OTTAWA - The Liberal party spent more than it took in the 2019 election year, raising just over $42 million and spending just over $43 million.

Financial records released late Friday show that by the end of the year, the party had $625,865 in assets.

All political parties had until midnight June 30 to submit their financial reports for last year.

Of the major parties, only the Liberals' 2019 records were available Friday.

The New Democrats say they asked for and received an extension, the Conservatives did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The Liberals also finished 2019 with $24.7 million in loans, according to their financial records, against huge election-year donations.

Among their biggest expenditures in 2019 were salaries, coming in at $7.95 million.

This year, they are covering some of their staffing costs using the COVID-19 wage subsidy program, which is also being used by the Conservatives.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2020.

Originally posted here:

Liberal party finished 2019 having spent $43 million, raised $42 million - CP24 Toronto's Breaking News

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the eastern half of Oklahoma is, and has been for nearly two centuries, a Native American Indian reservation. The 5-4 decision fell along ideological lines, with Justice Neil Gorsuch,the only justice from the western U.S., siding with the courts liberal bloc.

In a 42-page decision penned by Justice Gorsuch, the court reasoned that because Congress never disestablished the Native American reservationestablished through a series of treaties with granting all land West of the Mississippi River to the the Creek Nation of Indiansthat land remains a Native American reservation.

Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word, Gorsuch wrote.

The controversy stemmed from the prosecution of Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation tribe who in 1997 was convicted by state authorities on charges of sex crimes against a child. McGirts attorneys argued that because Congress never terminated the Muscogee reservation, the eastern half of Oklahoma remained sovereign territory, McGirt should have been tried in federal court.

The court first attempted to address the issue over the territorial dispute in 2018, following an appeal from a ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that the land was indeed a tribal reservation. The justices heard arguments in Sharp v. Murphy in 2018, but took on McGirts case instead, likely because Justice Gorsuchwho participated as a federal appellate judge when the case was in circuit courthad to recuse himself.

Oklahomas solicitor general argued there was no need for Congress to disestablish the reservation and transfer authority to the state because the land was never a legally established reservation; ruling otherwise would throw the state into chaos, the argument went.

The decision has significant implications for Oklahomas 1.8 million residents, as state authorities have no jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed on Native American territory, and many previously state convictions are likely to be called into question.

Gorsuch addressed this point head-on, saying the magnitude of a legal wrong is no reason to perpetuate it.

Looking to the future, Oklahoma warns of the burdens federal and tribal courts will experience with a wider jurisdiction and increased caseload, the opinion said. But, again, for every jurisdictional reaction there seems to be an opposite reaction: recognizing that cases like Mr. McGirts belong in federal court simultaneously takes them out of state court. So while the federal prosecutors might be initially understaffed and Oklahoma prosecutors initially overstaffed, it doesnt take a lot of imagination to see how things could work out in the end.

Gorsuch last year also provided the decisive vote when the court ruled in favor of Native American rights, holding that a nineteenth century treaty did not expire when Wyoming became a U.S. state.

Read the full decision below:

McGirt by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via Jabin Botsford Pool/Getty Imagess]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Here is the original post:

Justice Gorsuch Sides with Liberals and in 5-4 Decision in Favor of Native American Rights - Law & Crime

Several prominent BC Liberal MLAs have said they were shocked and concerned to learn that their party had paid for advertising in a socially conservative magazine, and the party says it will review its advertising in the future.

But critics say the response from the party and its leader, Andrew Wilkinson, has lacked details about how the advertising decision was made in the first place and how it will be prevented in the future.

The Light Magazine is a free monthly Christian lifestyle magazine, according to the publications website.

It frequently publishes articles expressing alarm that conversion therapy could be banned or curtailed, and against B.C.s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) policy in public schools. In 2018 the magazine published a long statement detailing how same-sex sexual relationships and expressing a transgender identity are contrary to scripture.

Conversion therapy is a widely discredited practice that treats same-sex attraction as a mental illness, while SOGI provides a framework in schools to be inclusive and safe spaces for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including those who identify as transgender.

The BC Liberals frequent advertising in the magazine was first reported by Press Progress, a news site funded by the NDP-aligned Broadbent Institute. Several of the ads feature the smiling faces of Wilkinson and other prominent BC Liberals.

Spencer Chandra Herbert, the NDP MLA for Vancouver-West End, said he feels personally hurt by the realization that Opposition colleagues paid for advertising in the publication. Three years ago, Herbert publicly shared his and his husbands journey of becoming parents to their son.

I just went What? Wait a second, so people that I smile at and work with are also paying for ads opposite that appear opposite articles arguing that people like me and my family should be converted into something were not? Chandra Herbert said, referring to conversion therapy.

Or that policies meant to make life safer for LGBTQ people should be eliminated, bringing back violence and discrimination as I know it would happen?

BC Liberal MLAs Todd Stone, Jane Thornthwaite, Tracy Redies and Joan Isaacs all made statements on Twitter saying they were dismayed to learn of the advertising. Stone said his constituency office is now reviewing all advertising to ensure publications are consistent with my values moving forward.

Wilkinson and the BC Liberal Caucus Twitter account posted the same statement that read: There is no room in the BC Liberal Party for homophobia, transphobia, or any other form of discrimination. Going forward, we are taking immediate steps to ensure our advertising decisions reflect those values at all times.

But Laurie Throness, the BC Liberal MLA for Chilliwack-Hope, said he would advertise in the magazine again because it aligns with his values as a Biblical Christian and its an important way to reach his constituents. He said the BC Liberal Party includes both social conservatives like him and MLAs who are socially liberal.

CTV News Vancouver reached out to all the MLAs who appeared in the ads, as well as the BC Liberal Party, but Throness was the only MLA who responded, while the party directed CTV News Vancouver to its statement on Twitter.

Biblical Christians follow their Lord in their sexual practice. They dont attack other people, they dont condemn other people, because Jesus did not condemn other people, Throness said.

They withdraw from sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. That has nothing to do with intolerance, it has everything to do with following their conscience and following their Lord.

Throness pointed to an article in the October 2019 edition of The Light the same edition that featured an ad with Wilksons photo and nine other BC Liberal MLAs that raises concerns about proposed B.C. legislation that would prevent conversion therapy.

Many people are concerned that this bill infringes upon Canadian freedoms, including the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion and the freedom to practice our professions according to our expertise, reads the article in The Light Magazine.

Throness said its clear the article is against coercive conversion therapy, such as kidnapping people.

The federal government recently introduced legislation that would criminalize conversion therapy, saying the practice harms and stigmatizes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit (LGBTQ2) persons, undermines their dignity and negatively impacts their equality rights.

The practice can take various forms, including counselling and behavioural modification, and it can lead to long-lasting trauma, said Attorney General David Lametti.

Chandra Herbert said the problem with the MLAs advertising in the magazine is that the ads legitimize the views of the articles they appear alongside.

Its not about me being upset and offended, he said. Its the wider public who gets impacted.

Its the youth who have been told by their parents that they shouldnt be who they are and that conversion therapy could help them because they read it in a magazine that looks respectable because, Hey, our local MLA advertises in there, so does the opposition party, so surely this cant be that bad.

Chandra Herbert said he was glad to see statements from individual MLAs, but hed like to see a stronger response from the party about how the advertising decision was made in the first place.

See the rest here:

BC Liberals called out for advertising in magazine that defends conversion therapy - CTV News

The whole world has been struggling to contain the coronavirus and flatten the curve, but Taiwan has had no curve. Out of a population of 24 million, only 440 people have tested positive for Covid-19, and there have been just seven deaths. Compare that with the Netherlands: while it is similar in size to Taiwan with a population of 17 million, well over 5,000 lives have been lost to the virus.

What has made the difference? Clearly, the Netherlands is not an island that could cut itself off from the rest of world, lock down completely and thus contain the disease. Taiwan is but Taiwan didnt do that either.

Public spaces in Taiwan, restaurants, shops and schools, have all remained open since the initial Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan. Life in Taiwan has continued pretty much the same as before. What Taiwan did however, was opt for a complex tradeoff involving virus containment strategies and information gathering, while balancing individual autonomy with trust and control.

But lets first consider the Dutch situation. As Covid-19 hit the Netherlands in March 2020, the public was simply advised to restrict travelling to and from affected areas. When the crisis rapidly worsened, almost all subsequent efforts were directed at minimising the spread of the disease and reducing the influx of patients into hospitals.

The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, appeared on television and said that as he trusted citizens to behave responsibly, it would suffice to request that people remained at home as much as possible, observed the 1.5-metre distance protocol, and self-quarantined or self-isolated when feeling unwell. Since no mass testing for Covid-19 took place, the number of infected people and information about who they were or where they had been was anybodys guess.

To minimise transmission of the virus, schools, offices, restaurants and bars were closed. Work that could not be contactless was suspended, and all public gatherings were cancelled. But no complete lockdown, as in Italy or Spain, was deemed necessary. This was seen as too much of an invasion of our Dutch privacy. When the day-to-day numbers of Covid-19 deaths started to drop below 100 per day, it was considered a vindication of the policy of intelligent lockdown.

Taiwans decisions have been partly motivated by its lack of trust in the information shared by China and by Taiwans exclusion from the World Health Organisation at Chinas insistence. These factors have required it to be self-contained and to insist, within a democratic framework, on a policy of maximum health information transparency, both with and from the Taiwanese population. Taiwans history and culture means there is a strong emphasis on the collective over the individual. But its longstanding experience with epidemics such as Sars in 2003, and bird flu in 2013 have also been influential in shaping the response.

From the outset, Taiwans president, Tsai Ing-wen, took aggressive steps to prevent a possible epidemic, such as a travel ban on visitors from China and other epidemic regions (Europes travel bans came much later).

Taiwans approach relies essentially, however, not on its citizens anonymous individual responsibility, but on a completely transparent form of supervised self-discipline. And although the Taiwanese measures are considerably more intrusive, paradoxically, they result in a remarkably liberal policy.

A centralised epidemic command centre (the CECC) was quickly activated to provide immediate information, including detailed surveillance of the movements of infected people.

If anyone reports to a hospital with Covid-19 symptoms, the hospital is obliged to report to the CECC, which then traces the patients recent whereabouts and draws up an anonymised footprint for them in public spaces, such as supermarkets or restaurants. Mobile phone service companies are asked to send out text warnings to anyone else who may have been in these spaces at the time. A typical message reads:

Epidemic Alert. You have been in the proximity of an infected person. Please maintain self-health management, keep to social distancing rules, wear a mask in public and wash hands regularly. If you have any physical complaints, please contact your local healthcare provider.

All this is done on the basis of confidentiality; the infected person is never identified.

Taiwan has also introduced an electronic fence system. This allows local authorities to monitor the whereabouts of a quarantined person. It uses mobile phone signals to detect if an individual leaves their designated quarantine area; if they do, the authorities are immediately notified.

While Taiwanese citizens are aware that intensive monitoring involves an invasion of their privacy, the vast majority acquiesce in the use of personal data and are willing to comply with government regulations. Equally, mask-wearing in Taiwan has become a cultural norm. It is considered a moral virtue to protect others from ones own infection, so as to break the chain, for the benefit of all.

So could a country like the Netherlands have learned from the Taiwanese approach? The Dutch government contemplated the voluntary use of a coronavirus tracking app to alert a user if they had been in contact with a confirmed case, but dismissed it after a national debate about privacy and security. Meanwhile, Rutte and his cabinet have started to implement a four-month plan to relax restrictions.

A key difference, though, is that the western emphasis on autonomy and liberal values, so solidly rooted in Dutch culture, assigns responsibility for the collective health of a nation to the individual, whose behaviour is neither especially informed nor monitored. Ironically, Dutch residents have paid for this unsupervised self-governance with heavy restrictions on their right to free movement, considerable uncertainty and a high death toll. In contrast, Taiwan has demanded more monitoring and compliance of its people, but the result is a healthier population, greater certainty, and ultimately more liberty.

Cha-Hsuan Liu is a lecturer in social policy and public health at Utrecht University; Jaap Bos is associate professor at the department of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University

View original post here:

Could the 'liberal' Dutch have learned from Taiwan's approach to coronavirus? - The Guardian

In the navel-gazing nation of journalism, it was the shot heard round the world: Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True? That was the headline of Ben Smiths latest for the New York Times, which landed with a bang on Sunday night and quickly set Twitter ablaze. The more than 3,500-word column was an assiduous accounting of various bombshells Farrow has reported for The New Yorker, including his groundbreaking work on Harvey Weinstein. It was as if Farrow had his very own public editor, and while Smith conceded that the 32-year-old investigative reporter is not a fabulist he does not make things up, it was a brutal portrayal nonetheless.

In Smiths words: He delivers narratives that are irresistibly cinematicwith unmistakable heroes and villainsand often omits the complicating facts and inconvenient details that may make them less dramatic. At times, he does not always follow the typical journalistic imperatives of corroboration and rigorous disclosure, or he suggests conspiracies that are tantalizing but he cannot prove. New Yorker editor in chief David Remnick, meanwhile, gave a full-throated defense of Farrows reporting: Working alongside fact-checkers, lawyers, and other editorial staff members at The New Yorker, he achieved something remarkable, not least because he earned the trust of his sources, many of whom had to relive traumatic events when they talked to him. We stand by Ronan Farrows reporting. Were proud to publish him.

Smith has been the Times media columnist for more than two months now, following in the footsteps of Jim Rutenberg and David Carr. Hes a bomb-thrower, not exactly a normal Timesian role, and his columns have made waves one way or another. There was Smiths inaugural installment that questioned whether his new employers runaway success was good for journalism; a searing postmortem of Fox Newss early coronavirus coverage; a contrarian Tara Reade take that turned out to be arguably a bit premature; and even an unflattering assessment of the state of Cond Nast, which owns Vanity Fair. (Cond Nast also owns The New Yorker, which is where my wife works; conflicts all around!) But Smiths Farrow column has been the biggest talker of them all, and perhaps the most polarizing too.

The voluminous reactions on Twitter appear to be split between people applauding Smith for doing the uncomfortable but necessary work of holding an influential and highly regarded peer to account (Super-deep accountability journalism by @benyt on Ronan Farrow's written record. Muscular debunking, tweeted Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple), and those who detect whiffs of grudge-settling and hypocrisy (or who at least think Smith failed to deliver a kill shot befitting the length and aggressiveness of his examination). To quote one person in the latter camp, John Carreyrou, the former Wall Street Journal investigative reporter who took down Elizabeth Holmes: Journalistic high-mindedness from @benyt, the guy who pubbed the Trump dossier without fact-checking a shred of it and who later refused to retract the Trump-instructed-Cohen-to-lie-to-Congress story. Rich with irony and quite brazen.

I checked in with both Smith and Farrow, and neither had anything to add. (Nor did the Times or The New Yorker.) But there are undeniably rich dynamics to the whole episode, in which a relative Times outsider has targeted one of journalisms sacred cows, and, in so doing, created a sort of institutional face-off between two of the industrys most venerable news organizations. The Times and The New Yorker compete robustly with one anotheras they did on the Weinstein story, which the Times broke firstbut they would typically be seen more as allies than antagonists. Adding to the complexity is the fact that they shared the Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 over some of the same #MeToo reporting by Farrow in The New Yorker that Smith is now prosecuting in the Times. If nothing else, its rather fascinating to watch. As Politicos Jack Shafer put it: There is something wonderfully cleansing about a full-bore @nytimes vs. @NewYorker fight.

Read more from the original source:

The Times Smith Versus The New Yorkers Farrow: The Great Powers of Liberal Journalism Go to War - Vanity Fair

Opposition transport spokeswoman Libby Mettam said the Liberal Party was still committed to Roe 8 and the Perth Freight Link.

Loading

If necessary it is a decision we would most certainly reverse and we are comfortable fighting the government on this issue given it has the support of the community of the southern suburbs, she said.

Ms Mettam said WA needed big ticket infrastructure projects to help the state recover from the coronavirus pandemic and with $1.2 billion in federal funding still on the table, now was the time to get it started.

Were finding it is quite extraordinary that 62,000 people have lost their jobs in the past four weeks and the McGowan government would come out with a plan to block Roe 8, she said.

The Perth Freight Link was envisioned to connect Fremantle Port with Perths southern suburbs but it was scrapped after the Labor party won the 2017 election in a landslide with stopping the road as a headline commitment.

The Liberal Party maintains the road would reduce congestion and remove trucks from Leach Highway while future proofing the Fremantle port.

Ms Saffioti said the McGowan government had been given a clear mandate to stop the freight link.

It was a deeply flawed, controversial project that I am pleased has now been laid to rest, she said.

Environment Minister Stephen Dawson said the land that was cleared to make way for the freight link was already being rehabilitated which would ensure the Beeliar Wetlands and its conservation values would remain for future generations.

See the rest here:

Liberals vow to resurrect Roe 8 if elected next year - WAtoday

Lyn Bafour, a Cinema and Chinese major, has used her nightstand as a desk for online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If I just reorient myself on my bed, I feel like thats enough mentally to make the switch of, this is where you sleep versus this is where you work, Bafour said in a new video series exploring how students have adjusted to online learning this semester.

Despite the challenges with taking classes from home, the Trader Joes employee has found a way to prepare herself every day: Wake up, get in the mindset and shake everything off and just start doing the work.

Cinema major Nithin Kumar said keeping his workspace clean and simple has helped him stay on task.

I have my monitor. I have a keyboard. Basically, I have [my workspace] set up for maximum productivity with as little distractions as possible, he said.

Sabrina Mota, a Broadcast and Electronic Communication Arts major, said students shouldnt be too hard on themselves, especially during this unprecedented crisis.

Forgive yourself if this isnt going to be your best semester, Mota said. Understand that a lot of people, they take a long time to go through school and they still end up being able to get to their aspirations and make change.

The pandemic and shelter-in-place ordinances have made Bafour value the importance of human interaction more than ever.

Whats going on right now is very isolating, and during the first few days, I was very lifeless. I didnt know what to do with myself, said Bafour, an employee at Trader Joes grocery store. But talking to somebody really did help feel like things are normal and reaffirmed that other people are going through the same thing.

Video produced by Sreang Hok and Kavin Chan

Read more from the original source:

@Home with SF State: Adjusting to Remote Learning | College of Liberal & Creative Arts - SF State News

Progressives are embracing super PACs with newfound vigor as they look to put their political influence and organizing tactics to use in the aftermath of Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersBiden wins Oregon primary Joe Rogan announces exclusive deal with Spotify Author: Biden 'completely different' from FDR MOREs (I-Vt.) presidential campaign.

A handful of new liberal outside groups have cropped up in recent weeks, many of them founded by former aides and allies of Sanders and other prominent progressives. Their goals range from boosting the presidential campaign of former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenPro-Trump outside groups raise .8 million in April Biden wins Oregon primary Graham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election MORE to patching what they see as electoral holes in the Democrats organizing strategy.

But the proliferation of super PACs has come at a cost for some in the progressive movement, which has long denounced the existence of such groups and the influence of money in politics.

Sanders himself has privately expressed frustration with one such super PAC, originally called Future to Believe In PAC after the Vermont senators campaign slogan. The group was formed late last month by a handful of former aides to Sanderss campaign, including senior adviser Jeff Weaver, to boost Biden among progressives.

Sanderss displeasure with the formation of the super PAC prompted its founders to change its name this week to Americas Promise PAC to avoid the appearance that it is tied to Sanders or his campaign.

For Weaver and others, the decision to form a super PAC appears to stem more from a sense of urgency than a genuine comfort with such groups, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money so long as they do not coordinate with a candidate or campaign.

In a memo issued on Friday, Weaver warned that lagging support and enthusiasm for Bidens candidacy among progressives has the potential to sink the former vice presidents chances of ousting President TrumpDonald John TrumpPro-Trump outside groups raise .8 million in April Biden wins Oregon primary Graham to release report on his probe into Russia investigation before election MORE in November. Americas Promise PAC, he wrote, could help Biden make up that ground.

[D]espite best intentions, the Biden campaign and the [Democratic National Committee] are far behind on digital organizing, Latino outreach and progressive coalition building all critical to reaching and winning over Sanders supporters, Weaver wrote.

Chuck Rocha, a former senior adviser to Sanders who is involved in Americas Promise PAC and is spearheading the creation of another group, Nuestro PAC, said that super PACs are simply a means to an end: helping Democrats and progressives win up and down the ballot.

Unlike traditional political action committees and political nonprofits, super PACs can act as a partisan hammer, Rocha said, a role that traditional campaigns and PACs cant necessarily fill.

I am anti all this money in politics and if we can operate without super PACs, I would vote for that everyday, Rocha told The Hill. But Ive got to do something right now. I dont have the privilege to be able to wait around until there arent super PACs on either side.

Rocha and his political consulting firm Solidarity Strategies launched Nuestro PAC last month to turn out Latino voters in the fall using the same playbook that helped Sanders win broad support among Latinos during his primary campaign. Rocha himself is currently the largest donor to the super PAC. He said that hes courting other progressive and Democratic-leaning groups to help fund the effort.

Rocha said he wont accept contributions from corporate interests or business executives.

Super PACs arent the problem. The problem is corporate money in super PACs, he said. I dont know any corporations who would give Chuck Rocha or Nuestro Pac any donations anyway.

Still, the move towards super PACs has received blowback from some progressives. Rocha said he has lost thousands of followers on Twitter since started Nuestro PAC last month. And after Americas Promise launched in late April, the grassroots collective The People for Bernie Sanders advised its followers: Dont give them a dime.

One of the basics of the Bernie campaigns was a refusal to go there in terms of anything like a super PAC, Norman Solomon, a longtime activist and the co-founder of the progressive online initiative RootsAction.org.

I think thats in harmony with the politics that if youre opposed to huge money running the political show then you dont take huge money in super PACs.

Solomon is among a group of advisers to the newly-formed Once Again PAC, a traditional political action committee focused on helping Sanders win delegates in upcoming Democratic presidential primaries in order to exert influence over the partys platform and rules at its national convention this summer.

Also involved in that effort is Nina Turner, a former co-chair of Sanderss presidential campaign, and Winnie Wong, a former adviser to Sanders.

While Solomon said that most activists on the left share Bernies detest for super PACs in general, he also emphasized that progressive super PACs are a relatively small part of the terrain, especially given the massive outside groups funded by ultra-wealthy donors that often back Republicans or more centrist Democrats.

Its David vs. Goliath, he said. Even David needed a slingshot and I think thats how some people see it.

Sanderss former aides arent the only ones formingoutside political groups. Earlier this month, Justice Democrats, the progressive groupaligned with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezOvernight Defense: Pentagon memo warns pandemic could go until summer 2021 | Watchdog finds Taliban violence is high despite US deal | Progressive Dems demand defense cuts The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden leads Trump by 6 points in new poll Ocasio-Cortez primary opponent Caruso-Cabrera goes on fierce attack in online debate: 'AOC is always MIA' MORE (D-N.Y.), filed paperwork with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) to create a hybrid PAC also called a Carey Committee similar to a super PAC.

Sanders himself has benefited from super PACs in the past. Vote Nurses Values PAC, the super PAC funded by the nurses union National Nurses United, spent more than $700,000 in support of the Vermont senator during the 2020 presidential primaries.

To me, theres a big difference between a labor lobbyist who is an advocate for working people versus a corporate lobbyist for Goldman Sachs or General Electric, said Jonathan Tasini, a progressive strategist and former surrogate for Sanderss 2016 presidential campaign. I sort of see super PACs the same way.

Tasini said that the end goal for Democrats should be to get rid of all this money in the U.S. political system. But he added that progressives should be practical in their approach to super PACs.

I dont think we should be so ideologically rigid about this, he said. Everyone would love to get rid of all this money. But that isnt the reality today.

One of the draws of super PACs in addition to being allowed to raise and spend unlimited sums of money is that they promise political operatives freedom that they often dont get within the rigid and bureaucratic structure of traditional campaigns, said Linh Nguyen, a former presidential campaign staffer for Sen. Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerBipartisan Senate group offers new help to state, local governments Liberals embrace super PACs they once shunned Trump and Biden signal bitter general election with latest attack ads MOREs (D-N.J.) and former New York City Mayor Michael BloombergMichael BloombergLiberals embrace super PACs they once shunned .7 billion expected to be spent in 2020 campaign despite coronavirus: report Bloomberg wages war on COVID-19, but will he abandon his war on coal? MORE.

Nguyen and other former campaign staffers filed paperwork with the FEC late last month creating PAC That A$$ (PTA), a super PAC aimed at boosting Democrats up and down the ballot, while aggressively mocking GOP incumbents. The group isnt tied directly to the progressive movement, but is "very much anchored in the idea that we are trying to fix the system," Nguyen said.

In an interview this week, Nguyen said the group isnt only going to be run by political operatives, but is also hiring writers and comedians particularly black and brown creatives with the goal of reaching young voters and communities of color online ahead of the 2020 election.

Our donors that are funding this have specifically said we want you all to try different things, Nguyen said. Experiment and figure out how to break through the noise.

Nguyen said that PTA is built around the notion that super PACs are detrimental to the political process. The groups website touts that if their efforts to get Democrats elected are successful, there wont be any more Super PACs.

We want to fight fire with fire. This is something that Republicans are very, very comfortable in, and as Democrats, we shy away from it or we take the higher road, she said. We want to lean into it. Were going to get a lot of criticism, but we dont want to shy away from it.

Link:

Liberals embrace super PACs they once shunned | TheHill - The Hill

A Liberal government will reduce the deficit. We will implement new programs only if they can be funded within existing expenditures. We will exercise unwavering discipline in controlling federal spending . Expenditure reductions will be achieved by cancelling unnecessary programs, streamlining processes and eliminating duplication.

Its hard to imagine the Liberals making such a promise in this day and age, but that is what they pledged to do in their 1993 Red Book. Contrast that to the 2015 election, when the party campaigned on the idea of running $10-billion deficits for three years, for a total of $30 billion a limit they blew through (and it wasnt even close). Or the 2019 election, when it gave up on balancing the books altogether and introduced a plan to run yearly deficits of $20 billion over its four-year mandate.

The coronavirus, however, changes everything. Those deficits now seem like chump change in the face of the Parliamentary Budget Officers (PBO) April 30 forecast of a $252.1-billion deficit in 2020-21 a number that, given the spate of spending announcements since then, he now says is likely to prove very optimistic.

As a percentage of the economy, even the optimistic number would be the highest on record. And that doesnt include the provinces, which have also seen their expenditures balloon. All told, a National Bank Financial report this week estimated that combined federal and provincial deficits could reach a staggering $350 billion, which represents about 20 per cent of gross domestic product.

If theres any good news, its that the massive increase in government spending that weve witnessed since the start of this pandemic will (hopefully) be temporary. Yes, COVID-19 has exposed critical holes in our health-care system, long-term care facilities and supply of critical goods that will require long-term expenditures in order to address. But the vast majority of the spending the financial support for workers who have lost their jobs and companies that have lost their revenue streams can easily come to an end once the health threat subsides.

Thats not to say that it is inevitable, though. We have already heard calls for the government to transform the Canada Emergency Response Benefit into a universal basic income program, for the state to use this crisis as an opportunity to replace fossil fuels with green energy pick your pet cause and chances are that someone is using the coronavirus as an excuse to push it.

But the Liberals must resist these calls, because the fact is that we will not be able to afford any of it. We wont even be able to afford any of the programs, like universal pharmacare, that Parliament was considering at the beginning of the year.

The Liberals justified their deficit spending before the pandemic by citing Canadas relatively good debt-to-GDP ratio, the amount of government debt relative to the size of the economy. Yet the PBO estimates that the national debt will hit $962 billion this year, up from $685 billion in 2018, and could easily top $1 trillion thats a one with 12 zeroes the year after.

Meanwhile, Statistics Canada released a flash estimate last month, which suggested that real GDP shrank nine per cent in March. The PBOs scenario estimates that real GDP will decline by 12 per cent this year, which would be four times worse than the worst year since we started keeping records in 1961.

Divide those two numbers and we could be looking at a debt-to-GDP ratio of nearly 50 per cent by the end of the year. This, however, would not be unprecedented: it stood at a whopping 66.6 per cent in 1995.

That was when Prime Minister Jean Chrtien and Finance Minister Paul Martin launched an aggressive effort to balance the budget that still makes conservatives jealous. They did so not by massively increasing taxes, but by cutting federal spending by 14 per cent between 1995 and 1998. Thanks to these austerity measures, the economy prospered, growing between four and five per cent a year between 1997 and 2000. Accordingly, our debt-to-GDP ratio dropped to 29 per cent by 2009.

Barring a sudden end to their minority government, when the current crisis abates, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau will face a similar situation. It has always seemed somewhat paradoxical that Chrtien and his American counterpart, President Bill Clinton, were able to balance their budgets in the 90s, while their conservative successors watched them balloon once again. Yet centre-left governments often find it easier to drastically reduce spending, because people tend to believe that they are doing it out of necessity, rather than ideology, and therefore are more inclined to give them a pass.

Will this current crop of Liberals follow in the footsteps of their predecessors and do what needs to be done to stabilize this countrys finances, retaining the prosperity that sustains our way of life and preserving it for future generations? We certainly hope so, but their own recent history is cause for concern.

Follow this link:

NP View: Will these Liberals be willing to do what Chrtien and Martin did? - National Post

Representational Image.

Across the world, people are jostling with many ideas during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Some of their major concerns are: What will happen once the pandemic is over? Will things return to normal? Will the system continue to function as it did before the pandemic or will there be a radical shift in the socio-economic and political discourse? All of these concerns are being addressed by different people, differently. That is bound to happen because the socio-economic background that we all come from induces us to think differently.

In an interesting article titled The neo-liberal era is ending, what comes next, Rutger Bregman writes: There are those who say this pandemic shouldnt be politicised. That doing so is tantamount to basking in self-righteousness. Like the religious hardliner shouting its the wrath of God, or the populist scaremongering about the Chinese virus, or the trend-watcher predicting were finally entering a new era of love, mindfulness, and free money for all. There are also those who say now is precisely the time to speak out. That the decisions being made at this moment will have ramifications far into the future. Or, as Obamas chief of staff put it after Lehman Brothers fell in 2008: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

But the silver lining is that changes are immanent and imminent. Crisis, be it economic, like the 2008 financial melt down or the present pandemic, which is morphing into an integrated crisis encompassing health and economics, sprouts a new beginning within the system. We will have to wait and see how the present pandemic will induce such a beginning, and make it happen with all our efforts.

The economic paradigm professed and advocated throughout the world, from federal governments to provincial, and even to city governments, was the neo-liberal laissez faire model. Minimum government and maximum governance was the dictum of rule. A whole bunch of bureaucrats from the Indian bureaucracy were sent to such schools across the world to become ardent supporters of this model.

One of the foremost fallouts of this model has been the complete unsustainability of the system. The 2008 crisis led to the development of the ideas of sustainable development goals. The 17 SDGs, out of which nine goals directly are to address inequity in the system and the society at large, have not been able to address core issues. During a discussion in UN Habitat III at Quito on the SDGs, John Closs, the executive director of the Habitat, kept stressing on the idea that one has to go back to the basics of planning. The free market economy, among other ideas, will not make the system more sustainable, but will increase the vulnerability of the cities and the people.

The present pandemic has further exposed the un-sustainability of the system. According to CMIE data, 27 million youth in the age group between 20-30 years have lost jobs in India and the unemployment rate is almost 27%. In the United Kingdom, according to the British central bank, England is on the eve of the largest recession since the year 1709. In the US, 17 million people applied for economic impact payments over the space of three weeks. In the 2008 financial melt down, it took two whole years for the country to reach even half that number. This explains the widespread impact that the pandemic is having across the world, its people, economies and their livelihoods.

The drive towards privatisation has been exposed during the present pandemic. The private health infrastructure was hardly seen across the globe as mitigating the crisis due to COVID-19. Spain and a few other nations had to nationalise their health care system. Even in India, public health institutions and the states that rely more on them were able to tackle the crisis for the moment. The vibrant Gujarat model that had a crumbled health infrastructure faltered badly. In such a scenario where governments were not seen as investors, nation states across the globe have infused an economic stimulus in their economies.

The five G20 countries with the largest COVID-19 stimulus programmes are:

1. United States: $2.3 trillion (11% of GDP)2. Germany: $189.3 billion (4.9% of GDP)3. China: $169.7 billion (1.2% of GDP)4. Canada: $145.4 billion (8.4% of GDP)5. Australia: $133.5 billion (9.7% of GDP)

Does it mean that the role of the nation state has once again been reinforced as a prime investor and that the neo-liberal era is at the beginning of its end?

Look at the Indian story. Instead of following the trend of infusing liquidity into the market and giving cash to the people to buy goods, the stimulus packages announced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman were nothing but a big fraud committed by the PM and the FM in order to cast a veneer over their blunder rather than accept their failure.

The demand in the economy has fallen massively owing to the lockdown. Daily wagers and even the salaried earners who have been laid off, are in no position to buy. The middle classes are also confined to their homes and are not buying items except for alcohol and food. The hospitality, entertainment and transport sectors are closed.

The basic premise of the stimulus of awarding loans to the entrepreneurs and other sections has just not taken off, for the simple reason that there is no security in the economy. Even if loans are taken, there is no guarantee that they will be paid back. Moreover, it is down to the delinquency of the buyer and for that the purchasing power of the buyer must be enhanced. Instead, the government has harped on facilitating loans, which are not going to take off.

Many economists, including those who are not from the Left, have argued for a Keynesian pump in the economy to ensure that demand gets generated. However, the government chose a different path. Why? Some of them are of the opinion that it is the gibberish mindset of the leader of the government, which was initially felt during demonetisation, and another such round happened during the lockdown which was followed by the stimulus package. However, Prabhat Patnaik makes a distinction between the two decisions. Demonetisation could have been a foolish idea, but the present package which does not infuse currency in the market to create demand, thereby increasing the fiscal deficit, is actually linked to credit ratings by the globalised financial capital. The Modi government does not want to annoy foreign capital by increasing the fiscal deficit in the fear that it will fly off. However, the reality is that the global financial capital is moving out and what is required are more regulations.

In such a scenario, where the government is committed to appease corporates by even allowing for the dilution of the labour laws, its legitimacy comes under question. In order to distract from the real issue of its failure to provide any relief to its people, the government is harping on greater authoritarianism and spreading the communal virus to legitimise its presence.

Whether it is the beginning of the end of the neoliberal era would be quite premature to say, at least in the Indian context!

The author is former Deputy Mayor of Shimla. The views are personal.

Link:

Is it the Beginning of the End for the Neo-Liberal Era? - NewsClick

One among the arts schools within the country was one of the earliest from the Midwest to provide continuing education courses for art students, art teachers, and skilled artists.

Artwork Institute of Michigan gave their Wilson College faculty members the chance to design the industry has an on-line program that has been broadly accepted from the business. One of the applications is Intro to Mathematics for Liberal Arts. This class will offer a newcomers introduction into learning the arts and math.

Students will profit from representation. They will be introduced into an on-line course which empowers pupils to interact with fellow pupils and professors via conversation, on line journals, and also chat rooms.

Students will learn about linear equations, likelihood theory, algebra, and probability and they will get hands on experience as a result of the practice of graphing utilizing information. After finishing the class, pupils are going to have the ability to solve quadratic equations and also will soon be prepared to complete calculus.

It has been said that the statistics of the Manhattan Art Institute are based on superstition. It follows that one of many greatest worth of the art school is demonstrating and demonstrating reality. The data for buy custom essays Liberal Arts section is really a curriculum that gives factual information that will provide them with the ability apply it and to comprehend data to students.

A student will be educated to select one of two themes you will be in theory and the other will likely probably be in implemented math. Students will probably be taught how to apply statistics and the https://ctl.yale.edu/using-technology/online-learning way they employ it. One other crucial area of the program could be exactly to decide on the chances of this research being negative or positive and the selection of research topics.

The Huge Sky Arts Council of Wilson, Michigan is Currently a member of This National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD). NASAD performs to be sure the safety of all students and teachers. The faculty will also offer certification plans to art educators from all areas of education.

It will provide them with practical skills which they can use within the actual life, although the Introduction to Mathematics for Liberal Arts are not only going to give students a fundamental understanding of the arts and statistics. Students will be educated how to learn and rate, and also just how to read, the way to produce advice.

The utilization of stats will undoubtedly probably be properly used across the plan of the app, and pupils will work through practical issues. While a number of these math will be used care of to their own with their educators, the arts will possess them researching their abilities and thoughts.

As a way to choose the class, the scholar has to be a dynamic player in the major Sky Arts Council. Will be awarded for some class that offer their individual viewpoints and innovative capabilities together with class education.

Being a real member of the massive Sky Arts Council is totally free and there is no expense to the university scholar. By finding out with others who are also interested in this particular subject, pupils will learn they might otherwise have overlooked on.

The arts colleges in their state of Michigan http://www.essay-company.com/ have been profitable in offering a comprehensive level. The problems at many schools seeing math now are actually becoming a thing of their past together using all the coming of mathematics for liberal arts in the Wilson College of Arts Council.

Do you have a coronavirus story? You can email us on:news@alphamedia.co.zw

See the original post here:

Intro to Mathematics For Liberal-arts At The Large Sky Arts Council Of Wilson, Michigan - NewsDay

In our world challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic, there exists a need for heightened community activism in ways that meet our safety needs.

As I continue to engage in areas of community concern, people often respond by accusing me of being a liberal activist. I am fairly positive that being a liberal or an activist is not yet a crime in Oklahoma, so I confess to my liberal leanings.

While my conservative friends believe in the value of established practices in politics and society, I work to make positive changes within the social and political structure. However, if we place the conservative principles alongside the progressive change tenants of liberalism, the differences between the two appear to be small.

Seemingly the disparity arises in the interpretation of core principles shared by both liberals and conservatives, subsequently leading to disagreement and conflict. Consequently, we end up in a world torn apart by politics, economics, race and religion.

We have been here before. In 1968 I was a federal agent on assignment in Washington, DC, at a time when it appeared the fabric of our nation was being shredded. Our nations capital, along with the rest of the nation, was enmeshed in Vietnam war protests, the anguish and violence following the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Poor Peoples March, the murder of Sen. Robert Kennedy along with economic and social upheaval. Here I experienced first-hand the nature and significance of activism in a democratic society.

More than half a century later we have seen some progress even though, in the clutches of a deadly virus, we are still struggling with the same issues of economic, social and racial injustice.

In our current divided situation, words matter. Freedom, justice, love, peace and peaceful coexistence are words of substance and meaning. These words feel good. They are calming, healing, dignified and, most important, they are words to live by and to provoke action.

Acting in pursuit of freedom, justice and peace is vital if these words are to have meaning. However, actions require us to choose a side and take a stand. The tension between progressive and conservative ideology should become irrelevant when peoples lives are at risk. So, how do we choose sides, survive a pandemic and keep the peace at the same time?

To be an activist and meet this challenge requires you to be informed and to understand the cause you support. In this age of intense social and commercial media one must exert extra effort to separate truth from fiction and facts from propaganda. The success of activism in any arena depends on a combination of informing oneself, speaking out, educating the public and taking direct action.

Many Tulsans are deeply immersed in the practical challenges of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic while, at the same time, ensuring peace and justice for all.

When engaged in these issues, we are faced with questions regarding the scope and direction of any actions we choose to take or support. While the ends we pursue must be just, so too must the means we employ to achieve those ends. Each of us is responsible to pursue justice, equality and freedom activelyfor all, regardless of how others choose to behave.

We all have within us the capacity to be an upstander. As an upstander our actions must be anchored in respect for the dignity and rights of every individual and applied with wisdom and fairness. The time is now. Your voice is important, make it heard. Facts are important, defend them. Above all, share your strength.

Drew Diamond, former chief of the Tulsa Police Department, is executive director of the Jewish Federation of Tulsa and a member of the Tulsa World Community Advisory Board. Opinion pieces by advisory board members appear in this space most weeks.

See the original post here:

Drew Diamond: COVID-19 doesn't end the need for liberal activism ... it sharpens the need - Tulsa World

Marc Serr

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the global economy to a standstill and Canadians are facing serious financial uncertainty and financial strain.

Unprecedented times require a strong response and thats exactly why our government took swift action and focused on delivering immediate and direct help to those in need it.

The emergency economic measures put in place help ensure that Nickel Belt Greater Sudbury residents in dire need have the critical support required to pay for essentials like housing and groceries.

To support individuals and families in critical circumstances our government introduced the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), increased the Canada Child Benefit, and boosted the GST/HST benefit. Weve also extended the individual's income tax filing date and collaborated with the CMHC to work with banks to defer mortgages.

Weve heard firsthand how these much-needed funds have alleviated pressure for families in our communities.

Post-secondary students are also facing challenges. Whether they recently graduated and were ready to enter the workforce or were set to find a summer job those prospects could have been impacted by COVID-19.

We listened to their concerns indicating that many of them did not qualify for Employment Insurance or the new CERB. To support them, our government proposed the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB), offered expanded opportunities through the Canada Summer Jobs program and suspended repayment and interest on student and apprentice loans among other things.

Weve also implemented additional economic response measures to support individuals:

Whether youre a doctor, nurse, a long-term care worker, a grocery store clerk, a trucker, or in another industry supporting us through this pandemic just know your impact is making a difference, and your service is appreciated.

It is also important to thank each one of you following public health officials recommendations to stay home and practice physical distancing. You are helping flatten the curve and stop the spread of COVID-19.

There is still more work to do and in the near future when our economy begins to reopen it will be crucial to keep following public health recommendations to prioritize the safety of all. In the end, what matters the most is that we continue to pull together, as citizens and communities, to get through the pandemic and keep Canadians healthy and safe.

Each day, we see countless stories of neighbours helping neighbours, people giving back to the community, and random acts of kindness. In our community, we see our seniors clubs, our local not-for-profits, and residents from all corners of the riding making a positive difference.

Weve seen sewing clubs create home-made masks, gardening clubs offer free seeds, and individuals put up messages of hope in their windows to inspire one another.

Although the future may be uncertain, we know much remains to be done.

I will continue to listen to your feedback and bring your voice forward to Ottawa so that our government can continue to support families, communities, and businesses while we weather this storm.

There are challenges still ahead, but we will face them together.

Marc Serr is the Liberal MP for Nickel Belt.

See the rest here:

Serr: Liberal government has, will continue to support Canadians through COVID-19 - Sudbury.com

Political divisions are a growing fixture in the United States today, whether the topic is marriage across party lines, responding to climate change or concern about coronavirus exposure. Especially in a presidential election year, the vast divide between conservatives and liberals often feels nearly impossible to bridge.

Our research examines what people know about the energy sources in use today in the United States, and what types of energy they would like to see the nation using in 2050. Energy connects to many important issues, including climate change, jobs and economic growth, equity and social justice, and international relations. It would be easy to assume that Americas energy future is a highly polarized topic, especially when the Trump administration is clashing with many states led by Democrats over energy policies.

However, in a nationwide online survey, we recently found that broad support exists across the political spectrum for a future powered mostly by renewable energy sources. Our work highlights a consensus around the idea that the United States needs to move its entire energy system away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources.

To explore peoples views on energy sources, we conducted an online survey of 2,429 adults across the U.S. Our participants represented a range of political ideologies, with 51% self-identifying as liberals, 20% as moderate and 29% as conservative. To investigate patterns in the data, we analyzed responses based on participants political ideologies.

Our survey asked people to estimate the shares that various energy sources contributed to all energy use in the United States, including activities like generating electricity, running factories, heating homes and powering vehicles. We asked participants to estimate what percentage of U.S. total energy used came from nine energy sources: coal, oil, natural gas, solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal and nuclear power.

Next we had participants describe what they viewed as an optimal mix of these nine energy sources that they hoped the U.S. would use in the year 2050. We also asked what kinds of policies they would support to move the nation from its current status to the future that they envisioned. In a follow-on study, we are examining how factors such as cost and environmental impact influence peoples preferences for one energy source versus others.

We found that our respondents had some misperceptions about where energy in the U.S. comes from. They tended to underestimate U.S. reliance on oil and natural gas and overestimate coals contribution. We believe Americans may not realize how dramatically electric utilities have switched from coal to gas for power generation over the past decade, and may therefore have dated impressions of coals prevalence.

Conversely, we found that participants overestimated the contribution of lesser-used energy sources specifically, renewables like wind and solar power. This pattern may partially be explained by peoples general tendency to inflate estimates of small values and probabilities, which has been seen in areas ranging from household energy use and water use to risk of death.

In the case of the U.S. energy system, this bias means that people think our current energy system is greener than it really is, which could reduce the perceived urgency of shifting to lower-carbon sources.

When we asked participants to indicate the amount of each energy source they hoped the U.S. would use in 2050, the broad consensus favored a future in which the nation primarily relied on renewable energy and used much less fossil fuel. Conservatives, moderates and liberals shared this outlook.

Particular preferences for a lower-carbon future varied somewhat by political ideology, but on average all groups supported an energy mix in which at least 77% of overall energy use came from low-carbon energy sources, including renewable fuels and nuclear power.

This bipartisan consensus wavered, though, when we asked participants whether they supported or opposed 12 energy policies six that would lead to larger roles for low-carbon energy sources, and six that would increase use of fossil fuels.

Liberal participants showed strong support for policies consistent with increased use of low-carbon energy sources, such as providing government funding for renewable energy and subsidies for purchasing electric vehicles. They strongly opposed actions that would increase reliance on fossil fuels, such as relaxing oil drilling regulations or lowering fuel economy standards.

On average, conservative participants supported several policies that favored low-carbon energy use, though not as strongly as their liberal counterparts. Conservatives tended to be closer to neutral or only slightly opposed to policies that promote fossil fuel use.

The sharpest contrast between the two political groups was over building and completing pipelines to move oil from extraction points to refineries in the U.S. Several proposed pipelines have generated intense controversy in the past years. Conservatives generally supported pipeline development, and liberals generally opposed it.

An important argument for transitioning to low-carbon energy sources is to limit climate change to manageable levels. Recent polls show that climate change remains a politically divisive issue, with far more Democrats than Republicans rating it as extremely important to their vote in the 2020 presidential race.

Recent research has shown that both Democrats and Republicans strongly support renewable energy development, but do so for different reasons. Democrats prioritize curbing climate change, while Republicans are more motivated by reducing energy costs. We see these motivations playing out in the real world, where conservative oil-producing states like Texas are experiencing huge booms in renewable energy generation, driven primarily by the improving economics of renewable energy.

Realizing the shared vision of an energy system dominated by renewable energy will mean reconciling partisan differences over how to achieve that future. While there is no single rationale that will convince all Americans to support a transition to low-carbon energy sources, our results are encouraging because we find consensus on the U.S. energy future everyone agrees that it should be green.

[Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversations email newsletter.]

Read the rest here:

Both conservatives and liberals want a green energy future, but for different reasons - The Conversation US

Your latest book Counter Revolution, Liberal Europe in Retreat refers to the period after 1989 until now. What has happened in this timeframe and why are you so critical about these developments?

After the fall of the Berlin Wall we had a great chance to have a totally different Europe. It looked like the future will be bright. However, even before this pandemic, we realised that things go wrong to the extent that people who always voted for either centre-left or centre-right liberal politicians started to change their mind and support people who are openly illiberal. When I talk about liberals, I mean all centre-left, centre-right politicians who believe in human rights, constitutional democracy, European integration and multilateral diplomacy.

This has happened in countries I know very well, like Britain (where I worked) with the Brexit vote, like Poland where I grew up, or like Italy where I speak from. In all these countries politicians who basically pride themselves of being illiberal are doing very well. Even in Germany this has happened, maybe not to the same extent, but then Germany is a state which is doing better than others in Europe for various reasons, so you would expect it much less than in countries torn by the economic crisis. Of course, after this pandemic, things will be even more complicated.

According to you, the post 1989 generation of politicians and intellectuals have betrayed the liberal idea. In which way?

In various ways. These were not populists in power when inequalities reached levels unknown for many decades in Europe. These were not populists in power when we conducted international policies against certain liberal principles. If you look at our record of migration policies, what have we done? We basically cut development aid to North Africa and the Middle East. We basically abandoned democrats there when there was the Arab Spring and sided with a lot of dictators before the Arab Spring, and Im afraid also after, in the hope that they will keep those migrants away from Mediterranean shores. We bombed some of those countries without a UN mandate and then abandoned them to local warlords, and then we were surprised that in 2015 people flee those countries. These were not populists in power over all these years.

When we started to lose elections, we as liberals, immediately cried foul and blamed populist politicians and xenophobic voters. However, many voters just didnt trust policies which are totally ineffective, immoral, and in particular betray the proclaimed liberal standards. Weve made a lot of mistakes. We were saying one thing and doing something else, and we have paid a very high price for this. These are all facts, but we somehow do not recognise them. If you watch German television, people dont talk in those terms.

So are these counterrevolutionaries right in some regard?

Well, in some things they are right. If they say that we presided over the greatest inequalities, that we basically conducted totally unviable migratory policies, and that we basically created an oligarchic democracy in which we can choose government but we cant change the policies, well, they are to a large extent right.

The problem is that they dont have any viable solutions how to sort out those problems. They havent sorted out the inequalities. Even in Poland or in Hungary, they introduced some social policies, but they havent abolished neoliberal economics. Its basically still neoliberalism but with a national flag.

When Matteo Salvini was minister of interior in Italy, what migration policies did he have? Zero. It was all public relations policy. He didnt create any sensible migratory policies, he only was blocking refugee ships coming to Italian shores, even acting against the law in some cases. All this electoral change has happened not because those populists are so strong. I dont see any genius leaders with a vision among them. They are strong because we as liberals are weak.

Those populists were always there. Jean-Marie Le Pen, was elected to parliament in the 50s already. I remember Pim Fortuyn in Holland and Jrg Haider in Austria. We always had those people, but they were never winning elections to the degree they are now.

You heavily criticise neoliberalism in the book. To what extent does our current economic system prepare the ground for counterrevolutionaries to be successful?

The neoliberal system was based on privatisation and deregulation. The private sector had priority over the public sector. For years there was no money for any public hospital or public school. But when the financial crisis came, who was asked to cover the cost of this totally irresponsible and sometimes illegal behaviour of the financial sector? The ordinary taxpayer. This was particularly painful for Greek citizens although the crisis came from New York not from Athens. Yes, the government in Athens has made some wrong things, and the original Eurozone arrangement was faulty, but you can hardly blame ordinary Greeks for the global financial crisis.

You have exactly the same story today with the pandemic. Where do we go for help? To public hospitals. Our life is dependent on these underpaid, very often zero contract hour nurses, and not private consultants.

You are also highly critical of the European Union. In your words, the EU cannot be consolidated, it should be reinvented. Why are you so pessimistic about maintaining the EU in its current form?

The major problem is that the EU is totally controlled by nation states and we have seen how selfishly they responded to the financial crisis and now again. What have the nation states done immediately when the virus started to kill people en masse? They just raised the national borders, they started to do things on their own, and they were unable to agree on anything, except that they should renew the deal with Erdogan on the Greek border and basically gave a tacit agreement on treating those desperate people with an iron fist.

At the EU decision table are only states. Other public actors, like large cities or regions who actually do make enormous contributions to our efforts to fight this pandemic dont have a voice. This idea that the states are running the show boosts the national egoism because those politicians are responsible for their own electorates, so they just run away from any collective effort.

If nation states have too much power, what do you think about proposals of strengthening the European parliament?

I have nothing against the European parliament. But, I frankly believe that the way to strengthen European integration is to divide powers and decentralise authority, because I dont believe that the European Union should resemble a state. The reason why we have this crisis in European integration is that for all these years when we integrated, we were creating common rules and recently some mechanism of policing those rules, but we never transferred much of the government to the centre because the very moment we would transfer this governance to the centre, the states will become local governments. This is why we have a European currency without a common financial government because the states dont want to delegate those powers.

But not only the states, this would have to be national banks, this would have to be constitutional courts. They would have to delegate power to a European state. I dont think they will do this, and I even dont think it would be a good thing to have a European state. But I believe that we should abolish the monopoly of states and have integration more according to the functional logic rather than territorial. In other words, we should give more power and resources to these 40 plus functional agencies we have in Europe which are spread all over the continent and reduce the centre in Brussels.

One of the steps to break the monopoly of states may be the creation of a second chamber of European parliament with cities, with regions, with maybe NGOs and representatives of entrepreneurs. I prefer that they have a seat and voice in the European parliament rather than lobby in Brussels secretly. And why should Estonia or Cyprus have a seat at the decision-making table and Berlin, Hamburg or Paris not? These cities have a more meaningful economy and diplomacy, e.g. in fields like migratory policies, than small states.

Does the current situation with the corona crisis help or hurt counterrevolutionary forces?

Well, its too early to say. Those illiberal politicians who are governing try to grab more powers. You can see it in Hungary and in Poland. In Poland, they dont have many cases of Covid-19, but they are handling all of this pretty poorly, both on the health front and on the economic front. So being in power might be rather a mixed blessing.

At the same time in countries where liberals are in power, like in Italy or Spain, where it is not going well, especially if there is no solidarity from Northern European countries, people like Salvini or the Vox party in Spain are only waiting to take things over.

If it is true that nationalism is going to be the answer of a post-pandemic world, then it will help those illiberal forces because they are against European integration. But I, frankly, do not see this as the only possible scenario. I dont believe that the nation state is coming out of this as the only viable actor. I see a lot of local actors reasserting themselves for good or for bad. In Italy you have now a big conflict between government in Rome and the various regional leaders, and those leaders also fight with each other at various territorial levels.

At the same time, I also believe that to do most of the things those governments want to do, they need Europe for it. Because without Europe, particularly these poorer countries, how are they going to make true what they promise?

What do liberals have to do to beat counterrevolutionary forces in the long haul?

I think there are accelerations of history now because of the pandemic. People now realise that they dont want just political rhetoric on refugees, they want their government to save lives and then to save jobs. This is a chance for liberals to bounce back, but just managing this crisis is not enough, they would have to change the way of doing politics. We need an economy which works not only for the few but for the many, which doesnt work only for the pensioners, but also for the young. It means that you make a green economy because the young have much more stake in the environment.

Then you have to make also different migratory policies because to think that making a deal with one of the dictators in North Africa or the Middle East will solve the problem is just for the birds. You need to have a policy which is more liberal and more credible. In international affairs too, you have to stop selling arms to everybody at last, and to have real cooperation which is not just between states but more on a societal level.

It will not be easy. In global terms it will be even more complicated. I dont see easy global solutions with people like Trump, Bolsonaro, Xi, Putin, Mohammed bin Salman, and Modi in power, and they are all at the table of the G20. I dont have much hope in this company there, but in Europe I still have hope.

Its not enough that liberals as politicians win this or the other election. They need to change policies. There is a chance with all the emergencies now, but there is also a danger that those populists will just exploit emergency powers for their own advantage. We will live in a permanent state of emergency in some of those countries because we didnt reach an agreement between creditors and debtors, because we havent done anything to make sure that those people from North Africa and the Middle East are not fleeing, and we havent basically made our economy fairer.

This interview was conducted by Nikolaos Gavalakis.

Go here to read the rest:

'They are strong because we as liberals are weak' - IPS Journal

Justin Trudeaus government has not yet told Canadians whether or how it intends to keep its long list of pre-COVID-19 promises.

One signature pledge was to take in 350,000 immigrants a year by 2021, or about one per cent of the population annually. That commitment was made in October 2018. At that time Canada was welcoming 310,000 newcomers a year.

Where does that major undertaking on immigration stand now, given that virtually nobody who is not already a citizen or resident of Canada has been allowed into the country for nearly two months? Or that Canadian embassies and immigration offices have almost all been closed or placed on greatly-reduced hours with much smaller staffs since sometime in February with little likelihood of much about that changing soon?

READ MORE: Ottawa will need post-mortem review of coronavirus response, Trudeau says

Official figures about immigration dont tend to be released until one or two years after the fact, so it is guesswork trying to figure out how many newcomers Canada has welcomed this year or how many are in the pipeline. Surely, though, given that there are far fewer flights from overseas and that the required interviews and medical and security checks are clearly not taking place with most of the world shut down, there will be far fewer of these folks arriving this year. Because the immigration process is chronically slow and a maze for most potential immigrants, it is possible that there will be even fewer of them next year, too.

Story continues below advertisement

There is little public information available to help puzzle out the future of immigration to Canada during and after troubling times. But charts showing historical immigration numbers that were published by Statistics Canada five years ago may be instructive.

Whatever the boasts of the Harper and Trudeau governments about their openness to immigration, the fact is that immigration to Canada reached a peak of just over 400,000 people a year more than a century ago under then prime minister Sir Robert Borden. It then dropped to less than 40,000 a year for 15 years from the beginning of the Depression until the end of the Second World War under the Conservative and Liberal prime ministers, R.B. Bennett and Mackenzie King.

[ Sign up for our Health IQ newsletter for the latest coronavirus updates ]

Considering this data and the grave current economic and logistical complications, if the current pattern mirrors the experience of the Depression, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that what looms is a drastic drop as much as 90 per cent in immigration for several years.

There is no argument here about the merits of immigration, which I strongly support. It is about how many newcomers Ottawa now envisages Canada accepting and whether the public, faced with serious personal economic distress caused by unemployment and savings that have been wiped out, will be as supportive of immigration today or in, say, 2022 or 2023, as it was before the coronavirus pandemic disrupted lives and created so much uncertainty about the future.

Story continues below advertisement

It was the Mulroney government that decided to greatly increase the number of foreigners let into Canada. The policy was subsequently embraced by the Martin, Chrtien and Harper governments and expanded a bit further by the Trudeau government.

Recent immigrants, like generations of immigrants before them, have almost always been good for Canada. It is a generalization, but most of these settlers if I may use a not so fashionable 19th and 20th-century term have a reputation for working hard, often at jobs that those already lucky enough to be Canadians wont do.

The newcomers help the economy by paying federal, provincial and municipal taxes. Their need for housing has pushed up the value of real estate, especially in the immigrant-magnet cities of Vancouver and Toronto (although a case can be made that this has sometimes been a mixed blessing).

READ MORE: No timeline for federal budget amid coronavirus uncertainty, Trudeau says

The presence of so many immigrants can only be good for a country where the spectre of depopulation has become real since many couples who can trace their Canadian roots back decades or centuries have become famously uninterested in having more than one or two kids.

Besides, the points system used to decide who qualifies to come to Canada has attracted many highly educated, highly motivated immigrants. The longstanding family sponsorship program has been a boon to, well, families. The legal refugees that Canada has taken in have helped people otherwise trapped in hellish situations. It has also given a little relief to poor countries such as Jordan and Lebanon that have unfairly had to bear far too much of the refugee burden.

Story continues below advertisement

But as during the Depression, Canadas economic landscape has shifted dramatically in the past couple of months. The federal deficit for this year alone could be$252 billion. Similarly, big deficits are a prospect for 2021 and 2022. And the books of several provinces are worse than those of Ottawa.

The federal government has been very busy with the coronavirus. It is, after all, an epochal event.

But increased immigration was a strong theme as well as a firm promise of Trudeaus government. The current pandemic should not prevent the immigration minister and senior department officials who have lots of time on their hands since few new immigration applicants are being processed from sharing their thoughts with Parliament and Canadians about how the COVID-19 shock has informed and affected their thinking and planning.

It is not too soon to start a national discussion about how many immigrants Canadians, their elected leaders and various business and ethnic communities think the economy and job market can digest.

Matthew Fisher is an international affairs columnist and foreign correspondent who has worked abroad for 35 years. You can follow him on Twitter at @mfisheroverseas

Link:

COMMENTARY: The Liberals promised more immigration by 2021. Can that still happen? - Global News

The methodology behind testing in huge numbers is clear -- it allows for governments to grasp the reality of how many people have COVID-19 and work to isolate and reduce spread. However, as the two month mark approaches since the start of the pandemic, the province of Ontario is still struggling to hit its testing goals of 16,000 tests per day. The disappointing results led to Premier Doug Ford taking aim at local medical health officers for not doing their parts.

Im calling them out right now, youve got to pick up the pace, Ford said on Tuesday afternoon during his daily news conference. "Some just aren't performing...We need to hold these people accountable."

Last week, Ontarios chief medical officer, Dr. David Williams indicated that through the amalgamation of labs which can test, the province could process up to 19,525 tests per day. However, the average amount of testing in the province lingered just near 14,000, and took a significant dip to just over 10K earlier this week.

The pointed shots by Ford at local officials did not sit well with Ontario Liberal leader, Steven Del Duca who said regardless of where and why the failures are occurring, the person at the top needs to take accountability.

Ultimately the buck stops with the person in charge and thats the Premier of Ontario, and it would have been far more responsible to acknowledge the issue and explain it and accept responsibility, said Del Duca.

Of the 34 medical health officers, many are being regarded as heroes within their community as theyve been flung into a tough position, and Del Duca notes that targeting those same people is a bad look for the Premier.

I thought the remarks were really disappointing, its exactly what you dont expect to hear from a leader in the midst of a crisis, he said.

Ford had said that at least half of the 34 chief medical officers were knocking it out of the park, but then you see the other 17, the tier that looks ski slope going down. Ford indicated he was going to personally call the 17 officers and hold them to account.

Story continues

Del Duca along with his counterpart at the NDP, Andrea Horwath have both pressed the government on delays in testing in comparison to other provinces.

Ive expressed concern about Ontario's seemingly lack of inability to hit our daily capacity of testing, but the way to deal with that is to show leadership, not to complain about others, not to throw them under the bus, he said.

Ive expressed concern about Ontario's seemingly lack of inability to hit our daily capacity of testing, but the way to deal with that is to show leadership, not to complain about others, not to throw them under the bus." Ontario Liberal leader Steven Del Duca

Through increased testing, Ontario has been able to significantly reduce the amount of tests backlogged to only 6,000. Originally, the lack of supplies, lack of trained bodies and were all problems for Ontario, but now entering week eight, Dr. Williams said the province needs to figure it out.

The problem that we have identified has still not been rectified by the laboratory network system, where there was the community labs have received many of the samples being taken by the health units, but they have stayed out in those community labs, like last week, because theres no system for moving those around on the weekend so then they come in all on Tuesday and Wednesday and then our numbers go back up again, he said. "We don't need excuses ... we need solutions," Williams said.

Explaining his comments

While Ford didn't openly name anyone one person or region, his office said he was explicitly referring to testing at long-term care homes. While the province is in charge of testing, they dont actually conduct who gets the testing, and that is determined by the regional health authorities.

Ill tell you right now, Im disappointed in the chief medical officers in some regions, said Ford. Start picking up your socks and start doing testing.

On Thursday afternoon, Ford offered a different explanation of his comments, indicating that he was trying to stress how important cohesion is at the time.

What I was getting at on Tuesday was that all of us need to work together, and everyone has to be rolling in the same direction, and some werent performing the numbers others were, he said.

The criticism of Ford for a lack of testing is warranted, according to Del Duca, who noted that when things are good, the Premier is the first person to take credit, but when things go awry he has a tendency to point the finger.

You cant afford that kind of cherry picking, you cant afford passing the puck, theres obviously an issue and weve been lagging behind testing per capita since late March, said Del Duca.

But, Ford was insistent that he didnt want to single any one individual out to make them feel responsible for the lag in testing.

I dont want to point out anyone one individual, the system has to keep going, and as Ive mentioned before the people want us to keep pushing the system, he said. Im the number one person that is being held accountable.

Most of the provinces and countries around the world that have been able to flatten the curve have ramped up their testing numbers, which along with contract tracing has helped reduce spread.

We have to make sure the whole team keeps pushing to get these tests done, the only way we can get a handle on this is to have a very strong testing program along with contract tracing, as well, said Ford.

Del Duca agrees with Ford on the importance of widespread testing and having contact tracing systems in place, but without either in place, the venture of reopening society is one he sees as a frightening proposition at this time.

Nobody knows the exact reason why Ontario is lagging behind, but it is particularly scary given the fact were talking about reopening society and the economy and society, he said.

Instead of pointing and trying to assign blame, Del Duca wished that Ford had been more transparent about why testing is delayed, especially given the fact its a provincial jurisdiction.

Its really important to provide clear and transparent data to the public, but Doug Ford chose not to do that, said Del Duca.

During the pandemic, Del Duca doesnt have to look far for strong leadership as he admits hes paid close attention to how New York Governor Andrew Cuomos has been able to take responsibility when things go awry, and explain transparently why things are going poorly.

Weve seen other leaders in nearby places like New York where Governor Cuomo, who throughout this pandemic has provided exemplary leadership for his state, and when they havent hit their marks, I have yet to hear Andrew Cuomo throw anyone under the bus, said Del Duca.

Instead of targeting health officials, Del Duca thinks Ford could have played his cards a little better had he been honest with Ontarians about whats causing the testing lag and how he intends to fix it.

I think there would be a lot of support and understanding from the people of Ontario if he just leveled with us about the challenges and indicated how he planned to deal with it, he said.

Putting partisanship aside for the greater good

A variety of polling numbers indicate Fords favourability numbers are on the rise during the pandemic, which Del Duca believes is large in part due to a disastrous first two years which included the Buck-A-Beer fiasco and #PlateGate.

Given the performance he had demonstrated for the first two years expectations of Premier Ford were probably pretty low amongst most Ontarians given his cuts and decisions that seemed reckless, he said.

Other than trying to be a virulent opposition to Ford during this time, Del Duca said hes had multiple conversations with the Premier, and at times even offered suggestions on what to do. While at the federal level partisanship between Liberal and Conservatives seems to be never ending, Del Duca is opting to bring a collaborative spirit into politics during the pandemic.

People dont want to see crass partisanship, and when youre Premier, Prime Minister or Mayor the entirety of the attention is yours anyways, I just want to try to make it better for Ontarians he said.

While there is still a lot of concern on Del Ducas end regarding testing numbers and how resources were deployed to long-term care homes, he feels at this time his voice is better served trying to create positive dialogue during the pandemic.

At the end of this day, this is still a moment where we as political people need to find a way to work together because its what the people of Ontario expect us to do, said Del Duca.

See the original post here:

'The buck stops with the person in charge': Ontario Liberal leader says Ford 'passing the puck' on lack of testing - Yahoo News

Opposition MP Tim Smith has refused to apologise for accusing Premier Daniel Andrews of acting like a loon, despite confirming the Liberal leader had spoken to him about using such language.

Mr Smith remains adamant the Premier was being incredibly cruel by not allowing Victorians to allow their mums on Mothers Day.

We all knew that Daniel Andrews was going to change the rules this week, to some degree, he said on 3AW.

Why didnt he have the decency to let Victorians know on Friday?

But Mr Smith has been accused of going too far in his criticism of the Premier.

So much so, Michael OBrien cautioned Mr Smith about his commentary in an interview on Channel 7.

Michael (OBrien) and I had a conversation and I have a great regard and respect for Michael, but people are very, very upset with the way they are being treated at the moment, Mr Smith said to Dee Dee Dunleavy on 3AW.

Dee Dee went on to press Mr Smith as to whether he would apologise to Mr Andrews.

No, because I think the Premier has gone too far and I think Victorians were appalled by his perniciousness in making this announcement today, which he couldve very easily have made on Friday.

Click PLAY below to hear more on 3AW Afternoons

PIC: Twitter / @BrendanDonohoe7

Read more from the original source:

Tim Smith refuses to apologise to the Premier, despite rebuke from Liberal leader - 3AW

In the past week, at least four cell towers in Quebec - technicians seen here in Piedmont, Que on May 4, 2020 repairing a cell tower after a fire have been set ablaze, incidents that follow dozens of acts of vandalism across Europe believed to be spurred by conspiracy theories.

Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press

The Liberal chair of a parliamentary health committee is sponsoring an official petition to the House of Commons that is based on the premise that cellphone towers and wireless technology pose a danger to children.

The petition, which has been gathering signatures since late February, is also being promoted online by groups opposed to next-generation 5G mobile technology.

It is coming to light during a period of heightened anxiety over cellular technology in Canada, as there has been a spate of apparent acts of vandalism against cellphone towers recently. In the past week, at least four cell towers in Quebec have been set ablaze, incidents that follow dozens of acts of vandalism across Europe believed to be spurred by conspiracy theories.

Story continues below advertisement

The Commons standing committee on health is the main body for MPs to probe health matters, including Canadas response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As chair, MP Ron McKinnon is responsible for helping steer its deliberations. The federal Liberal Party and government he belongs to has repeatedly emphasized a commitment to evidence-based decision-making.

Mr. McKinnon, MP for Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam in B.C.'s Lower Mainland, authorized petition E-2424 that asks for the government to set new restrictions on how close cellphone towers can be located to schools and playgrounds.

The committee chair defended his decision to sponsor the petition, saying some of his constituents were pushing for it.

Petitioners cannot directly present a petition to the House of Commons; only a member of Parliament can, according to the House website. MPs, however, are not required to authorize petitions that are brought to them. Neither Mr. McKinnon nor his office responded when asked about the possibility that he could have declined to authorize it.

The petition begins by citing a 2014 paper that discusses the risks that microwave radiation from wireless devices might cause cancer. The paper concludes the health risk to children and adolescent from exposure to microwave radiating devices is considerable.

But the study cited by the petition has faced heavy criticism.

Steven Salzberg, a professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science and Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University, said he read the paper about five years ago and, at that time, judged it perhaps the worst scientific paper he had encountered in years.

Story continues below advertisement

He said that while it purported to be a review of microwave radiation exposure in children, its not. Its a series of claims, he said, where the authors have cherry picked studies that they believe support their hypothesis while ignoring hundreds of studies that contradict their claims."

Speaking of the petition, he said: Attacking cell towers in a mistaken belief that they have health consequences is really misguided.

Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator with McGill Universitys Office for Science and Society, said that two of the study authors cited in the petition belong to a U.S. think tank "that believes 5G is toxic.

5G technology is the next generation of mobile technology, which will require far more small cell sites smaller versions of cell towers to provide a dense web of coverage to deliver faster downloads and almost no lag time.

Mr. Jarry said there is a rich body of scientific literature on cellphone radiation and, among all of it, there is no good evidence that microwaves and radio signals harm people.

When it comes to non-ionizing radiation, which is what we are talking about here, there are numerous major agencies who have looked at this entire literature and have issued position statements. Agencies like the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute," he said.

Story continues below advertisement

They all have come to the conclusion that there is no good scientific data showing any sort of detrimental health effects on humans from these types of signals.

The McGill scientist said its dispiriting to learn of this petition, which was first reported by PressProgress, a left-leaning news site.

If we want to hold our members of Parliament accountable for not basing their decisions on good, robust science, then this petition is particularly frustrating because its based on fear mongering, its based on long-disproved arguments and ultimately on bad science that really flies in the face of the scientific consensus on this issue.

He added that anxiety about microwave and cellular technology is hardly new. These concerns have always been with us from microwave ovens to cellphones from 3G to 4G to 5G, he said, listing different generations of mobile technology.

In a statement from his office, Mr. McKinnon said: While I do not personally believe that cellphone towers pose a risk to human health, a number of my constituents have expressed interest in this petition and I wanted to ensure their views are heard.

"Im confident the government will examine all relevant technical and health data in their response. I encourage all Canadians to follow the health advice from our scientists and public-health experts both locally and nationally.

Story continues below advertisement

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, an industry group, expressed disappointment at the petition.

While MPs have a role to play in presenting petitions on behalf of their constituents, its also important for MPs to base their decisions on evidenced-based research and science. This petition is based on neither, and relies solely on a discredited study, the group said in a statement.

Know what is happening in the halls of power with the days top political headlines and commentary as selected by Globe editors (subscribers only). Sign up today.

Read more:

Liberal health-committee chair sponsors petition that says cell towers can pose danger to children - The Globe and Mail

Leadfoot drivers in Edmonton dont seem to be taking a quarantine break while drivers in Calgary seem to be easing off the gas a little bit.

Statistics from the Edmonton Police Service show the number of tickets handed out by photo radar during the first four months of the year including April, when people were to be at home unless out for essential travel soared.

More than 141,000 photo radar tickets have been issued so far in 2020 an increase of 17 per cent from 2019.

That said, the number of intersection cameras in Edmonton has doubled aver the last three years.

While traffic volumes are down overall, we have observed more speeding in our neighbourhoods and along major roadways. Enforcement will continue throughout the city to keep our streets safe, said Edmontons acting director of traffic safety.

We are placing our mobile speed enforcement vehicles in high-priority locations to remind drivers to slow down and drive safely.

Calgary police dont have April figures tabulated yet, but there were 19,718 photo radar violations issued in March 2020, which is a small overall decrease in total tickets (-5.2%) compared to March 2019.

Photo radar had virtually no change in number of tickets issued for vehicles travelling 51 km/h or more over the posted speed limit (as compared with the 5-year average for this speed category), the Calgary Police Service said in a statement to the Western Standard.

(A total of) 10,615 Speed on Green violations observed a slight increase in total violations for the month of March 2020 (12.8%) compared to March 2019.

Many Calgarians had already started working from home in March as the effects of COVID-19 became clear.

Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson is currently penning a letter to provincial officials asking for a change in the law to allow police to seize vehicles driving at excess speeds. Something police in B.C. and Ontario can do.

Currently, lead-footers in Alberta can only be fined $2,000 and lose six demerit points.

Since the COVID-19 lockdown started, the CPS said it has seen dramatic drops in home B&Es and domestic disputes with violence.

Domestic conflict calls for service have increased, but domestic violence overall has decreased (week over week) by 18 per cent since the beginning of the year, the CPS said in a statement.

Overall violence has decreased steadily since mid-March down about 40 per cent we believein part due tothe closure of bars and other nighttime venues.

Home break and enters are down 60 per cent in the past two weeks. Vehicle thefts have shown a steep decline in the last two weeks, down 50 per cent from the expected levels.

Thefts from vehicles are also down from this time last year, roughly 20 per cent from this time last year.

Dave Naylor is the News Editor of the Western Standard

dnaylor@westewrnstandardonline.com

TWITTER:Twitter.com/nobby7694

Read this article:

UPDATE: Liberal gun ban sows confusion with naming of an airsoft toy - Western Standard