An Afghan national has admitted raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton.
Ahmad Mulakhil pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to one count of raping a child under the age of 13. He had previously denied the charge.
Mulakhil, 23 and of no fixed abode, also denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under 13 and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13.
He appeared alongside co-defendant Mohammad Kabir, 23, also of no fixed abode, and who denies attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl. They are due to stand trial on 26 January.
The defendants, who Warwickshire Police previously confirmed were Afghan nationals, were aided by interpreters during the hearing in front of Judge Kristina Montgomery KC.
The offences are said to have taken place on 22 July.
Mr Kabir spoke only to confirm his name, while Mulakhil confirmed his name and entered his guilty plea when he was rearraigned on one count of rape.
Addressing the defendants in the dock, Judge Montgomery said: “You will both be produced before the court on December 12.
“On that occasion, there will be further directions made and the complainant witness in the case will be in attendance to be cross-examined.
“You should both reflect carefully on your position before that takes place.
“You are both remanded into custody.”
The allegations against the two men led to anti-immigration protests outside Nuneaton Town Hall on 9 August when St George’s Cross and Union flags were held and protesters chanted “stop the boats” and “we want our country back”.
Stand Up to Racism counter-protesters were significantly outnumbered outside the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council offices.
Warwickshire County Council leader George Finch previously accused police and the Home Office of covering up the pair’s immigration status. Reform Party leader, Nigel Farage, also called for the Warwickshire force to release the information.
AI-generated image by Grok – Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew.
It’s an Epstein deluge.
And so, we’ve come to the point today where the DOJ has released no less than 3,5 million new documents from the Jeffrey Epstein Files, pursuant to the House Resolution 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
That’ll keep reporters all over the world busy for weeks or months to come, but the revelations are already coming in, hard and fast.
To begin with, a sleazy moment in 2010 where the disgraced financier sets up former Prince Andrew with a 26-year-old Russian woman, in the same year that the fallen royal told the Kingdom that he severed ties with Epstein.
Andrew and Epstein’s connection survived the sex offender’s incarceration.
“In emails to a contact listed as the ‘The Duke’, the convicted sex abuser wrote: “I have a friend who i think you might enjoy having dinner with„ her name is irina she will be london 20-24 [sic].”
In response, the former Duke of York appeared to reply: ‘Of course. I am in Geneva until the morning of 22nd but would be delighted to see her. Will she be bringing a message from you? Please give her my contact details to get in touch.’ […] Epstein later clarified the woman was ‘26, russian, clevere [sic] beautiful, trustworthy and yes she has your email’.”
“Andrew: How are you? Good to be free?
Epstein: …great to be free of many things”
Another Telegram report, we learn that, in another released email, Epstein claimed that Bill Gates caught an STD after having sex with Russian girls.
Epstein-Gates: Documents suggest their connection was much more extensive than previously known.
Epstein sent a ‘memo to himself’ on July 18 2013, where he writes about a falling out between the two.
“’TO add insult to the injury you them [sic] implore me to please delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis’, the email reads.
[…] The revelations about Gates offer the first public details of their relationship after they were photographed together multiple times in previous Epstein Files.”
The revelations are coming in non-stop, so stay tuned.
The Council of Europe has voted in favor of a resolution demanding a ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” including prayers regarding “gender identity or gender expression.”
On Thursday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted in favor of the anti-conversion therapy resolution that was brought forward by U.K. Labour Party member and LGBT activist Katharine Helen Osborne.
According to the assembly’s website, the Socialist Group (SOC), the United European Left (UEL), and most of the liberal ALDE Group voted in favor of the motion, while the European People’s Party (EPP/CD) was divided on the issue. The European Conservatives (ECPA/ECR) almost unanimously rejected it.
The text of the resolution defines “conversion practices” or “conversion therapies” as “all measures or efforts aimed at changing, repressing, or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, based on the false belief that such core aspects of a person’s identity are pathological or undesirable or somehow able to change.”
The ban of so-called “conversion practices” would include praying for a person, as the resolution states that “[t]hese practices, aimed at promoting heterosexual attraction or aligning a person’s gender identity with their sex assigned at birth, include psychological or behavioural counselling, spiritual and religious rituals, aversion methods, as well as verbal abuse, coercion, isolation, forced medication, electric shocks, physical and sexual abuse.”
While local laws against “conversion therapy” often have exceptions for “abnormal sexual preferences” like pedophilia, the motion does not include such a stipulation.
The resolution also calls for the indoctrination of school children with LGBT ideology, as it demands “mandatory comprehensive sexuality education,” including “teaching on the diversity of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics, with a view to preventing and countering social prejudice and misinformation.”
Children should learn to “identify and denounce” attempts of so-called “conversion practices.”
The Council of Europe is independent of the European Union, and its assembly comprises members of national parliaments from European countries. The resolution is non-binding, but governments, parliaments, and courts can use it as a basis for decision-making, and it applies pressure on local governments to pass laws that meet its demands.
Stefan Fuchs from the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost notes that the resolution “treats ‘religious practices’ such as prayer on the same level as abuse and torture methods.”
Parents, doctors, and pastors would be forced “to allow young people to undergo hormone therapy and so-called ‘gender reassignment’ surgery.”
“Criticism of this mutilation of young people is to be criminalized as an attack on the human rights of transgender people,” Fuchs wrote. “The resolution is a frontal attack on fundamental freedoms: the right of parents to educate their children, freedom of religion, the freedom of doctors and psychologists to choose their therapy, and, in general, the fundamental right to freedom of expression.”
Pro-family critics have denounced the resolution for violating the parents’ right to educate their children how they see fit.
ADF International lawyer Felix Böllman said, “Psychiatrists, parents, members of religious communities, and many others are being intimidated. The interference with freedom of expression, religion, and conscience is particularly serious: certain beliefs about sexuality and gender are being labeled as ‘wrong’ and are to be effectively suppressed, even though the ECHR also protects uncomfortable peaceful views.”
The Bureau of Prisons is facing its second legal challenge in the case of a transgender pedophile demanding various “gender affirming” treatments. Last year, a federal court in Washington ordered the BOP to provide Brian “Nani Love” Buckingham with speech therapy, laser hair removal, and facial feminization surgery, but Buckingham’s lawyers are claiming the services provided so far are inadequate.
As previously reported by Reduxx, Buckingham was first arrested in June of 2020 after being connected to a Discord account that was sharing child rape photos. Discord had received a report from a concerned user about abuse images that had been made public, and a human moderator verified the contents of the report and immediately notified the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Based on the IP address of the account associated with the image, the NCMEC determined the account was located in Washington and contacted state law enforcement.
A detective from the Washington State Patrol was assigned to the case to review the evidence from Discord, which included an image file depicting an adult man preparing to penetrate the anus of a young child.
Discord later surrendered all of the information belonging to the account the images had originated from, and Washington State Patrol was then able to confirm the owner of the account was Brian Buckingham of Neah Bay.
An additional package of media provided to police by Discord revealed two videos featuring Buckingham and a child victim that was later determined to be Buckingham’s own 10-year-old son.
🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨
The Bureau of Prisons has been ordered to provide a transgender pedophile with laser hair removal to alleviate his "gender dysphoria."
Brian "Nani Love" Buckingham is currently serving a 21-year sentence for sexually abusing his own son.https://t.co/wCvGm1OwLd
Continuing the investigation, the Washington State Patrol found that Buckingham had exchanged Discord messages expressing an interest in rape and sexually abusing animals and toddlers. Buckingham also shared child sexual abuse material with other Discord users, and even engaged in sexually exploitative chats with at least one user who identified themselves as being 13.
Buckingham was initially indicted on two counts – one of the production of child pornography, and one of the distribution of child pornography. But the indictment was later revised to include three counts of the production of child pornography, one count of the distribution of child pornography, and one count of aggravated sexual assault on a child.
On December 4, 2024, Buckingham waived his right to a trial and entered into a plea agreement, admitting to the production of child pornography and abusive sexual contact with a child. He was ultimately sentenced to 252 months in prison, and the court recommended that Buckingham serve his sentence at FCI Butner, an institution considered to be “friendly” to trans inmates.
Just prior to the sentence being formalized in that case, Buckingham had already begun to file a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Trump administration officials for alleged violations of his human rights.
In a motion filed in April of 2025, Buckingham claimed that Bureau of Prisons had violated his Eighth Amendment rights and his rights under Section 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by denying him access to “medically necessary care.”
Buckingham described himself as a “transgender female” in the motion, and claimed that he was at risk of irreparable harm if the accommodations were not provided to him.
Brian “Nani Love” Buckingham
On September 18, United States Magistrate Judge David Christel filed a report determining that Buckingham was “likely to succeed” on the merits of his claims that his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment had been violated.
“Buckingham has presented evidence that she suffers from a serious medical need, gender dysphoria. She also has presented evidence that Defendants were aware of her need for the Consultations,” Judge Christel wrote, referring to Buckingham with feminine pronouns. “The evidence shows BOP healthcare providers at FDC SeaTac referred Buckingham for the Consultations, and then BOP healthcare providers at FCI Butner discontinued the requests for the Consultations without reason and summarily denied her request for the facial feminization consultation … The undisputed evidence shows the Consultations are medically necessary.”
Judge Christel then recommended Buckingham’s motion for a preliminary injunction be granted, and that an injunction ordering the Bureau of Prisons to provide him with the cosmetic consultations be issued. Explicitly included were those for laser hair removal, facial feminization surgery, and voice training.
United States District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez adopted Christel’s recommendations, and gave the Bureau of Prisons until December 12, 2025, to comply with the mandatory injunction.
But lawyers for Buckingham have since filed additional declarations in the case, complaining that the BOP has failed to comply with the order and provide Buckingham his requested “gender affirming care” consultations. Further, Buckingham’s attorneys allege the BOP has continued to violate his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment by referring him to a psychiatrist who expressed uncertainty about his gender dysphoria diagnosis.
In a Motion to Show Cause filed on December 23, 2025, Buckingham’s attorneys asserted that the BOP had arranged Buckingham’s “speech therapy” consultations, but hadn’t delivered on the requests for facial feminization or laser hair removal.
The BOP reportedly tried to explain the lack of action by noting they did not have a contract with any laser hair removal providers, but Buckingham’s lawyers complained that the BOP had made no effort to contact third-party providers to comply with the order.
Instead, the BOP decided that Buckingham would be allowed to purchase a No-No brand personal hair removal device for his own use.
Further, the Motion to Show Cause notes that BOP arranged a consultation for Buckingham with a psychiatrist to “assess for the medical necessity of the requested gender-affirming procedures,” but the psychiatrist stated that he could not validate Buckingham’s previous diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
In his report on Buckingham, Dr. Edward Weidow concluded that there was “a distinct lack of evidence” that Buckingham’s “current requests for surgeries” were necessary. Noting that Buckingham presented with serious mental health issues that did not appear to be well-managed, Weidow continued: “I do not see gender-affirming surgery in this case … to be medically necessary … or advisable.”
Buckingham’s attorneys rejected Dr. Weidow’s assessment, asserting that “WPATH Standards of Care instruct that delaying or denying care ‘due to the presence of mental health problems may exacerbate symptoms’ … Accordingly, the WPATH Standards of Care do not support Dr. Weidow’s cursory conclusion that the existence of co-occurring mental health symptoms warrant denying Ms. Buckingham further gender-affirming care.”
The Motion to Show Cause concludes by recommending the Bureau of Prisons be held in civil contempt and heavily sanctioned for its apparent “failure” to provide Buckingham with the “gender-affirming care” ordered by the court, and suggests the BOP be forced to pay a noncompliance fine of $1,000 per day until Buckingham is given the consultations he demanded. Buckingham’s lawyers also requested the BOP pay the legal costs associated with filing the motion.
Buckingham’s case represents one of the first successful challenges made by a transgender inmate to the Trump administration’s recent executive orders.
In January of 2025, the administration moved to tighten federal prison policies affecting transgender inmates, directing the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to base housing assignments on inmates’ sex assigned at birth rather than “gender identity,” and barring the use of federal funds for “gender affirming” medical treatments for transgender inmates.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appeared to exchange emails with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein about a “beautiful girl”.
Three million files on Epstein have been released by the US Justice Department.
One document shows an alleged email exchange between Epstein and Andrew in April 2010, with Epstein telling the former prince he had “a friend who I think you might enjoy having dinner with”.
The pair disclosed dates she would be in London, the documents appear to show.
He said she’s 26, Russian, “beautiful, trustworthy and yes she has your email”.
Andrew allegedly responded: “Of course. I am in Geneva until the morning of 22nd but would be delighted to see her.”
He continued: “Will she be bringing a message from you? Please give her my contact details to get in touch.”
The email is signed off with: “A – HRH The Duke of York KG.”
One email appeared to show Andrew and Epstein talking about ‘a friend’ for the former duke to meet | USDEPARTMENTOFJUSTICE
Another email appeared to show Andrew inviting Epstein to Buckingham Palace in September 2010.
The former Duke of York emailed him: “I am just departing Scotland, should be down by 18:00. I’ll ring you when I get down if you can give me a number to ring.
“Alternatively, we could have dinner at Buckingham Palace and lots of privacy. A.”
Epstein responded: “Already in London, what time would you like me and [redacted]. We will also need/have private time.”
Another email exchanged showed Andrew inviting Epstein to Buckingham Palace | USDEPARTMENTOFJUSTICE
Andrew has also been named in the files, allegedly taking a flight with Epstein and convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell.
The document shows a flight from TEB (Teterboro Airport) to TIST (St. Thomas Cyril E. King Airport) located in the British Virgin Islands.
Details state “JE, GM, ET, AP, Prince Andrew, Steve Burgess,” took a flight on February 9, 1999.
A flight left TIST with “JE, GM, ET, AP, Prince Andrew, Steve Burgess”, and others on board, on February 12, 1999.
The former Duke of York has previously said that he met Epstein in 1999 through Maxwell.
Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing, and being named in the files does not suggest any misconduct.
A 25-year-old South Sudanese migrant killed an 18-year-old woman in a fatal subway attack in Hamburg on Thursday evening, after seizing her and pulling her with him into the track bed in front of an incoming train. Both the victim and the perpetrator died at the scene. German police are investigating the case as a suspected homicide.
The incident occurred around 10 p.m. at Wandsbek Markt subway station. According to police, the victim and the perpetrator were independently present on the platform and did not appear to know each other. Investigators said the man suddenly approached the woman, seized her, and pulled her with him into the track bed as a train was entering the station. The motive remains unclear.
The German Red Cross provided psychological support to witnesses, while subway traffic on line U1 was suspended overnight and only resumed the following morning.
Authorities later confirmed that the perpetrator was a 25-year-old man from South Sudan who had entered Germany in mid-2024 through a humanitarian reception program run by Germany’s federal states. He reportedly held a valid residence permit and had been living in municipal accommodation in Hamburg. The victim was an 18-year-old woman from the Norderstedt area in Schleswig-Holstein. Her nationality has not been publicly disclosed.
According to witness accounts reported in German media, the man appeared intoxicated and was seen behaving erratically shortly before the attack. One witness, who said he did not observe the entire incident himself, alleged that the perpetrator grabbed the woman from the side and told her, “I’ll take you with me,” before both fell onto the tracks.
The incident prompted immediate reactions from political figures, calling for a full clarification of the circumstances. Alice Weidel, co-leader of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), wrote on X:
Terrible act in Hamburg: A South Sudanese man drags an 18-year-old woman in front of an incoming subway train with him. Both die. The circumstances of this crime must be fully and completely clarified. We must not get used to these ‘isolated cases’.
The killing comes amid renewed scrutiny following earlier railway deaths involving migrants. Only months earlier, a similar tragedy occurred in Lower Saxony, where a 16-year-old Ukrainian girl was pushed in front of a train in Friedland. An Iraqi asylum seeker was later linked to the case through DNA evidence. His asylum application had previously been rejected, and he was legally obliged to leave Germany at the time of the incident. Due to a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, the suspect was placed in a psychiatric institution instead of pre-trial detention.
A woman who survived a violent attempted rape in Amsterdam in May 2024 left the courtroom in tears and anger on Tuesday after judges refused to convict her attacker of attempted murder or manslaughter, despite evidence that she was strangled for several minutes and repeatedly threatened with death.
AT5 reported how the Amsterdam court sentenced Mohammed H. to three and a half years in prison and compulsory psychiatric treatment for attempted sexual assault. The Public Prosecution Service had sought a five-year prison sentence plus mandatory psychiatric treatment, arguing that the facts supported convictions for both attempted rape and attempted murder.
As the verdict was read out, the victim became visibly distressed and left the courtroom, shouting at the sentencing judge. “I can’t do this. I can’t do this anymore! What you are saying isn’t true! I was strangled, very long and very hard,” she said. The presiding judge replied, “We concur with that assessment.” The woman responded, “I don’t hear you concur,” to which the judge answered, “Hmm.”
Gut wrenching: Dutch 20 y/o victim of attempted rape and murder storms out of courtroom in tears as her attacker, Somali migrant Mohamed H. (26), gets a mere 3.5 years in prison.
Last May, a 20 y/o Dutch girl was attacked in Amsterdam’s Westerpark by Mohamed H. who choked her… pic.twitter.com/r1yHGOwDcv
The attack took place during the night of May 10, 2024, as the woman was walking home from a café. She noticed a man following her before he grabbed her by the neck and dragged her into Amsterdam’s Westerpark, where he assaulted her and attempted to rape her. During the attack, he repeatedly threatened to kill her, telling her, “You’re going to die tonight. This is your last night!”
According to the case file, the woman was held in a powerful chokehold and beaten for around four minutes. Two nearby residents heard her screaming, and one immediately called 911, later telling police it sounded as if the woman was fighting for her life. After the call, the witness heard nothing for several minutes.
Prosecutors argued that the combination of prolonged strangulation, violence, and explicit death threats demonstrated intent to kill. “It’s only thanks to the complainant’s incredible fighting spirit, the adrenaline she experienced, and the police’s intervention that she’s still alive,” the Public Prosecution Service said when requesting a five-year sentence.
The court, however, disagreed. In its ruling, it stated, “Based on the file, the court cannot establish that he deliberately and knowingly tried to kill the woman.” Although Mohammed H. repeatedly said he would kill her, the judges said these threats could also fit a scenario in which he was trying to force sexual acts and frighten the victim. The court further ruled that it could not establish that there was a significant chance the woman would die.
The victim’s lawyer said the ruling was devastating for his client. “It’s incredibly important to her that she felt the strangulation and that the words were spoken that he would kill her,” he explained. “She felt the chokehold, and to then be told that attempted manslaughter cannot be proven is especially disappointing.” He added that she does not feel recognized as a victim by the verdict.
Both the suspect and the Public Prosecution Service have two weeks to appeal the ruling. As the victim is not a party to the criminal case, she has no right of appeal herself.
Dit land is ziek. Doodziek.
Toen de rechtbank het vonnis oplas, verliet de vrouw vanmiddag geëmotioneerd de zaal. "Ik ben gewurgd, heel lang en heel hard", (door Mohammed H.) riep ze naar de rechter. https://t.co/JNq86FMmYY
The verdict prompted strong reactions from Dutch political figures and activists. Conservative commentator Eva Vlaardingbroek wrote on X, “This keeps on happening over and over again, everywhere in Europe. Our legal systems protect the perpetrators, not the victims. These judges should face justice for their continuous betrayal of European girls getting assaulted, raped, and murdered by migrants.”
Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom, added: “This country is sick. Seriously sick.”
As reported by Het Parool, the migrant fled Somalia and arrived in the Netherlands at the age of nine. He had an extensive criminal record at the time of the offense, including previous convictions for street robbery and car theft.
He has no fixed abode, was a known drug user, and was diagnosed with a personality disorder with antisocial traits.
Pictured: Gad Saad speaks at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest convention on December 18, 2023 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons)
The theory of “suicidal empathy,” taken up and developed by Canadian Professor Gad Saad in his bookSuicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind, describes a psychological and societal condition in which excessive or misguided compassion leads Western societies — particularly, it seems, “progressive” ones — to adopt self-destructive attitudes and policies that will ultimately “succeed” in destroying them. The process, however well-intentioned, is a form of civilizational suicide.
According to Saad’s thesis, empathy becomes misdirected into a type of benevolent altruism that prioritizes the perceived feelings and needs of “marginalized” or external groups at the expense of the survival, security, and interests of one’s own group and its values. The outcome is the weakening, and ultimately the destruction, of the very civilization that expressed this emotion.
Saad draws on evolutionary psychology to suggest that empathy is a natural adaptive mechanism designed to promote cooperation within small groups, such as family or the community. In modern societies, however, this mechanism has become “hijacked” by big-hearted supporters who take pride in what they see as a virtue of caring about others.
The problem? This concept of suicidal empathy unfortunately does not work. As the term predicts, it ends up killing its host.
Suicidal empathy, according to Saad, rests on a fundamental misunderstanding. Empathy, a feeling, can open you up to feel with and understand another, or you can stay closed, enabling you to stay safely detached. Half-measures — selective empathy toward only carefully curated, presumably “deserving” groups — can become something else entirely: political manipulation, pity, narcissistic preening, virtue-signaling, or emotional tourism.
Empathy can embrace humanity — or in many people, may not exist whatsoever. “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view… until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it,” Harper Lee wrote in To Kill a Mockingbird. Ideally, empathy might extend to everyone: “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” perhaps impossible to do, is still a noble aspiration.
What we observe, however, in many people, is a highly selective empathy, precisely the opposite of caring about everyone. What shows up is an exclusive, and exclusionary, concern for certain groups — asylum seekers, ethnic minorities, people unhappy with their gender, racialized people (whatever that means), criminals, for example — at the same time paired with indifference or even open hostility toward other groups that might be equally minoritized, victimized, or marginalized.
Consider the case of our Jewish compatriots. It is no exaggeration to say that the contemporary Western left has grown accustomed to the mistreatment of American and European Jews, even though they consist of only the tiniest minority in Europe (only 0.16% of Europe’s population) as well as the US (2.3% of the population).
What, then, is the criterion for this so-called “selective empathy”? We are told: victimhood. Jews are — based on “evidence” that probably applies just as well to successful Christians and other non-Jews — are deemed “dominant.” How is a Jewish child beaten in the street in Europe, and targeted only for being Jewish, “dominant”? Because, we are told, Jews are not victims: Look, they say, at what is happening in Gaza.
European And American Jews, however, have no connection to Gaza, except through the smoky notion of “collective responsibility,” which holds that any crime committed by one person renders all people from that group responsible, whether Blacks, Jews, Whites, Asians, Muslims, non-Muslims, and so on. This notion of collective responsibility — as opposed to judging people one-by-one based on individual merits — has, even since earliest biblical times, been considered immoral: Let not the sins of the father be visited upon the children.
Having empathy does not require it to be universal toward everyone — any more than love, friendship and loyalty are required to be universal. Empathy, like all emotions, is elastic – one minute you might love someone, the next minute hate him. You can enjoy the deepest, most intense love for your spouse and children, but feel only mild benevolence (or even indifference) toward the rest of humanity; no one would seriously claim that your feelings are therefore “fake” or “not real love.” You can be profoundly moved by the suffering of abused children in your own neighborhood while remaining relatively unmoved by equally terrible suffering occurring in distant countries you have never visited. That does not make your empathy inauthentic.
Empathy follows exactly the same path. It is probably common to feel more deeply about those who are physically close (family, friends, neighbors), those who belong to “our” group (shared language, culture, history, values, appearance…), and those whose pain we can see, hear or share directly. The farther someone is removed from us (in space, time, culture, or identity), the more deliberate mental work might be required to generate a comparable emotional response.
This is not hypocrisy; it is simply human nature. What becomes harder to defend as genuine empathy is the increasingly common pattern of displaying loud, intense, public identification with distant victims while simultaneously showing indifference, contempt or outright hostility toward victims right under one’s nose, here in one’s own society, whose suffering is visible and immediate.
We might be dealing then with a moral posture, a political performance, a selected narrative for virtue or social status.
In short: selective empathy — with selective hostility or indifference nearby — is not “higher”, “purer” or “more universal”. It is just a posture wearing empathy’s clothes.
The psychological mechanism of the contemporary Western “left” seems to be unfolding in two stages. First came the collapse of Marxism in 1989, with the Berlin Wall being dismantled, piece by piece, was also the main ideology of the left, undergoing deconstruction. Marxism was the dominant ideological framework of the Western left through much of the 20th century. In The Age of Extremes (1994), the Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm argues that Marxism was the dominant intellectual and ideological framework of the Western left for much of the twentieth century. He explained that communist parties, socialist movements, trade unions, and left-wing intellectual circles largely operated within conceptual horizons shaped by Marxist theory — even when they were not strictly Marxist in doctrine. In other words, Marxism structured how the left understood history, capitalism, class, and political struggle throughout most of the century. The collapse of Soviet communism in 1989 symbolized the failure of Marxism as a viable political-economic system. Therefore, the left lost its core ideology and began searching for replacements.
A hatred of the West, of capitalism, of “inequality,” has been around at least since the writings of Karl Marx. In the West, this rejection of what exists, and of what has founded our civilizational predominance, has been a constant—at least since the French Revolution in 1789. Marxism, later, proposed a supposed “solution” — false and unachievable, but claiming theoretical, even “scientific,” coherence. None of that, however, has ever existed.
This outrage and anger then seized upon a motley collection of ideological substitutes, some good, such as the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage; some not good, such as the abolition of borders, radical environmentalism, political Islam, and the abolition of prisons. What appears lost is the freedom to disagree. Diverge from these new precepts, and you exit humanity itself. You become a figure of evil.
Anyone who departs from these fragile dogmas, even marginally, is now denounced, excommunicated, morally disqualified, and, whenever possible, socially destroyed. Many people seem to be incubating a rage looking for somewhere to go. Dogmas that admit no dissent provide a perfect vehicle for that. This new rage appears to have nothing to do with empathy — or even selective empathy — but more with envy, frustration, and possibly opportunism, perhaps accompanied by large payments.
When there are real protestors out on the streets risking their lives, as recently in Iran, there is scant support. What vibrates in Western outbursts, on the left and on the right, appears to be rage looking for a cause, and constantly feeding on new dogmas. Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of them.
A former Canadian provincial premier known for a fairly staunch pro-life record said that news of a recent Canadian woman who was euthanized against her will amounts to a cold-blooded “murder.”
In a statement Monday on X, former Alberta Premier and Conservative MP Jason Kenney reacted to reports of the death of a woman in her 80s known as Mrs. B.
“‘Euthanized against her will’ = cold blooded murder,” Kenney wrote.
“This is the inevitable result of Canada’s dystopian ‘assistance in dying’ regime.”
Kenney, who was for years known as one of Canada’s most avid pro-life politicians before he caved to COVID dictates as Alberta’s premier, said he “predicted” this would happen.
“When I predicted this outcome over years of debates in Parliament, pro-euthanasia advocates would dismiss it as ‘fear mongering,’” he noted.
“It turns out that fear of desacralizing human life is entirely rational.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, the elderly woman known as Mrs. B was euthanized within hours despite changing her mind.
Reports from U.S. senior investigations reporter Nic White said that the woman got what is known as “same-day” euthanasia despite changing her mind.
“One case study was that of a woman in her 80s referred to as ‘Mrs. B’ who had complications after a coronary artery bypass graft surgery,” White wrote.
“She went into severe decline and opted for palliative care and was sent home from the hospital with palliative support and her husband caring for her. But as her condition got worse, her elderly husband struggled to care for her even with the help of visits by nurses.”
According to the family, Mrs. B said she wanted euthanasia. Her overworked husband contacted a “referral service” immediately. Mrs. B, however, changed her mind when the assessor arrived, stating that she “wanted to withdraw her request, citing personal religious values and beliefs.” She said that inpatient hospice care was what she wanted in place of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD).
As reported by LifeSiteNews, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Jim O’Neil warned that Canada’s MAiD program, as it’s known, has crossed a new line in unethical practices.
The Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney has worked to expand euthanasia 13-fold since it was legalized in 2016. Canada now has the fastest-growing assisted suicide program in the world. Meanwhile, Health Canada released a series of studies on advanced requests for assisted suicide.
Current Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has not made known an official stance on euthanasia. She took over the United Conservative Party (UCP) on October 11, 2022, from Kenney after winning the leadership of the party. The UCP then won a general election in May 2023. Kenney was ousted due to low approval ratings and for reneging on promises not to lock Alberta down.
Under Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” group of people in her lifetime.
A trans-identified male has been arrested in São Paulo, Brazil, after stabbing his former friend to death while she was cradling one of her young children in her arms. Since the horrific attack, Brazil’s Ministry of Women has issued a statement warning people about engaging in criminal “online transphobia.”
The incident took place on January 17 at the victim’s residence in the municipality of Tremembé and was captured by home security camera footage.
In the footage, which has since been released by police, Ivia Stefania da Silva de Castro can be seen sitting just outside her front door, cradling one of her children in her arms and scrolling on her cellphone.
Ewerton Adalberto dos Santos, who also goes by the female name “Ewellyn,” then casually approaches and enters her residence. He appears to retrieve a knife from the kitchen, and then storms out the front door to stab de Castro, who is reportedly a mother of 10 children, in the neck.
Ewerton Adalberto dos Santos approaching Ivia Stefania da Silva de Castro with a knife, moments before he stabs her in the neck.
After being attacked, de Castro drops the child and falls to the ground, screaming in pain. The woman attempted to defend herself but was unable to overpower her attacker. Another one of her young children then rushes out to see her body on the ground.
In the video footage, dos Santos can be heard boasting “I will now call the police and tell them it was me.” When authorities arrived, dos Santos admitted to the crime immediately.
While being escorted to the police station in handcuffs, dos Santos was seen smiling and laughing at cameras from local media. The case remains under investigation, but some Brazilian news outlets have reported that the suspected motive may be jealousy. According to those reports, de Castro had recently started a relationship with a man dos Santos was allegedly interested in. Reports also say dos Santos was previously known to police for making threats.
Many Brazilian media outlets have reported the murder as having been committed by a woman, frequently omitting any mention of the perpetrator’s trans identification.
The case has already ignited a debate in Brazil over its incredibly lenient gender self-identification laws as police have reportedly registered the crime as homicide rather than femicide.
Although femicide is legally defined in Brazil as a crime committed against a female by a male, it can only be applied in situations where the perpetrator “identifies” as a man. In incidents involving trans-identified males committing crimes against women, the legal definition of femicide does not usually apply.
Femicide charges have also been applied in cases where the victim is a trans-identified male, prompting backlash from Brazilian women’s rights activists who claim statistics are being skewed as a result.
In a widely publicized case from December 2025, the Public Prosecutor’s Office ruled that the killing of a trans-identified male named Alice Martins Alves constituted femicide, stating that the crime was committed “against a woman for reasons related to her condition as a female, involving contempt for and discrimination against women.”
One day after the news of de Castro’s murder broke, Brazil’s Ministry for Women, which has not issued any statement addressing the killing, published a statement asserting that “online transphobia is a crime” and warning that negative online comments may cause trans-identified males to experience “fear, anxiety, isolation, and psychological suffering.”
The post was criticized by the women’s group MATRIA, which addressed the issue in a public video statement.
“The same week in which a mother was brutally murdered, with one child in her lap and another watching, by a man who declares himself a woman, the priority of the Ministry of (Prostate) Women was to warn the unsubmissive women who were discussing the case that ‘online transphobia is a crime,’” MATRIA wrote in an Instagram caption.
“It is curious that our fear, anxiety, isolation and psychological suffering do not seem to matter when we talk about what we feel when we encounter men who declare themselves women in our intimate spaces, for example. They do not matter when we are attacked by these people right here, online, with terms and threats that no woman has ever uttered in relation to a trans person … It is shameful that this Ministry carries the word WOMAN in its name and it is shameful the role that Minister Márcia Lopes lends herself to. History will not forget, and the women voters will not either.”
Due to the 2019 Supreme Court ruling that grouped “transphobia” in with “racism” as a criminal offense, Brazil has some of the most extensive gender ideology-based identity protections in the world.
