Meloni Leads Efforts To Control European Borders Amid Chaos in the Middle East

Jose Antonio / Wikimedia (CC BY 4.0)

It is fairly typical of the European Union that its summit on Thursday focussed primarily on supporting foreign powers, with leaders concerned about their own nations’ interests covered in slime, and that discussions on home affairs were hardly supposed to take place at all.

Yet some more clued-up officials ensured that one of the most pressing issues for European citizens, migration, was dealt with regardless.

Key among them was Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, who stressed the need for “innovative solutions to be applied to the management of the migration phenomenon and, in particular, to the strengthening of the legal framework on returns.”

The Italian prime minister was joined in leading discussions by Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen, with whom she is also working to update the more-than-seven-decade-old European Convention of Human Rights, and Rob Jetten of the Netherlands. Figures from 13 member states, including Hungary, Sweden and Germany, and the European Commission joined the meeting. Meloni said these are the states “most interested in the topic” of securing borders.

The significance of this matter has become ever more clear since the beginning of the war in Iran, given fears the conflict could trigger a new migrant crisis for Europe.

As a result of the meeting, conclusions from the European Council on the Middle East noted “the importance of maintaining a high level of vigilance [on migratory flows] and ensuring the necessary level of preparedness, based on the tools and policies that the EU developed over the past years.”

On the basis of the lessons learned from the 2015 migration crisis and to avoid a similar situation, the EU is ready to fully mobilise its diplomatic, legal, operational and financial tools to prevent uncontrolled migratory movements to the EU and preserve security in Europe. The security and the control of the European Union’s external borders will continue to be strengthened.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also said the bloc is “better equipped” than it was before the 2015 crisis. But Meloni and her colleagues will surely have to work hard to ensure that these words translate into action.

europeanconservative

Berlin Law Mandating 40 Per Cent of Judges Have Migration Background Draws Pushback

AI generator

DEI policies now require that four in ten interview candidates for judgeships or prosecutor positions in Berlin have a migrant background.

The justice system in the German capital has been radically transformed by the far-left policies pushed by the Green Party, which imposed a rule mandating that prospective judges and prosecutors in the city reflect the exact ethnic makeup of the city, rather than being determined by merit, Bild reported.

The “Law to Promote Participation in a Migration Society” was passed by the Berlin city parliament in July of 2021, when it was under the control of a “red-green-red” majority composed of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens, and the Marxist Die Linke, the descendant of the former East German communist ruling party.

“At least as many people with a migration background must be invited to selection interviews as corresponds to their share of the Berlin population,” the law states.

With 40 per cent of the Berlin population having a migrant background, the leftist law means that four in ten candidates for judgeships or prosecutor positions must also have a migration background, which is defined in Germany as having at least one parent born abroad.

The law came to a head this week after Berlin’s Senator for Justice, Felor Badenberg of the centrist CDU party, declared that she believed it contravened the German constitution, the Basic Law.

This is in line with warnings expressed to the previous Green Party Justice Senator, Dirk Behrendt, who was warned at the time of the bill’s passing that the “proposed quota for people with a migration background in the selection process” went against Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, which mandates that hiring for public office be based on merit rather than political views or personal background.

Senator Badenberg, who is of Iranian background, said that while she supports the notion of integration, the Basic Law is her only “compass” and that public office positions should only be filled “based on suitability, competence, and performance.”

To that end, the CDU politician has ordered Berlin’s Attorney General’s office to ignore the Green Party legislation. This reportedly blocked the hiring of two female applicants with migration backgrounds to the public prosecutors’ service in the Autumn, Tagesspiegel reported.

The move has sparked outrage from the Green Party, including Green Party MP Sebastian Walter, who accused Badenberg of putting herself “above the law” and “undermining trust in the rule of law and equal opportunities in selection procedures for the public service.”

breitbart

‘Green’ policies make Germany especially vulnerable to surge in price of natural gas

GROK

Germany is especially vulnerable to energy price increases following the war in Iran and the closure of the Street of Hormuz – due to a mix of supposedly “green” domestic and EU-wide policies.

On March 19, Michael Lewis, the CEO of Uniper, warned that the country was badly protected against price shocks on international markets. Uniper is Germany’s largest natural gas importer. Lewis was speaking at a closed-door conference on energy issues organised by the Economic Council of Germany’s ruling Christian Democratic Union party (CDU).

“About half of our gas market depends on the spot market. Other countries have far more long-term contracts. Japan for example can now even sell surplus quantity”, Lewis said as reported by newspaper Welt.

In the past years, Germany has greatly reduced the quantity of natural gas bought through long-term contracts of 15 or 20 years. This was done because the country’s “green” transition foresaw a decarbonisation of the German economy by 2045 – and consequently politics refrained from committing to buying fossil fuels with such a long time horizon.

Now Germany has to buy a disproportionate amount of natural gas at greatly elevated prices. On March 20, the price for German natural gas rose to a new high of €63 per Megawatt hour (MWh), a plus of almost 90 per cent within just a month.

Additionally, German gas storage facilities are almost empty. In early March, levels of German gas storages had already dropped to below 20 per cent.

The pinch is already felt by consumers. The gas price for new customer has already risen by more than 20 per cent according to price comparison website Verivox.

Another looming issue according to Uniper’s Lewis is the EU’s methane regulation which puts the onus of extended emissions and reporting standards on gas suppliers.

“Many foreign suppliers do not want to be regulated by us”, Lewis said, adding that unless the EU revise its legislation it will be harder and more costly to find suppliers, especially in a crisis situation where consumers globally vie for an increasingly scarce supply of energy.

The CDU’s Economic Council is now demanding a bigger focus on expanding Germany’s domestic natural gas production.

The Council’s general secretary Wolfgang Steiger said: “Ensuring an adequate supply of energy and mineral resources is a matter of strategic survival for Germany. It is necessary to make more intensive use of domestic resources once again. This includes the exploitation of our own gas reserves, including unconventional extraction methods such as fracking.”

Experts estimate that Germany has natural gas reserves of at least 2,300 billion cubic metres in its soil, enough to cover more than 25 years’ worth of domestic gas demand.

However, the overwhelming majority of these reserves would have to be tapped via fracking, which has been banned since 2017 due to supposed environmental concerns.

brusselssignal

‘We will immediately suspend public media news broadcasts’ – Hungary’s opposition leader openly threatens to shut down all public media once he defeats Orbán

In a remarkable post on X, Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar said that once his Tisza party wins the upcoming election in April against incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, that he will immediately suspend all public media news broadcasts.

“After the change of government, we will immediately suspend public media news broadcasts until the conditions for objective and impartial operation are in place,” wrote Magyar on X.

Magyar’s declaration reveals the zero-sum game seen in many European countries, where the right loses power and is immediately subjected to all the “illiberal” practices the left accuses the right of. In Poland, for example, after Prime Minister Donald Tusk won, the police raided public media buildings and shut them down in dramatic fashion.

Poland is seen as the template in many respects for the Hungarian opposition. In that country, many within the former conservative government were arrested and imprisoned.

Magyar openly stating he will immediately shut down all public media immediately calls to mind authoritarianism seen in many Third World countries. If, for example, a right-wing politician remarked that upon their victory, they would immediately shut down all public media in a country like France or Germany, the backlash would be incredible — despite public media in both countries being seen as extremely friendly to the ruling government and the left.

In addition, the EU would condemn “fascism” and a violation of the “free press” and the “rule of law.” Sanctions would almost certainly follow.

However, in Magyar’s case, he will be rewarded richly by the EU if he proceeds with dismantling nearly every aspect of the previous government, including the unlocking of Hungary’s frozen billions in EU funding.

Even if Magyar believes that the Hungarian media is entirely captured by Orbán’s government, it is telling that he is openly stating this even before victory. However, he appears to be ready to reveal this card well in advance of the first ballot.

Critics such as Philip Pilkington, a macroeconomist and author, are calling out what they see as the double standard.

Ultimately, Magyar’s statement reveals what will happen should Orbán lose.

Courts seen as too friendly to the previous government will be liquidated, judges will be sidelined, organizations will be stripped of power, and public media will be gutted. Brussels wants a day of reckoning in Hungary following a Magyar victory. Orbán has been a thorn in their side for well over a decade.

He and his government will pay a dear price for their defiance.

rmx

Britain’s Islamophobia Panel Linked to Extremism

The five members of the team tasked with writing the British government’s definition of Islamophobia have all been found to have ties to Islamist extremism. Photo courtesy of Britain Is Broken via X.

Zara Mohammed, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said “Our view is that the Islamophobia in the Party is institutional, tolerated by the leadership and seen as acceptable by great swathes of the party membership.”

The Muslim Council of Britain is the organization pushing for the British government to accept its restrictive definition of Islamophobia. The group has consistently promoted the definition produced by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims in 2018–2019. That definition states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

When the U.K. government released its own definition in March 2026, using the term “anti-Muslim hostility” rather than “Islamophobia,” MCB Secretary General Dr. Wajid Akhter called it a “diminished version” of what the government’s own working group had recommended and declined to endorse it.

Working from a restrictive definition of Islamophobia, the British government has been cracking down on free speech in order to appease Muslim groups. In 2025, Hamit Coskun was handed a criminal conviction for burning a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy in London, shouting “F–k Islam” and “Islam is a religion of terrorism.” He was convicted of religiously motivated harassment, alarm, or distress and received a fine of approximately $300 plus a surcharge of $120.

Coskun was attacked by Moussa Kadri, who came at him with a knife, beating and slashing at him. Kadri pleaded guilty to assault and possession of a bladed article and received a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, with 150 hours of unpaid work. The judge spared him jail because he had “lost his temper” and was of previously “exemplary character.”

Another recent case involved online speech targeting Islam. Pete North was arrested in 2025 on suspicion of a public-order offence after posting a meme that read “F*** Palestine, F*** Hamas, F*** Islam.” He was later released without charge.

A broader enforcement pattern has also emerged. According to Freedom House, 12,000 people were arrested in 2023 alone, including for social media posts, under the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Hatun Tash, an ex-Muslim convert to Christianity who preaches publicly, has been arrested multiple times in 2020, 2021, and 2022. She was arrested once for alleged criminal damage to a copy of the Quran she says was her own property and once under the Public Order Act for wearing a Charlie Hebdo T-shirt depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

In June 2022, police arrived at Speakers’ Corner to find a crowd surrounding Tash after a man had stolen her Quran. Rather than pursuing the thief, officers restrained her, marched her through the crowd, strip-searched her, and detained her overnight. She was then charged with “criminal damage” for her own property.

Tash had previously been stabbed in the face and hands at Speakers’ Corner in July 2021. Her attacker was never arrested. An Islamic terrorist was later jailed for a minimum of 24 years for plotting to murder her with a firearm.

A Christian pastor, Pastor Dia Moodley, was arrested in 2024 by Avon and Somerset Police and held for 13 hours after street preaching outside Bristol University, where he contrasted Christianity and Islam in response to a question from the crowd. The arresting officer cited the fact that his comments were made during Ramadan.

During the same incident, Moodley was physically assaulted, pushed from a stepladder, and had a sign torn from his hands, but police arrested him rather than his attackers. He was charged under the Crime and Disorder Act and the Public Order Act. The investigation was later dropped after legal representations by ADF U.K., and Moodley subsequently filed a complaint against the police.

The definition of Islamophobia currently adopted by the U.K. government is non-statutory, meaning it does not directly create a criminal offence. However, the Free Speech Union (FSU) warns that, in practice, the definition amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law through the back door, 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish such laws. Several parliamentarians and free speech campaigners have warned that the definition could be used as a covert anti-blasphemy law to severely curb freedom of expression and legitimate criticism of Islam.

An FSU investigation found that all five members of the U.K. government’s Islamophobia working group have links to Islamism or has publicly expressed extremist views, meaning the panel was compromised from the start. The report also found connections to groups including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), two organizations successive governments have declined to engage with since 2009 due to concerns about their views.

These individuals with extremist sympathies have been involved in defining what people can and cannot say, with those who go against it potentially facing punishment. According to the FSU, rather than objectively debating whether a definition was needed, the group appears to have been assembled to justify a pre-decided political outcome by the Labour government.

Most members had connections to organizations or figures linked to extremist ideology, including support for blasphemy-style restrictions on speech and the defense of individuals tied to radicalism. They had also already endorsed a controversial definition linking Islamophobia to racism and restricting discussion of issues such as grooming gangs, historical Islamic conquests, and criticism of Muslim-majority countries.

The report states that multiple panel members have supported censorship, downplayed crimes involving Muslim perpetrators, or promoted narratives aligned with Islamist positions.

Chair Dominic Grieve is described as having shifted from criticizing integration failures to promoting Islamophobia as the primary problem, influenced by Islamist-linked groups. A leaked version of the proposed definition suggests it could function as a de facto blasphemy law, effectively shutting down criticism of Islam while punishing dissent through professional or social consequences.

Critics warn the entire process was politically motivated and designed to appease radical elements rather than protect free speech, marking a significant step toward institutionalizing restrictions on open discussion of Islam in the U.K.

Grieve also wrote a glowing foreword to the 2018 APPG definition of Islamophobia after seeking advice from MCB and MEND leaders, including one who blamed the 2017 London Bridge terrorist attack on Jews and Zionists. His 2017 report was sponsored by the East London Mosque, which has been linked to the revolutionary Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami.

Another member of the working group, Asha Affi, was a council candidate for George Galloway’s Respect Party in 2010, when its policies included support for the Iranian and former Syrian regimes and the elimination of the state of Israel.

Baroness Shaista Gohir tweeted support for Hamas in 2014 and wrote a report claiming it is Islamophobic to suggest grooming gangs are disproportionately Muslim.

Akeela Ahmed has for years worked closely with the MCB in demanding restrictions on reporting on Muslim affairs. She is on record stating that although the government claims the new definition will be non-statutory, laws against expressing Islamophobia should be enforced by the police.

Javed Khan runs the Muslim think tank Equi, whose trustees include Labour MP Afzal Khan, who was forced to apologize for sharing a Facebook post referring to the “Israel-British-Swiss-Rothschilds crime syndicate.” In September 2025, Khan was a keynote speaker at the U.K. launch of the Muslim Impact Forum, which has close ties to Turkey’s Islamist government.

thegatewaypundit

The U.K. and Canada seem hellbent on their own assisted national suicide

x-jozefinselberg

by Eric Utter 

According to a PJ Media report, a British teacher lost his job and was banned “from teaching altogether after reasonably arguing against mass illegal migration to his country.”

Sam Everett, the teacher, had recently expressed his opinion on social media that the British Navy should be enlisted to stop the unending invasion of third-world migrant men coming to the U.K. in small boats.

Everett, a physical education teacher in Darlington, once also had the temerity to state that illegal aliens should “respect our laws or leave.”

What a radical! What kind of monster wants people to respect the laws of the land?

An independent panel was promptly assembled to investigate the crazed educator. The panel subsequently recommended that Everett be allowed to retain his job and found that he was not guilty of racism. Or any other kind of “ism” for that matter. Numerous colleagues praised his record.

But the U.K. government, with the intrepid Keir Starmer at the helm, would have none of it. Independent panels be damned, Britain’s Department for Education (DfE) eschewed the panel’s findings, ignored the evidence, and imposed a comprehensive ban on Everett that could prevent him from ever teaching again.

Meanwhile, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, the Fairview School has banned all food in its cafeteria and lunchroom to respect Ramadan.

The U.K. — and its similarly deranged dominion, Canada — are off their respective rockers.

They have it in for themselves, bigly … to the point that they may well eventually become — even if inadvertently — a serious threat to the United States and the security and existence of the free world.

They are not only weak links as regards NATO, but appear to be actively seeking their own destruction, by inviting the Muslim world in and/or cottoning to communist China.

This will have to be addressed at some point if things don’t take a U-turn in the near future. Islam— and communism — are absolutely incompatible with a free, prosperous, democratic society or republic. It is one or the other.

This is terribly sad, and, in a sane world, would have been easily avoidable, but nonetheless here we are. Both the U.K. and Canada are far down a road that ought not have been travelled.

“Cartels to the south of us, morons to the north, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. ”

americanthinker

Anti-Christian sentiment in German state-run television children’s programmes? Well, of course!

Screenprint: ZDF / logo!

The children’s news programme “logo!” (engl. “Of course!”,ed.) focuses on the end of Ramadan. Islam is portrayed in a positive light. Religion is viewed quite differently in the next report, however, as it deals with Christianity – and that is portrayed as evil. In order to establish anti-Christian prejudices as early as possible, Germany’s ZDF television channel does not take the facts too seriously.
Ramadan ends with the Festival of Breaking the Fast. It used to be called ‘Bayram’ in Germany, but the ZDF children’s news programme ‘logo!’ has already adapted to new German realities and is learning Arabic: ‘Eid al-Fitr’ is now the term used in the programme broadcast on March 19.

Cheerful people, a joyful community. And a lavish celebration after the month of fasting, during which Muslims are encouraged, among other things, to think of their God “as often as possible”. Spirituality? Great! Religious commandments? Great too. Adhering to these commandments? Well, of course!

Things look quite different in the next report. Because that report is about Christianity. And that is, in fact, quite different from friendly Islam – namely, gloomy and misanthropic. Or, to put it briefly: ‘Not modern’. Quite unlike Islam. Well, obviously.

In the Church, spirituality is enforced, as is adherence to religious commandments. Otherwise, you end up in hell.
To explain why fewer and fewer people are members of Christian churches, the magazine takes a broad view. It goes back to the Middle Ages. The Church was very powerful back then. Just like Islam, incidentally, which at the same time ruled almost all of Spain – but the children here don’t learn that.

It was only in the modern era that ‘scholars began to ask themselves whether everything the Church said and did was really true. They tried to explain things that happened in the world, such as severe storms or diseases. Until then, these had mostly been regarded as God’s will. Now, little by little, scientific explanations emerged.’

Intra-church conflicts before 1500? Never heard of them. Science? Didn’t exist. The Gothic cathedrals must surely have been built by aliens.

Good Islam, evil Christianity. This is not a harmless misrepresentation, but a despicable agenda.
Criticism of religion involves both light and shadow. The excessive exaggeration and misrepresentation of church history, coupled with the systematic omission of problematic aspects of Islam, fails to meet the public service broadcaster’s remit and, particularly in a children’s programme, can only be regarded as deliberate indoctrination. Whilst, in the opposite scenario, even personal experiences are deemed to constitute right-wing and racist incitement, distortion, disinformation and discrimination are, of course, deemed legitimate as soon as Christianity is concerned.
To be fair, it must be said: not all statements in the programme about Christianity are distorted. Some are simply false. For example, the claim that indulgences are a means of buying one’s way out of sin. Although this anti-church propaganda is still widely circulated, even among adults, it is contrary to the facts. But then: who could possibly expect editors to read church documents and inform themselves properly?

Of course: it’s all very easy to get a thrill from thinking about the dark Middle Ages, when women were burned at the stake simply for being able to read a book or brew herbal tea. But you pay for those goosebumps with the discrediting and loss of your own roots. Those who do not understand the Christian Middle Ages do not understand the origins of Europe. Those who misunderstand the Christian Middle Ages regard the foundations of European values as an invention of the Enlightenment and bury a thousand years of culture, civilisational development, knowledge and wisdom beneath their own ignorance.
The article concludes with a simple explanation for the decline in church membership. Church officials are said to have committed ‘grave errors’ and ‘serious crimes’ against children. Conveying this subject sensitively to children is no easy task. Nor is it easy to explain to them that what is regarded in Christianity as a despicable crime and therefore something to be covered up is viewed in Islam as a praiseworthy act of the Prophet. Because this is so uncomfortable, one simply refrains from doing so. Well, of course.

The former chief executive of the SME and Business Union, Thorsten Alsleben, has lodged a formal complaint against the programme.

For ZDF is already using its tried-and-tested tactics of misdirection on young viewers in order to turn children against Christianity and in favour of Islam.

Child abusers and the fear of hell, or delicious food after dusk? After watching this programme, it should be clear to any child which religious community they should join. Well, obviously.

tichyseinblick

Mélenchon’s radical left advances in France with a 51% victory in Saint-Denis and threatens institutional stability

Riposte Laique

For the first time in recent history, the La France Insoumise movement , led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has achieved significant victories in several French municipalities, including in large cities, marking a worrying shift in local politics in France .

In Saint-Denis , a city located in the poorest department of the Île-de-France region, just after Paris, LFI garnered 51% of the vote, securing a clear victory in one of the most densely populated urban areas facing significant social challenges. This result reflects the success of the radical left in areas traditionally considered strongholds of the moderate “right-wing left,” demonstrating a profound shift in the local electorate.

Similarly, in Roubaix , another city historically plagued by poverty and unemployment, LFI obtained 47% of the votes, consolidating its presence in the most vulnerable territories and confirming that the movement’s strategy focuses on capturing the popular sectors.

Political analysts warn that these preliminary first-round results could foreshadow an even more aggressive performance in the second round , to be held next Sunday. Major cities like Lille, Toulouse, and Limoges show a strong likelihood of swinging toward the radical left, especially as strategic alliances between parties become necessary to secure victories in fragmented electorates.

This development is not merely a local shift: it serves as a warning sign a year before the presidential elections. France remains one of the few European countries where a radical left could aspire to gain maximum political power at the national level. The consolidation of LFI in the poorest departments also demonstrates that sectors traditionally loyal to the right or center can be seduced by populist, socialist, and anti-market proposals, jeopardizing the country’s economic and social stability.

Political experts point out that Mélenchon’s ability to capitalize on popular discontent, insecurity, and integration problems demonstrates the vulnerability of institutions when the radical left gains a firm foothold in local government. The policies announced by LFI, aimed at expanding public spending and implementing sweeping reforms without consensus, could weaken the legal frameworks and structures of legitimate authority that underpin democratic coexistence.

Faced with this scenario, order, the law, and the defense of institutional authority become more necessary than ever. The growing presence of the radical left in France shows how progressive ideology, under the guise of defending the most disadvantaged, threatens property, public safety, and social cohesion. The left not only seeks to redistribute resources but also to reconfigure values ​​and family structures, weakening tradition and civic responsibility.

The impact of these municipal elections will be closely assessed across the continent. Other Latin American countries should take note of how the radicalization of urban and working-class sectors, if not countered with policies of law, order, and family, can pave the way for extremist governments, with negative consequences for individual liberty and institutional stability.

Society and conservative voters must remain vigilant. The radical left, disguised as progressivism, not only jeopardizes economic and social stability but also erodes the fundamental values ​​of authority, family, and responsibility that underpin civilization. Its advance in France serves as a stark reminder that upholding law and order is not optional, but an obligation to preserve freedom and community life.

gatewayhispanic

Elderly Canadian woman offered euthanasia before doctor even asked what was wrong with her

Illustration AI generator

A senior who went to Vancouver General Hospital for a diagnosis and treatment after experiencing sudden pain was offered euthanasia by a doctor – before the woman had even been asked what was wrong with her.

“I am 84 years old, and a year ago, an amazing thing happened,” Miriam told Amanda Achtman, the founder of the Dying to Meet You Project. “When I got out of bed one morning, I was suddenly in excruciating pain, so much so that my daughter came running in from another room.”

“She called an ambulance,” Miriam said. “Off I went to the Vancouver General Hospital, and I was approached by a young lady doctor. The very first words out of her mouth [were]: ‘We would like to offer you MAID.’ I was taken aback—that was the last thing on my mind! I just wanted to find out why I was in pain! I did not want to die!”

Miriam had not asked for euthanasia. She had not even asked about euthanasia. She had not yet received a diagnosis. But still, she was offered a lethal injection that would kill her immediately – in all likelihood, simply because she is an elderly woman.

This deadly ageism that infects Canada’s healthcare system, combined with our ever-expanding euthanasia regime, has turned many medical facilities into genuinely dangerous places for the vulnerable.

“I was a month in hospital, came home, recuperated nicely enough that I could take some trips,” Miriam said. “Off I went last year to Cuba – before the problems today in Cuba – and then, this just recently, I have been to Mexico and Guatemala. My recovery has been amazing, and there was no need for MAID to even be suggested.”

Achtman’s video of Miriam’s testimony has gone viral on X, racking up over a quarter of a million reposts and accruing more than 3,300 reposts.

“Physician assisted killing creates a structure of sin which amplifies so many other evil cultural biases which push towards discarding the vulnerable,” ethicist Charlie Camosy stated in response to the video. “Ageism and ableism are foremost among them.”

“Stop pushing medically facilitated death on those who aren’t asking for it,” Conservative MP Garnett Genuis tweeted. “Visit https://carenotcoercion.ca to find out more about my bill C-260.” Bill C-260, the “Preventing Coercion of Persons Not Seeking Medical Assistance in Dying Act,” was tabled as a Private Member’s Bill by Genuis in February, and would make it illegal to proactively offer euthanasia:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence for certain persons in certain circumstances to initiate a discussion with a person about the availability to them of medical assistance in dying, knowing that they have not specifically requested to have such a discussion.

“My mother, at roughly the same age as this woman, had kidney failure, after which her first dialysis was excruciating,” another Canadian wrote. “Dialysis shouldn’t hurt & nobody knew why it had. She refused any further treatment, chose to die instead. But her longtime primary care doc talked her out of it. ‘Now Pat, do you want to die?’ ‘Well, no.’  He persuaded her to try a second dialysis, which went fine, no pain, and she had another year… of good life.”

“He gave that year to her and to us. Today, in Canada, she would have been euthanized same day.”

lifesitenews