I—moved to Israel from Los Angeles 25 years ago. Why? We wanted, quite simply, to be part of the story of a young country that was going to write the future of the Jewish people. Life here has been wondrous at times, but frightening and overwhelmingly sad at others. Israel has at times infuriated us, and at times it has inspired us. Never, though, have we ever second-guessed our decision to move to Jerusalem, for even a second. After all, no one in the history of Zionism believed that reviving Jewish life and building a sovereign state where the “new Jew” could flourish was going to be easy. After 2,000 years of homelessness, re-creating a home was bound to be a messy affair.

The story of this state, as both the occasion of the 75th anniversary as well as the current crisis remind us, is far from finished. We will not live to see it completed. All we can do—and what we feel compelled to do—is nurture this home against all odds, so that 75 years from now, our descendants are still proud of what has been wrought, and are still wrestling with what kind of place this should be.


There has been so much written about the protests and Israel’s 75th anniversary. Here are just a few pieces we’d recommend:

Loading

51
Categories
Links from other news sources. Racism Un documented. Uncategorized

Winning, Judge Blocks NYC from Pawning Off Border Crossers on Upstate Suburbs.

Visits: 14

Winning, Judge Blocks NYC from Pawning Off Border Crossers on Upstate Suburbs.

No Mas.

Go back home.

We are seeing more and more so called Sanctuary cities telling the undocumented No Mas. Go back home. And when the undocumented come to these Sanctuary cities, they’re being turned away.

A second judge now has told NY to stop deporting the undocumented. It’s your problem now. This from Breitbart.

A New York Supreme Court judge has blocked New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) from busing any more border crossers and illegal aliens to Orange County, New York, a decision that comes after a judge blocked the city from sending new arrivals to Rockland County, New York.

Loading

135

Categories
Crime Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Daniel Penny protected every person in that subway car. So now he’s got to pay.

Visits: 36

ANN COULTER

New York City seems like a gag that’s gone too far. “First, we’ll release all the criminals because too many black bodies are in prison! Then we’ll denounce the police as Nazis and refuse to prosecute any suspects they arrest. The city will be overrun with violent criminals — raping robbing, assaulting and killing at will… But if anyone steps up to protect the citizenry from the mayhem that’s been intentionally inflicted on them, well, gentleman, then we’ll prosecute the hell out of that douchebag.”

This exactly how things are playing out right now with twenty-four-year-old Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran who subdued a deranged lunatic on the F train at the Broadway-Lafayette Street station in Manhattan on May 1.

According to witnesses, Jordan Neely, a thirty-year-old homeless man was pacing madly, and throwing trash at passengers trapped in a hermetically-sealed subway car with him. He said he did not mind “going to jail or getting life in prison” and was “ready to die.” (Enjoying your commute, New Yorkers?)

The ex-Marine quietly stepped behind the kook and put him in a chokehold to hold him for the police and protect everyone on that subway car. Neely struggled so much that two other men had to help secure him. Alas, Neely died in the skirmish.

In response to his death, a lot of ugly people held protests, demanding “justice” for the darling psychotic. We’re supposed to be impressed that Neely hadn’t punched anyone on the subway car yet. He was merely throwing garbage and threatening to hurt them.


If you’re wondering why would anyone imagine things might have escalated, it’s because things always escalate with crazies.

One Saturday morning in August 2020, around 11 a.m., also on the F train, a thirty-one-year-old man, Jose Reyes, was “making weird noises and laughing to himself,” according to a witness. He wasn’t assaulting anyone. Big deal, you scaredy cats. The next thing you know, he’d grabbed a twenty-five-year-old woman, punched her, pushed her to the ground and started raping her in front of horrified bystanders. Too bad Penny wasn’t there.

In the afternoon of March 18, 2021, a disturbed man on the on the 1 train in Manhattan, Marc Mathieu, thirty-six, yelled “you motherfucking Asian!” at Narayange Bodhi, a sixty-eight-year-old Sri Lankan on his way his job as a security guard, and knocked him unconscious. Mathieu had nine prior arrests. Too bad Penny wasn’t there.

One Saturday morning in January 2022, an emotionally disturbed man was taunting passengers on the platform at the Times Square Station. Oh it’s just verbal harassment — nothing physical! Suddenly the nut ran full force at a woman, Michelle Go, forty, shoving her in front of an oncoming train, where she was pulverized beneath the wheels. Naturally, the man, Martial Simon, sixty-one, was a homeless ex-con, out on the streets where he could continue terrorizing the public.

The station was full of transit officers, but what could they do? Until Simon ran at Ms. Go, he wasn’t doing anything wrong. Harassing strangers is a basic constitutional right in New York! Unless Penny had been there.

In February, 2022, a woman was waiting alone at the Wakefield-East 241 Street station when a man approached her saying, “Mami, how come you don’t want to talk to me?” Just words. No need for concern. The man, Frank Abrokwa, thirty-seven, soon returned and jammed a bag full of his own feces into her face, ears, eyes, nose and hair, saying, “Like this, bitch?” Too bad Penny wasn’t — well, you know.

In the previous six weeks, Abrokwa had punched a thirty-year-old man on a subway platform and a fifty-three-year-old man at the Port Authority Bus Terminal. So naturally, he was still at large. In fact, the feces attack was his fortieth arrest — whereupon, he was released again without bail. He committed another violent crime the very next day. And again he was released without bail.

Weird that New Yorkers would feel like city officials are releasing insane people onto the streets and refusing to remove them, even when they commit violent crime, after violent crime.

One lovely Sunday morning in May 2022, Andrew Abdullah was pacing and muttering to himself on the Q train as it crossed from Brooklyn into Manhattan. Then he pulled out a gun and blew away a Goldman Sachs employee, Daniel Enriquez, forty-eight. In a surprise development, Abdullah was facing a slew of criminal charges — for stealing property, domestic abuse, endangering the welfare of a child and gun possession. Free as a bird!

The stories go on and on and on. But all these were other demented homeless people, not the beloved, and much-missed Mr. Neely.

Actually, Neely is no different from the rest. Among his forty-plus arrests, Neely punched a man on a subway platform in May 2019, breaking his nose. This was New York City, so a month later, he was still roaming the streets, and cold-cocked a sixty-seven-year-old man. Then in 2021, Neely decked a sixty-seven-year-old woman, hitting her so hard he broke her nose and fractured her orbital bone.

Neely’s admirers say that he’s mentally ill, but I notice that he was sane enough to keeping choosing elderly people to attack.

And now our brave Marine has been indicted by Alvin Bragg for finally putting an end to Neely’s one-man crime wave — something Bragg’s office steadfastly refused to do. Penny protected every person in that subway car. So now he’s got to pay.

Daniel Penny’s Legal Defense Fund

Loading

68
Categories
Economy Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Who really pays to phase out diesel in California?

Visits: 17

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

If the United Nations passed a resolution requiring California residents, and only California residents, to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per year in fees in order to show leadership to the rest of the world on an issue of importance, we would hope Californians’ elected representatives would raise an objection to that.

After all, the cost of “leadership” shouldn’t be borne by the people of one state, especially when the cost hits low- and middle-income families hardest.

Yet that is exactly what’s happening, except the dictate isn’t coming from the United Nations. It’s coming from California’s own state government.

California prides itself on its leadership on the issue of climate change, but perhaps officials should spend less time bragging and more time adding up what their decisions are actually costing California households.

The unanimous vote by the California Air Resources Board to impose a forced phase-out of diesel trucks is the latest example.

“Ten years from now, when we look back to this day … we can say that California has changed the world,” said Gideon Kracov, a Los Angeles-based environmental attorney who sits on the air resources board.

The price of changing the world now includes a ban on the sale of new diesel trucks in California starting in 2036 and a requirement for large trucking companies to convert their fleets to electric models by 2042.

During a seven-hour meeting ahead of the board’s vote, officials of city and county governments spoke out against CARB’s zero-emissions deadlines, calling them “impossible.”


The cost of “leadership” will put new pressure on already stressed city and county budgets. Local governments will have to replace fleets of trucks used for every government service from garbage pick-up to street repair. Charging stations will add additional costs. Who will pay for it all? Taxpayers, of course.

CARB’s mandated conversion to zero-emissions trucks will also raise the price of commercial transportation, with UPS and Amazon just two examples of companies that will incur significant additional expenses to operate in California.

Even the air board staff had to acknowledge that California’s charging infrastructure is inadequate to support all-electric truck fleets statewide. Significant upgrades will be needed, posing challenges for utility companies. Who will pay for it?

The cost of upgrading charging infrastructure on the utility side will be borne by all ratepayers. Under a new rate structure mandated by state law, customers of investor-owned utilities including Southern California Edison will pay a higher fixed charge on their monthly bills, a charge that will include the cost of infrastructure upgrades. The law requires income-based tiers for the fixed charges, in an effort to lessen the burden on lower- and middle-income households.

Another way to lessen the burden on lower- and middle-income households is to stop pretending that Californians can afford this accelerated transition to all-electric transportation.

Southern California Edison CEO Steven Powell told our editorial board recently that California by itself cannot affect the global climate, but said the state’s leadership will have an impact.

Californians deserve transparency and accountability for the cost of the measures the state is taking to provide that leadership, but state lawmakers have delegated too much authority to unelected regulators. Elected officials must do more to oversee agency decisions that will have significant consequences for consumers and taxpayers.

Loading

75
Categories
Crime Leftist Virtue(!) Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Law Uncategorized WOKE

Blind Justice in Canada.

Visits: 9

Edward Smith didn’t think the color of his skin had anything to do with it.

He was 23, and he’d come to Canada in 2005 from West Africa. Now, he lived with his mother and sister in Edmonton, the capital of the western province of Alberta.

Racism—overt or systemic—didn’t make him take part in an armed robbery of an Airbnb in July 2019, he said. He’d decided on his own to help his cousin, who had told Smith that the people staying at the Airbnb had robbed him and that he was trying to get his money back. Smith agreed to help, but he didn’t want any guns involved. So they compromised: they’d bring a gun, but it would be unloaded.

Things didn’t go as planned, and Smith was arrested. At his trial, Smith pleaded guilty to the two charges—theft and robbery with a firearm—filed against him.

Since Smith is black, he also submitted an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment, or IRCA—a presentencing report in which “Black and racialized Canadians” can demonstrate how systemic racism led them to commit their crime.

The logic behind Smith’s IRCA was clear: as a black man, it was assumed that he had been subjected to a great deal of hate, and that that hate had limited his job opportunities, housing opportunities, opportunities to build a meaningful and law-abiding life.

Dunia Nur, the activist who wrote Smith’s IRCA, told me the report was meant to help the judge appreciate the convict’s “background” and “history.”

I obtained Smith’s IRCA from Smith himself. Oddly, the four-page report cites no concrete instances of racism—no violence, no untoward remarks, no employers or schools that turned Smith down because of his skin color. Not even any microaggressions.

It also fails to mention that, in a separate incident in January 2018, Smith was arrested and charged with theft, robbery, and kidnapping.

What it does say is that Smith had a rough childhood and adolescence—the refugee camp in Ghana, his father’s absence, immigrating to Canada, his early run-ins with the law. It further notes that “Edward identifies as an African Canadian” who is of “Liberian heritage,” and that he has “a feeling of disconnection with his culture.”

The judge apparently sympathized with Smith. In February 2020, after six months in prison, he was allowed to go free with court-appointed supervision. If he’d been white, he would have been looking at eight years behind bars.

“I didn’t face racism,” Smith admitted to me in a recent phone call. He’s now a sales representative at a debt-collection company. Referring to the IRCA, Smith said, “It was my only way out of this situation. I took full advantage.”


Canada’s first official IRCA was submitted in the now-famous case of R v “X” in 2014—a case in which a 16-year-old black boy in Nova Scotia was charged with attempted murder after shooting his 15-year-old cousin in the abdomen with a rifle. This was not long after Black Lives Matter was formed, in 2013, to protest the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

At the time, it was mostly confined to progressive circles in Nova Scotia, which has a higher concentration of African Canadians than any other province. Now, it’s taken for granted among Canadian criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and law professors that the assessments are a necessary tool for curbing the “overrepresentation” of black and indigenous prisoners.

Danardo Jones, a University of Windsor law professor who has written extensively on criminal justice reform, said that when it comes to IRCAs, there is “institutional buy-in.” For now, there are no statistics on the number of IRCAs being filed nationwide or on a province by province basis. Criminal defense attorneys in Ontario estimated that IRCAs run up to $4,500 and that there’s a nine-month waiting list to obtain one.

Canada is at the forefront of a broader movement that seeks to reimagine police, prisons, and the nature of justice—a movement that gained much greater momentum and cohesiveness in the wake of George Floyd’s May 2020 killing in Minneapolis.

“The protests of 2020 marked the new way in which many people thought about criminal justice,” Daniel Fryer, a University of Michigan criminal justice law professor, said. “The thing about the protests of 2020 is that they reached a global audience. Although the problem was at least ostensibly domestic, everyone in the world was watching.”

In the United States, the new thinking was reflected in the push for “decarceration” and the rise of progressive district attorneys—Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, George Gascón in Los Angeles, Alvin Bragg in Manhattan, Kim Foxx in Chicago, and others. Central to the progressive prosecutor movement, Fryer said, was a rejection of “the gladiator, adversarial model.” Instead, he said, “the prosecutor’s role should be to seek justice in society.”

On top of that, a handful of states sought to impose justice from the top down: Virginia and Washington barred police from using choke holds and no-knock warrants. Minnesota adopted a law meant to make police more accountable. California, the country’s progressive laboratory, enacted the Racial Justice Act, which enables anyone convicted of a crime to challenge that conviction on the grounds of racial bias.

But Canada has gone further, insisting that judges explicitly consider race when meting out justice.

As far as Nadia Robinson was concerned, there is nothing fair or just about that. The father of her two boys was killed eight years ago by a driver in Ottawa, and he had gotten off with a lighter sentence because he was black.

“I’m not trying to be a ‘Karen’ in any way, shape, or form,” Robinson, who is white, told me. “I believe that when you do something wrong, you stand up and say you did something wrong.”

I suggested IRCAs were an effort to undo decades, even centuries, of racism that had been baked into the criminal justice system. “You can’t rewrite the past,” Robinson said. Then, she added: “We’re all equal.”


Nadia Robinson. (Dan Aponte for The Free Press)
Race-based sentencing in Canada did not emerge in a vacuum.

It started in 1996, when Canadian lawmakers, upset that so many indigenous people were in prison, amended the Criminal Code, hoping to prod judges into considering indigenous people’s history of colonization—and dispensing less punitive sentences. In 1993, aboriginal peoples accounted for 17 percent of prisoners even though they were less than 4 percent of the total population.

In 1999, in R v Gladue—the first case to make its way to the Supreme Court following the amendments to the Criminal Code—what started as a suggestion became the law of the land. The Criminal Code, the Court ruled, “mandatorily requires sentencing judges to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment and to pay particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.”

In the wake of that case, courts started to require so-called Gladue reports when sentencing indigenous defendants. Gradually, the idea of building on Gladue reports to acknowledge African Canadians’ history started to gain traction.

Fast-forward to the mid-2010s and the rise of the IRCA. The whole point of the IRCA, Robert Wright, a social worker and early pioneer of IRCAs, told me, was to level the proverbial playing field.

“Some people think we’re trying to get a race-based discount for people,” said Wright, who wrote the first official IRCA, in R v. “X.” IRCAs, he said, are “real tools” that enable judges to “be more thoughtful” and “sentence black people more appropriately.”

Ryan Handlarski, a criminal defense attorney in Toronto, added: “How can we pass judgment on a person without at least trying to understand what led them to that place?”

Judge Anne Derrick, who presided over R v “X,” was apparently persuaded by this logic.

“I find that when ‘X’ shot ‘Y’ he was an immature, dependent 16 year old caught up in the dysfunctional dynamics of his community,” Derrick wrote. She sentenced “X” as a minor, giving him two years in prison and another year of supervision at home. Had he been sentenced as an adult—as the prosecutor requested—he would have received a life sentence.

While R v “X” influenced thinking among judges, attorneys, and prosecutors, its impact was limited because it took place on the local, trial court level.

But in 2017, Derrick was promoted to Nova Scotia’s Court of Appeal—where her future rulings would have an automatically binding effect on lower courts across the province.

And then, in 2021, she got her chance—with the case of R v Anderson—to make race-based sentencing the standard across the province.

During a traffic stop in Halifax three years earlier, Rakeem Rayshon Anderson was found carrying a .22-caliber handgun. He was charged and convicted of five offenses related to possession and transportation of a loaded weapon.

Prosecutors asked for Anderson to be given a prison sentence of two to three years. Being African Canadian, Anderson filed an IRCA—co-authored by Robert Wright, who had written the IRCA for R v “X.” The trial judge who heard Anderson’s case gave him a lesser sentence—house arrest and probation—based, in no small part, on the IRCA. (Judge Pamela Williams said as much, adding that the dearth of “Afrocentric services” contributed to her ruling.)

Prosecutors appealed to the Court of Appeal—where now-Justice Anne Derrick was presiding.

Derrick was unsympathetic to prosecutors.

“Even where the offense is very serious, consideration must be given to the impact of systemic racism and its effects on the offender,” Derrick wrote in August 2021, upholding the lower court’s decision.

Brandon Rolle, senior legal counsel at African Nova Scotian Justice Institute and one of Anderson’s attorneys, called the decision “historic,” adding that “this decision will directly impact every African Nova Scotian being sentenced from this point forward.”

I asked Mark Scott, the lead prosecutor in Anderson, what he made of Derrick’s ruling. “People’s culture and background are something that is essential to recognize when you’re looking at a just result,” Scott told me, sounding like a defense attorney. “If you’re going to say that justice has to be colorblind, I think there are people who would disagree with that.”

Chris Rudnicki, a criminal defense attorney in Toronto, told me: “If Justice Derrick’s decision in ‘X’ can be seen as opening the door to systemic considerations in Canadian sentencing, then her majority opinion in Anderson—now sitting as a judge at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal—can be seen as leading us all through it.”

Since Anderson, federal authorities have tried to nudge the rest of Canada to follow Nova Scotia’s lead. In April 2021, the Department of Justice announced $6.6 million to subsidize IRCAs. Since then, the sense of urgency has grown, with everyone from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger saying more must be done to combat the “overrepresentation” of minority inmates.

This urgency is fueled, in part, by an awareness that over the course of the first two decades of this century—from the first Gladue reports in 1999 to 2020—the percentage of indigenous prisoners has jumped, from 17 percent to more than 30 percent.


To Nadia Robinson, the idea that the man who had killed her partner should be given a lesser sentence because of his race felt “surreal,” she said, as if the people in charge were speaking one language, and she were speaking another.

Robinson’s partner, Andy Nevin, had been riding his bike on the morning of June 28, 2015, when he was killed in a hit and run.

In court, the driver, Deinsburg St.-Hilaire, testified that he’d been out all night at a wedding. It was almost six a.m., and he was speeding home—going almost 20 miles over the limit—when he nodded off. He came to when he heard a thud. He didn’t see anything in his rearview mirror. He said he thought he’d hit a mailbox.

Except that when he got home, St.-Hilaire covered his Ford F-250 pickup truck in a tarp, and, within a few days, he had the hood and side panel changed.

It seemed as though he knew what had happened.

This was what Nadia Robinson couldn’t accept. “If I knew it was my son who did something like that, I’d be like, ‘You need to come forward, you need to tell this family—you don’t hide,’ ” she told me.

After repairing his truck, St.-Hilaire decamped to an airport hotel, hoping to evade the cops. Nine days after the accident, he was arrested.

Later, when he tried to explain why he hadn’t turned himself in, St.-Hilaire noted that he had emigrated at age 7 from Dominica, in the Caribbean. “Being the only black child in his class, and not speaking English proficiently, resulted in Mr. St Hilaire being bullied at school,” according to a court document.

At the trial, Judge Catherine Aitken said she believed the defendant “wanted to do the right thing but did not have the confidence to do so out of fear.” She added: “I also accept that this fear was likely heightened as a result of Mr. St. Hilaire’s experience with racism as a black person growing up in this community.”

Ultimately, Aitken found St.-Hilaire guilty of obstructing the police investigation into the collision but, parroting the defendant, added that his “experiences earlier in life when he was subjected to racism and bullying in the school context” as well as “experiences more recently when he did not feel fairly treated by police officers during traffic stops” were mitigating factors.

It seemed not to matter to the judge that St.-Hilaire, 39, didn’t provide any details about the racism he had suffered: names, dates, comments that were made, pain that was inflicted. Nor did he say how it had affected him over the years.

St.-Hilaire could have wound up spending two years behind bars. Instead, he was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and left the courtroom, in November 2018, a free man.

St.-Hilaire hadn’t even filed an IRCA. All that was required to get a lighter sentence was to bring the defendant’s race to the judge’s attention—to obtain “judicial notice,” Danardo Jones, the University of Windsor law professor, told me. “Failure to consider race and anti-Blackness,” Jones said in an email, could lead to a sentence being overturned on appeal.

The Ottawa police chief, Charles Bordeleau, was furious about the sentence and issued a terse statement voicing frustration—something he almost never did. “It’s unfortunate that these comments were made putting into question the professionalism of our members during this difficult investigation,” he said.

Nadia Robinson told me the court’s judgment made her feel like Andy Nevin’s life didn’t matter. Did anyone care that on the morning of his death, he was biking to the new apartment they planned to live in? They were moving out of the dump they’d been in, starting a new chapter. The boys were so excited, she said.

“Are you kidding me?” Robinson said. She was crying. She felt as if she were living a parallel life, a life that wasn’t supposed to happen. Her sons, now 26 and 24, she said, have had a lot of trouble since their father’s death: alcohol, drugs, a seemingly bottomless grief. “My kids are devastated,” she said.

Among prosecutors and even some criminal defense attorneys, it felt as though the country were crossing the Rubicon.

“The judge basically calls the system out for being systemically racist even though the system bends over backwards to be reverse racist,” a prominent defense attorney in Toronto told me.

The attorney, who asked me not to publish his name out of fear of backlash, found it galling that the judge had portrayed St.-Hilaire’s actions during the course of those nine days between the hit and run and his arrest as a “momentary lapse of judgment.”

“The idea that somehow this cover-up had anything to do with racism or this never-demonstrated canard of systemic racism is patently false,” the attorney said. “To use language we’d normally associate with murder, this was not a momentary lapse in judgment but planned and deliberate. That’s what makes the judge’s ruling so egregious, and the idea that the defendant gets some kind of break because of something that happened years ago, something completely unprovable and possibly untrue that has nothing to do with Andy Nevin’s death—that’s absurd. Actually, it’s offensive.”

He added: “This is the scam of scams.” He said that lots of people knew it, and no one would say it openly. Including him. “Criticizing IRCAs would mean career suicide.”

I asked Chris Rudnicki, the criminal defense attorney, whether the subtext of the whole IRCA phenomenon was that black people from poor neighborhoods have less control over the decisions they make.

He emailed back: “In some cases, yes.” He added, “To the extent that systemic discrimination has a material impact on people’s lives—restricting access to housing, education, and employment, for example—it can render them more susceptible to criminal influences. You are more likely to steal a loaf of bread if you’re poor, for example. Or more likely to join a street gang if your school has expelled you. Etc. So a sentencing court will treat a person who has experienced the material impact of systemic discrimination differently than a person who has not suffered that impact.”


(Jason Franson for The Free Press)
Edward Smith, who robbed the Airbnb, insisted the problem was never systemic discrimination. It was him. It was his family.

In high school, he’d started stealing candy and clothing from local stores. Partly, he said, this was because his mother, who packed chickens for minimum wage, couldn’t afford to buy him stuff. But mostly, he said, it was because he could. He was a latchkey kid surrounded by other latchkey kids. “It was just me and my friends,” Smith said. “If we were going to make bad decisions, we were going to do it together.”

It was in the summer of 2019 that his cousin asked him to help rob this Airbnb to get his money back. He didn’t ask questions.

So, the three of them—his cousin, some other guy, and Smith—showed up at the Airbnb, and the two other guys had guns, and they robbed the place and got out and drove away before Smith could catch up with them. He got arrested. It turned out his cousin had never been robbed. He just wanted to do some robbing. (He was later arrested, too.)

Smith was happy to have avoided a longer sentence but seemed almost embarrassed by it. “It didn’t have anything to do with race,” he told me for the third or fourth time. (But Temitope Oriola, a University of Alberta sociologist, said it wasn’t uncommon for black victims of racism to deny they had been victims of racism. “They refuse to acknowledge the existence of racism as a particular way of navigating the world and holding onto their sense of self,” he told me.)

Two months after being released from jail, Smith was arrested again, in April 2020, for possession of stolen goods. In September 2022, he was arrested once more and charged with two counts of assault and one count of damaging property, according to court records.

All these charges were subsequently dropped, but that wasn’t the point, the criminal defense attorney in Toronto said. “The police don’t arrest innocent people,” the attorney said. Referring to Smith, the attorney added: “Is he a ticking time bomb and going to keep reoffending? One million percent.”


It seems odd that liberals, who spent decades trying to deracialize society, are now re-racializing it.

Jonathan Simon, a University of California–Berkeley law professor, explained that, when it comes to criminal justice reform, it’s hard to sidestep race.

“The criminal-legal system is the equivalent of a toxic-waste disaster with over decades of institutional focus on communities of color,” Simon said. The public, Smith added, tends to view “crime” and “blackness” as one and the same. “There’s overwhelming evidence from psychologists that blackness and crime are fused in a cognitive way,” he said.

It was necessary to acknowledge that “the criminal-legal system has been jacked up on racism,” so society—in Canada or the United States—can start down the long path of decarceration, Simon said. That was the point of IRCAs, its defenders explained.

John Medeiros, the staff sergeant at the Ottawa Police Department who had overseen the St.-Hilaire case, said he understood why black defendants were skeptical that the system would treat them fairly. There was a long history. There had been discrimination. There had been a great deal of institutionalized oppression.

But he’d been dismayed by the judge’s ruling in the hit and run. According to Nevin’s postmortem examination, the 39-year-old cyclist had been struck from behind and flown into a ditch. He had a laceration on his head, and abrasions on his shoulders, waist, and legs; his spinal cord had been severed, and one of his lungs punctured. The only good news, perhaps, was that he had been killed instantly.

“I don’t think race ought to have been a factor here,” Medeiros told me.

Referring to St.-Hilaire, Medeiros added, “He left a human being on the side of the road, like he drove over a skunk.”


Rupa Subramanya is a reporter for The Free Press. Her last article, Trudeau’s Battle Against a Free Internet, examined Canada’s effort to curb free expression online.

Loading

74
Verified by MonsterInsights