Playing with fire

In some ways this story, seen on Twitter, is related to yesterday’s post about Pakistanis fighting Roma:

16 Vancouver women facing human rights complaints for refusing to wax transgender woman’s male genitalia

“JY” publicly identifies as a woman, but still has all the male parts.  In recent months, JY approached 16 Vancouver-area female estheticians who only serve women, requesting a “Brazilian” bikini wax on his groin area.

In spite of the fact that JY is able to obtain a Manzilian in Vancouver, JY has filed 16 complaints against these women at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, claiming discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.”

It is similar because it represents yet another example of the government creating protected classes in order to advance political agendas, and gifting them special rights and privileges which result in ludicrous yet predictable outcomes bringing misery to ordinary people.

As we saw in the US, no sooner did the Supreme Court grant homosexuals the right to marry in the name of equality when activists went from establishment to establishment looking for someone to accuse of discrimination. It was only a matter of time before transsexuals started doing the same thing, and Justin Trudeau’s Canada was the logical place to start. That the whole thing is a shake-down is obvious:

One of them, Shelah Poyer, is a single mom who works out of her home.  JY was willing to withdraw his complaint in exchange for $2,500.

If JY is demanding similar sums from the other 14 women, he stands to receive as much as $35,000 for dropping his human rights complaints.

It’s a handy racket, one that Jessie Jackson deployed in the US for years to good effect. But it does leave me wondering how many of these women now being clobbered by insane legislation initially supported it, confident it would eradicate bigotry as they saw it? Or at least, how many voted for the government that’s brought it in? Feminists were quite happy to use bad law to bludgeon men into submission, and now they’re finding men in dresses are using those same laws against them. Whose fault is that, then?

That said, I think the trannies might be overplaying their hand here. As I’ve remarked before, gays are largely accepted in western societies because there are enough of them around that anyone my age knows a few, and most of them will be normal, decent people. It’s a similar story with blacks in the UK: once you go to school with a few black lads, eat meals, play sport, and joke around with them it’s rather uncomfortable to hear people talking about “jungle bunnies” and the like, and you’d rather disassociate from those who do. If you see those pictures of black men being beaten senseless by police in the civil rights era for standing in the wrong place, it’s hard not to sympathise. Similarly, when Iran hangs young men for being gay you wonder if it wouldn’t be too much trouble just to leave them the hell alone.

But with trannies it’s different, because there simply aren’t enough of them. If gays make up around 2-5% of any given population, it’s enough that you’ll get to know a few and realise they’re not insane. But trannies are around 0.1% of the population or thereabouts, and few people know any outside a trip to a Bangkok nightclub they’d rather forget. While I’m sure there are transsexuals who are reasonable, decent people who generally want to be left alone, the ones the public see appear to be in desperate need of treatment for mental illness. And to make matters much worse, those in the public eye have adopted a nasty authoritarian streak aimed at forcing the ordinary public to share in their delusions. This will not end well.

I’m not entirely sure that gays, if the more militant of them continue to act as they do, will not be subject to an appalling backlash in at least one western country. Their approach to the ordinary population is perilous enough, so where does that leave trannies? Out on a limb, that’s where. Few will have much sympathy if some bloke in a frock launches a program of aggressive extortion against women and ends up unconscious in a ditch somewhere.

The fault lies squarely with western governments and progressives who support these insane policies. We often hear how dangerous it is being transsexual, usually in articles which ignore the fact an awful lot of them work as street prostitutes. By passing laws which encourage these people, who are usually mentally unstable to begin with, to go around ruining the lives of strangers they’re making it all the more likely they’ll come to grievous harm. Politicians of all stripes need to get a grip of this, rid the statute books of these insane laws favouring certain groups, and stop this extortion racket before someone gets seriously hurt.

Share

An Absolute Zoo

Via a reader, some reviews of the Radisson Hotel in Toronto:

When I showed up, there were kids running around the hotel unsupervised and in the pool area, and adults running talking very loudly loitering in the common area, a lot of signs of run down and general filth you might find in a Toronto rooming house downtown. I basically walked in and walked out, kept my bags in the car. After checking in, I went to my floor and there were signs of neglect, more loitering. I hardly bothered opening the door, and laying claim to the room as the floor had a warm foul odour of urine, cigarette smoke and sewer gas. I was afraid to spend the night as a single female later at night, needing to be up and out of there early.

And:

This place is an absolute zoo. Stayed here for a business trip for 2 nights. Was shocked and horrified at the nightmare situation when we arrived in the lobby. Huge crowds of people, children spitting, yelling, jumping on top of each other, and to make things even worse, one of them stole my phone and I had to chase them to get them to return it. The child’s parents were nowhere to be found. The lobby is filthy, packed with people at all times of the day, and the noise is unbearable at any hour.

And:

I don’t know what was happening the day I visited but everybody kept grabbing my arm and either tried selling me something or kids begging me for money. I will never stay here again. I’m so glad I didn’t bring my 11 year old daughter.

All rather unusual for a Radisson, no? What’s got into these Canadians? Ah, wait:

As we heard from the locals, the hotel has contract with government & as the result they are accomodating the refugees in the hotel.

I always assumed the Radisson was one of the posher hotel chains. Certainly the ones I’ve stayed in were nice enough. So why is the Canadian government putting refugees in them? Don’t they care about the cost, or are Radissons not as nice as I remember?

Share

A Minor Incident in Toronto

Three days ago, a gunman opened fire in Toronto killing two people and injuring thirteen others. Oddly, the story disappeared from the front pages of the international press and in the BBC’s case remains buried in the list of regional news stories:

Canadian officials have identified the suspect in Sunday’s deadly shooting in Toronto as Faisal Hussain, 29.

I can’t think why this isn’t creating more media interest.

The Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU) said it was releasing his name due “to the exceptional circumstances of this tragic incident”.

And following serious pressure from the public who knew damned well there was only one reason why his name was being withheld.

In a statement released to various media outlets, Hussain’s family expressed their “deepest condolences” to the victims and their families for what they called “our son’s horrific actions”. ​

Since when have the thoughts of a murdering gunman’s parents been given airtime? It didn’t take long for Canadians to work out the statement was rather too professional in its presentation and timing:

The man who has presented himself as the point of contact for the family of Faisal Hussain is a professional activist who has reportedly committed himself to “framing a new narrative of Muslims in Canada” and creating a “national political movement.”

Shortly after the Ontario Special Investigations Unit revealed the identity of the Danforth shooter as 29-year-old Faisal Hussain, a news release was sent out to select media attributed to the “Hussain Family”.

Not that you’d learn this from the BBC. We do get this, though:

They said their son suffered from serious mental health challenges and had struggled with untreatable psychosis and depression most of his life.

Oh right, he was mentally ill. Sure he was. What are the chances nothing indicating this will appear on his medical records, and instead he had a healthy interest in ISIS, terrorism, and jihad? I’d say they’re high, but we’re never going to find out, are we? The Canadian authorities will be happy enough to lie through their teeth and parrot his parents’ spokesman in dismissing it as a terrible tragedy, rather like a tree falling on someone’s head in a gust of wind. Right on cue, here’s Canada’s PM:

Why, it’s just one of those things, isn’t it? Best we all move swiftly on. Even the folk in charge of the Eiffel tower can’t be bothered turning the lights off for this one. Perhaps, like me, they have jihad fatigue.

Share

Polyamorous Families in Canada

This was only a matter of time:

In the first decision of its kind in Canada, all three adult members of a polyamorous family have been recognized as parents of a child.

Two months ago, Justice Robert Fowler of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Family Division) in the case of Re C.C., decided the adults would be named as parents of the child born within their three-way relationship.

I predict a full-on campaign to bring all aspects of polyamorous relationships on a legal par with monogamous marriages before too long. Those puff-pieces have been buttering us up for something, you know.

In the introduction to his decision, Justice Fowler described the unconventional St. John’s household:

“J.M. And J.E. are the two male partners in a polyamorous relationship with C.C., the mother of A., a child born of the three-way relationship in 2017. The relationship has been a stable one and has been ongoing since June 2015. None of the partners in this relationship is married and, while the identity of the mother is clear, the biological father of the child is unknown.”

The three adults brought a court proceeding asking to be recognized as the parents of A. after the Newfoundland Ministry of Service refused to designate them as parents, saying that the Vital Statistics Act allowed only two parents on the child’s birth certificate.

What always surprises me about these stories is how short the timescales are. Quite often middle aged women write about finally finding the love of their life two months ago. In this case, the kid is less than two years old, the relationship only three, yet it’s described unequivocally as “stable” by a judge. In terms of marriage and a family, that’s a blink of an eye.

In his ruling, Fowler observed that “the child, A., has been born into what is believed to be a stable and loving family relationship which, although outside the traditional family model, provides a safe and nurturing environment…. I can find nothing to disparage that relationship from the best interests of the child’s point of view…. To deny this child the dual paternal parentage would not be in his best interests.

Why? How is it in his interests to create future ambiguity? What, exactly, is the threat to his interests which arise from having the biological father on the birth certificate and the live-in boyfriend excluded? And does the child not have the right to find out who his biological father is?

It must be remembered that this is about the best interests of the child and not the best interest of the parents.”

The fact the judge has to labour this point suggests it’s a lot less obvious than he thinks. From where I’m sat, the birth certificate is being used more to describe the romantic arrangements of the mother at the time of conception than provide useful information as to who the child’s parents are.

Unlike bigamy and polygamy — which involve marriage ceremonies between the participating parties — polyamorous relationships are not prohibited by the Criminal Code.

At this point one wonders why polygamy is still illegal.

Boyd’s research found that people who identify as polyamorous, typically “reject the view that sexual and relationship exclusivity is necessary for deep, committed, long term relationships with more than one person on mutually agreeable grounds, with sex as only on aspect of their relationships.”

Similarly, second-hand car salesmen think they’re honest, journalists think they’re brave, and BBC comedians think they’re funny.

There is little doubt the recognition of three parents will be the least legally complex aspect of polyamorous relationships. Family law legislation across Canada now recognizes only one spouse’s obligation to the other. Current legislation will be difficult to apply in polyamorous relationships, especially if new partners become involved in the relationship and the relationship later breaks down.

All the more work for lawyers and judges, then. Kerr-ching!

(H/T: Fay)

Share

Snapchat Diplomacy

Staying on the subject of Russia, consider this:

This is a pretty major allegation, one that even two years ago would not have been made without strong supporting evidence. But nowadays, accusations that Russians are “interfering in democracy” can be thrown around like confetti without anyone having to produce the slightest shred of evidence. We’re all just supposed to believe our dear leaders, who would never lie about such things for their own ends.

Now of course Russia engages in mass disinformation, and they have done since at least 1917 and probably before that. But nothing I’ve seen comes even close to what they were up to during the Cold War, when they were deeply embedded in western academia and funding trade unions. The only reason this is an issue now is because Hillary lost in 2016. I don’t mind dealing with Russia in a robust fashion – and we should have after MH-17 and the annexation of Crimea – but not for this reason.

And “interfering in democracy”? If that was an offence which got diplomats expelled from a country, US embassies around the world would be staffed mainly by janitors on local contracts. The US actively supported Boris Yeltsin in elections, and boasted about it, for goodness sake.

I have no problem with Canada throwing out these diplomats in solidarity with Britain over the Skripal poisoning, but spare us the bandwagon-jumping bullshit justification tagged on the end. If these four were doing what Canada accuses them of in any meaningful sense, they should have been turfed out independently of what happened in the UK. I suppose one shouldn’t expect anything else from a government headed by Justin Trudeau, but this smacks of someone wanting to fit in rather than a serious policy decision. This whole business is not being handled well at all.

Share

Hands and Feet

This article caught my attention when it mentioned ice-covered islands in Russia:

TWENTY-SEVEN pairs of severed human hands have been found mysteriously washed up on an ice-covered island in Russia.

The shocking discovery was made close to the city of Khabarovsk in the Far East of Siberia, close to the border with China.

Sakhalin? Alas, no:

All but one of the 54 hands were in a bag.

Another – spotted first by a local – was lying separately on a snow-covered island in the Amur River around 18 miles downstream from the Russian frontier with China.

The sinister finds were laid out in the snow for a police picture.

I’ve probably been close to that spot – well, closer than any of my readers, anyway – on one of my frequent visits to the city of Khabarovsk. Here’s a not-very-good photo I took of the Amur river at Khabarovsk:

Yes, it was as cold as it looks. Sakhalin was not actually that cold, at least in the south. Most days it would only be around minus ten or fifteen, much warmer than mainland Russia. The north of the island was much colder though, and the winds much stronger. But Khabarovsk was absolutely freezing and the wind would cut you in half. Surprisingly, there wasn’t much snow around whereas south Sakhalin – like northern Japan  – enjoyed metres of soft, powdery snow of the sort which covered cars but made skiers and snowboarders happy. And, to my knowledge, we didn’t have sacks of hands lying around on islands.

The Siberian Times said it was a “mystery over who the sinister hands belonged to, when they were chopped off – and why”.

Fingerprints were found on one hand, and the others are being checked.

One gruesome theory is that the hands could have been axed off as a punishment for theft.

Another is that the hands were severed from dead bodies in a hospital – but it is unclear why this would happen.

Hmmm.

One fear is that the corpses were illegally used for stealing body parts and the hands were cut to prevent them being identified afterwards through fingerprints.

Local media reported that next to the remains were found medical bandages and hospital-style plastic shoe covers.

Who, other than Victor Frankenstein, would steal body parts from a corpse? What do you reckon the going rate is for a second-hand Russian liver? My best guess is someone was paid to dispose of corpses from a hospital and cut a corner by burying them in the tundra somewhere, or maybe just weighing them down and chucking them in the river to be pulled out by Chinese fishermen and served for dinner along with the more traditional toad, rat, and cockroach. To cover their tracks in case the bodies were discovered, they removed the hands and dumped them in another place.

Police have refused to comment on the case.

I bet they did. Rumour has it that when the Sakhalin police discovered body parts on the construction site of the LNG trains at Prigorodnoye – an arm here, a leg over there, head a bit further over, etc. from what was most likely one of the many victims of the mafia wars in the ’90s – they ruled it as a suicide. As one of the police chiefs said in The Wire: “I don’t want a dozen mouldering John Does added to my case list”.

Russia is not the only place where mysterious body parts turn up unexpectedly. One of the most extraordinary things I’ve ever read on the internet concerned the Salish Sea human foot discoveries in Canada:

ANOTHER severed foot inside a trainer has mysteriously washed up along the coast of the Salish Sea between Canada and the US.

The latest grisly find is the 18th since 2007 and was made by a man walking his dog in British Columbia on December 8, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The first severed foot was found on August 20, 2007. It was a right foot, size 12, encased in a shoe made in India. Authorities were able to link the foot to a male who suffered from depression, concluding he most likely committed suicide in or near water.

Of the 18 feet and shoes found, only two have been matched together.

The Coroners Service has been able to identify eight feet that have washed up locally, linking them to six people. They do not believe any of the cases involved foul play. More likely the victims died from accidents or suicide.

That hasn’t stopped people’s imaginations running wild with grim theories about serial killers chopping up bodies.

Wikipedia has a good entry on the Salish Sea feet discoveries, if you want to know more. Alas, they don’t yet have one on the Khabarovsk hands.

Share

Canada, where even the dreams are American

Last January I said:

One day I hope Canada and Canadians will be able to define themselves on who they are, rather than who they are not.

Eleven months later, the signs are not encouraging:

Across the board, Canadians have fared well over the past few years, reports Quartz. But Canada’s poorest have seen the largest gains, with the bottom 20% seeing a 24% wealth boost between 2013 and 2016. In the US, the richest 10% of Americans saw a 32% wealth bump, while the poorest 20% reaped a 16% gain in that time.

This is cribbed from an article entitled The American dream still exists—in Canada.

Share

Hierarchical Bullies

A story doing the rounds over the last couple of days concerns Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada. Briefly, Miss Shepherd showed her class a video clip of a televised public debate featuring Jordan Peterson, who is either a Nazi or a fairly normal chap depending on your point of view, in order to demonstrate that there are two sides to every debate. She was then hauled over the coals for several hours and reduced to tears by these two fuckwits:

David Thompson has the story covered and I recommend anyone interested pops over there and reads both the post and the comments. The case has caused outrage, mainly because Miss Shepherd was smart enough to record her bollocking and lay bare the Kafkaesque bullying she received at the hands of her supposed academic superiors. This article from the National Post gives a flavour, as does this one from the same place regarding one of the professor’s pathetic apology.

But it was this tweet which caught my attention, referring to those interrogating Shepherd:

It would be tempting to convince ourselves that such behaviour exists only in the clown-quarter that is western academia, but what Freek Groeneveld describes is widespread throughout many modern organisations, including corporations.

Firstly there is the relying on authority. I don’t know how many times I’ve been sat in front of someone who has dared speak to me in a certain way solely because he or she sat above me in the company hierarchy. Had the roles been reversed, they’d never have uttered a squeak; had the situation arisen outside of a work environment, they’d have been lucky to avoid getting a slap. In the brief periods I’ve been a manager I learned that if you are relying solely on your authority then you’re already in trouble. By all means use your position to make a decision, but if you rely on it to prevail in an argument it’s a sign you’ve already lost. If you rely on it to manage your people effectively, then you really shouldn’t be in the post. Nobody who has earned the respect of their subordinates should be relying on their position in the managerial hierarchy (technical hierarchy is somewhat different); that should be almost incidental if you’re managing people properly.

Secondly, there’s the “we all agreed” line. Too often I have heard the words “it was discussed” in relation to a subject that was briefly mentioned in passing, rapidly glossed over, or delivered in a monologue by a manager to a subordinate. It’s a deliberate ploy to lay the foundations for the next step in a process without the necessary bother of having to make a proper case, secure agreement, or listen to dissent.

The mistake Miss Shepherd made was to cooperate with what was obviously a kangaroo court. I can see why she did, but she’d have been better off understanding that the people she was dealing with were not acting in good faith. They were not seeking an explanation, they did not want to give her an opportunity to salvage her reputation, the whole process was set up so they could exercise their power over someone in a compromised position. The whole charade was a demonstration of their power, authority, and egos – and this is true for so much of what passes for management in modern organisations.

I know this is easy to say, but she ought to have flipped the script on them. You’ve seen how frustrating little shitlord kids are, the sort you see on police reality TV shows having been caught shoplifting. When questioned they interrupt, deliberately misunderstand the question, respond to a question with one of their own, ignore their interlocutors for periods, etc. and generally show utter, complete contempt towards the people in front of them. Miss Shepherd should have opted for a form of this. e.g. by laughing in the guy’s face when he uses some stupid term like “positionality” and say “What? What the hell does that mean? Did you just invent it?” She should have shaken her head confused and asked the guy to repeat himself, and then start looking out the window when he’s halfway through doing so. There are a million passive-aggressive tricks she could have pulled to signal her contempt for the whole process and the people conducting it.

The reason she didn’t do this is because, like thousands of Soviets who were hauled before similar tribunals, they believed they’d done nothing wrong and thought cooperating would make them leave her alone. She would have worried that if she didn’t cooperate they’d punish her, possibly by firing her. We all have bills to pay, and we all need a job. This is why so many people allow themselves to get bullied by those above them in the hierarchy: they think by cooperating with unreasonable people they’ll get treated less harshly. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I suspect she was finished from the moment they hauled her in, and the only way to save herself was by fighting back – hard. She – and anyone else in a similar position – needs to understand that the worst that can happen is you lose your job: you’re not going to get shot or sent to a Siberian camp, so grow some fucking balls. Secondly, she ought to have flipped the script in the way I described until one of them loses their cool and says something which could get them fired. Or something close to it. Then she needed to walk out and pen a letter to the head of the university describing her version of the meeting, shorn of all context and scattered liberally with terms that lawyers like to use in divorce hearings. In other words, assume the role of bully for herself and go on the warpath. It might not work, and she might get fired anyway, but it might also make them back the hell off, or at least get them on the defensive and having to explain their actions. And it’s better than grovelling in front of a star-chamber.

This is how anyone should deal with a bully in any organisation. Note that I mentioned her letter should be shorn of context. This is important. A mistake a lot of people make is to write thousands of words when lodging a complaint or defending themselves, whereas the whole idea is to give the other person the biggest headache possible. I remember once being asked to sign a document I didn’t want to. I thought about writing an explanation why, but in the end I simply wrote:

“I have no intention of signing this document.”

and left it at that. Let them come back to you to find out why you won’t sign it. If you’re going to be treated like shit, don’t make it easy for them. Simply resort to one sentence replies and make them run around trying to work out what you’re thinking. Here’s another I’ve used, in its entirety:

“Your email appears to contravene the corporate ethics policy.”

I never said how or why: let them figure out what you could possibly mean. Give them a sleepless night or two. Get the headache on their desk, and off yours.

I wish more people stood up to bullies, and to Lindsay Shepherd’s credit she gave it a damned good shot; by recording the meeting and making it go viral, she’s probably going to have the last laugh. But the way to stop this thing from happening in the first place is for people to grow a pair and not cooperate. If people could stand up and shout down Stalin’s show-trials, we ought to be able to stand up to wankers like those at Wilfrid Laurier University at the risk of getting a bad report.

Share

Polygamy or Polyamory?

I find this interesting:

A long-awaited verdict in the trial of two Canadian religious leaders accused of polygamy is expected on Monday.

Winston Blackmore, 61, is accused of having 24 wives and his former brother-in-law James Oler, 53, is alleged to have married four women.

They are both former bishops of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS).

The landmark polygamy trial is expected to test the boundaries of religious freedom in Canada.

Polygamy is illegal under Section 293 of Canada’s Criminal Code.

On the one hand you have old, fat white men being prosecuted for having multiple wives. On the other you have puff-pieces in the NYT and Vice promoting polyamory and agitating for legal and societal recognition of the sleeping arrangements. If polygamy is illegal then the marriages are not valid, so how does this differ from polyamory?

Personally I find both situations rather unsavoury, but if Blackmore wants to avoid a 5-year jail sentence he ought to grow a goatee beard, stop eating until his arms take on a noodle-like girth, move to Brooklyn and start whining to journalists that people continually judge his lifestyle. I’m sure at least one of his 24 wives has a personality disorder of some sort, she could be shoved to the front along with her kids to get the liberals on board. Just get her to dye her hair green and wear an “I’m With Her” badge, she’ll be featured in a column within a week.

Share

Four Stories for a Saturday

Four completely unrelated stories caught my attention today.

The first:

Michelle Obama has launched a fierce defence of the healthy eating initiatives she championed as first lady.

In thinly-veiled criticism of the policies of the new administration, Mrs Obama told the audience: “This is where you really have to look at motives, you know.

“You have to stop and think, why don’t you want our kids to have good food at school? What is wrong with you? And why is that a partisan issue? Why would that be political? What is going on?”

You know, perhaps American parents don’t want to be told what to feed their children, adopting the rather old-fashioned view that maybe they are best placed to decide? And perhaps they don’t like being lectured by a woman whose sole reason for anyone knowing her name is that she happened to be the wife of a president whose policies were soundly rejected at the last election. Would it have been too much to ask that she maintain a dignified silence once her husband left office?

While in the White House, Mrs Obama championed the “Let’s Move” campaign, which encourages exercise and healthy eating among young people.

She being uniquely positioned to decide what constitutes healthy eating for millions of people, of course.

The second:

At least 20 people have died after a tourist bus fell from a cliff near the southern Turkey seaside resort of Marmaris.

Another 11 were injured when the driver lost control of the minibus and ploughed through a crash barrier.

Local media said no foreign tourists were among the passengers.

About 40 people were on board, according to Amric Cicek, governor of Mugla province, who suggested the brakes may have stopped working.

But the mayor of Marmaris, Ali Acar, told Turkish newspaper Hurriyet: “I think that the accident was a result of driver error.”

This is a reminder that, for all of Turkey’s recent economic growth and the emergence of a decent airline, its roads remain dangerous places. The government really ought to do something about this, if it can find time.

The third:

Prime Minister of Canada and internet darling Justin Trudeau has shown the rest of the world’s leaders how to do publicity once again – by bringing his three-year-old to the office.

Of course, it’s not the first time the 45-year-old internet-savvy politician has caught global attention.

The liberal politician has been applauded by his supporters for supporting Syrian refugees, marching at a gay pride parade, and openly declaring himself a feminist.

Naturally, the BBC fails to realise that these antics are precisely why much of the world think him a laughing stock.

“So precious … I’m old enough to remember seeing photos released of you and your dad [former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau] when you were little,” one Facebook commenter volunteered.

Would that be the one where he’s being held by family hero Fidel Castro?

If only we were able to get the view on Trudeau from Cuban Facebook commenters.

The fourth:

A Mexican businesswoman who headed a group of 600 families searching for their disappeared relatives has been killed.

Miriam Rodríguez Martínez was shot in her home in the town of San Fernando in Tamaulipas state.

She was known for successfully investigating the kidnap and murder of her daughter by a local drug cartel, the Zetas.

The information she gave the police ensured the gang members were jailed.

A brave, brave woman indeed.

The group she established was part of a wider trend which mushroomed after the October 2014 disappearance of 43 students from Ayotzinapa in the southwestern state of Guerrero.

Frustrated by a lack of government help, groups of families began their own searches for people who had disappeared in their areas, taking courses in forensic anthropology, archaeology, law, buying caving equipment and becoming experts in identifying graves and bones.

There are now at least 13 of these groups across the country.

One of the points overlooked by those who oppose Trump’s immigration policies is that the current practice of allowing Mexicans to move to the USA and remit monies back home is that it drastically reduces the pressure on the ruling elites to sort the place out. The USA acts as the safety valve for Mexican governmental fecklessness, and short of an incentive to do anything other than keep themselves wealthy and protected, the country is rapidly becoming a failed state. The fact that relatives of murdered citizens have had to form their own forensic teams because the police can’t or won’t do the job shows just how bad things have got. When the Mexican government started squawking about the wall, Trump should have slapped their president around the face with a strong right hand (or perhaps got Mattis to do it) and put these feckless parasites firmly in their place. Although there is the argument that American drug laws is what has created this situation, but if that’s the case then let’s hear the Mexicans make it.

Share