Mediaboss Marketing

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read the rest here:
OPINION: Society reaps what liberals have sowed | Opinion | lmtribune.com - Lewiston Morning Tribune

The federal Liberals tabled a bill Friday that seeks to eliminate self-induced extreme intoxication as a legal defence for violent crimes, after the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in May.

Bill C-28, introduced by Justice Minister David Lametti, would add new language to the Criminal Code that creates criminal liability when a person who commits a violent crime is in a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication.

For a person to be found liable for their actions under the drafted update of Section 33.1 in the code, prosecutors would need to establish that they were criminally negligent.

The court would need to consider whether a reasonable person in that situation could have foreseen the risk that ingesting intoxicating substances could cause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm another person.

The specific circumstances of the case would factor into the analysis, such as the substance itself and the quantity that was consumed, the persons state of mind at the time and anything they may have done to mitigate such a risk.

Extreme intoxication is defined in the bill as intoxication that renders a person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour.

It is not a presumed defence, meaning that the test would only apply if a defendant specifically raises it.

This has only ever happened a handful of times, Lametti said.

It would not apply to the vast majority of cases where drugs or alcohol are involved and almost never in situations where only alcohol was consumed.

This is not about being really drunk or really high, he said, repeating several times: Being drunk or high is not a defence for committing criminal acts like sexual assault.

Marci Ien, the Liberal minister for women and gender equality and youth, told reporters the government has been increasingly concerned about online misinformation suggesting that the recent Supreme Court decision meant that being drunk could be a defence for sexual assault.

She cited social media posts with hundreds of thousands of likes and views, including one that suggested rape is now legal if youre intoxicated.

Lametti said one of the motivations for closing the gap in the law so quickly was to address some of the rising fear and confusion around the decision.

You dont want someone to think, Oh, I can have a few drinks and do whatever the blank I want, he quipped.

In its unanimous May ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that being drunk will never get someone off the hook for a violent crime.

Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote in the decision that under the previous wording of Section 33.1, convicting someone for how they behave in a state of automatism, or when they are too intoxicated to stay in control of themselves, violates principles of fundamental justice.

The wording had been added by the Liberal government of Jean Chrtien in 1995, in response to a 1994 Supreme Court decision that acquitted a man of sexual assault because he was blackout drunk at the time of the offence.

But it failed the constitutional test because a person could be convicted without the prosecution having to prove that they acted voluntarily or that they ever intended to commit a crime even though a guilty action and a guilty mind must ordinarily be present for someone to be found criminally responsible.

On that basis, the court upheld two acquittals of men who committed violent acts after voluntarily consuming drugs, and ordered a new trial in a third, similar case.

Some groups expressed concern about the court ruling, with Kerri Anne Froc of the National Association of Women and the Laws steering committee urging action to rectify a gap in the criminal justice system and protect women and children, often the victims of these crimes.

The court suggested Parliament could enact new legislation to update the language of the Criminal Code in such a way that extremely intoxicated people could still be held accountable for their violent crimes.

Lamettis office reacted with what he called lightning speed, consulting with stakeholders, court interveners and members of Parliament to come up with a solution that could get broad support.

Pam Hrick, the executive director and general counsel of the Womens Legal Education and Action Fund, appeared alongside ministers at Fridays news conference and praised the governments thoughtful, nuanced and constitutional response.

Asked whether he expects the bill to be passed by unanimous motions before the House of Commons and Senate rise next week for a summer break, Lametti said he is optimistic.

There is a point of agreement here, and I hope we can move this forward.

The NDPs justice critic, Randall Garrison, said in a statement that his party will push to have the bill passed quickly.

The Conservatives say they are still reviewing the legislation.

Marie-Danielle Smith, The Canadian Press

More:
Liberals table bill responding to Supreme Court decision on 'extreme intoxication' Terrace Standard - Terrace Standard

For those who've paid attention to the science around COVID-19, the B.C. Liberals have been a colossal disappointment.

It's been particularly disheartening to those who've read literature in peer-reviewed journals about airborne transmission of the disease and who have immune-compromised members of their family.

Moreover, the Official Opposition has offered no help to parents and educators who wanted HEPA filters and carbon-dioxide monitors in classrooms to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

These measures have been advanced by the Ontario and Quebec governments, respectively, but not in B.C.

Kids between 5 and 11 years old still have relatively low vaccination rates. And the B.C. Liberals, through their actions, have sent a signal that they're okay with a proliferation of Long COVID in this age bracket.

One of the few times when the B.C. Liberals actually acted as an ally for those who worry about the spread of this potentially crippling and fatal disease was when they spoke up for more rapid testing.

Another time came when Peace River South MLA Mike Bernier continued advocating for vaccinations even after receiving death threats.

But these instances of responsible political conduct have been more than offset by the B.C. Liberal MLAs failing to hold the NDP government accountable for pursuing policies that ignore the reality of how COVID-19 is transmitted.

Most COVID-19 cases result from tiny particles hanging around in the airin indoor settings, sometimes even after the person has left the room. The virus hitchikes on these "aerosols", which are exhaled by infected people when they talk, cough, and breathe, and can, in some cases, travel well beyond two metres.

The B.C. Liberals remained silent on the end of mask mandates on ferries and public transit. They did not rise up in outrage when the B.C. human rights commissioner noted that this would discriminate against marginalized groups and immunocompromised people.

Is it any surprise that B.C.'s COVID-19 death rate surpassed that of Ontario, which retained a mask mandate on transit for three months longer than B.C.'s NDP government?

That's to say nothing of the dreadful image of so many B.C. Liberal MLAs, including the new leader, Kevin Falcon, refusing to wear masks in the B.C. legislature in the midst of a pandemic.

Yet this week, the B.C. Liberal caucushad the gall to issue a news release on COVID-19 that twice mentioned the importance of following the "science" around the disease.

It came in connection with a call to suspend the vaccine mandate for provincial employees, just as the federal government has done for its workers.

Since becoming B.C. Liberal leader, Falcon has gone out of his way to present himself as an economic saviour for B.C.

Perhaps Falcon thinks that he can stimulate the economy by promoting the spread of COVID-19.

It certainly has the potential to increase demand for hospital and ambulance services.

After all, COVID-19 attacks the vascular systemand can cause strokes and neuromuscular disorders.

One of the world's leading business magazines, Forbes, has evenreported on long-term brain damage from COVID-19.

So by sending a signal to public-sector workers that there won't be consequences from remaining unvaccinated, Falcon might actually be promoting more use of rehab facilities over the long term. Yippie!

That's because the B.C. Liberal leader must know that the unvaccinated tend to suffer more severe consequences from COVID-19. And even the vaccinated, particularly those who are immune compromised, can be hospitalized and/or endure long COVID after being infected.

A recent study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that "the risk of infection was markedly higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people under all mixing assumptions".

Most troubling for the vaccinated, however, this same study found that their rate of infection rate increased when they were put in contact with the unvaccinated. That's the predictable outcome of Falcon's approach for B.C.'s vaccinated public servants.

"Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to people who are unvaccinated, their choices affect risk of viral infection among those who are vaccinated in a manner that is disproportionate to the portion of unvaccinated people in the population," the researchers wrote.

Maybe by mixing the unvaccinated and vaccinated public servants, especially on ferries and in hospitals, this will even increase the number of funerals, thereby boosting the provincial gross domestic product.

My God, maybe Falcon's onto something here.

With stock markets plunging and real-estate markets tanking, perhaps this is the way out of a looming recession.

Who knew that COVID-19 could be such a life saver?

Isn't it wonderful to have someone with business experience as captain of the B.C. Liberal ship?

Read the original here:
Beware of B.C. Liberals who claim to be following the science around COVID-19 - The Georgia Straight

The televised hearings addressing the violence that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were nothing short of riveting and disturbing.

The House committee has been gathering information and investigating the attempted act of sedition for more than a year, amassing at minimum 140,000-plus documents and investigating more than 1,000 witnesses.

The committee learned all sorts of appalling facts, including that former President Donald Trump flippantly said his former vice president, Mike Pence, deserved to be hung after hearing rioters were reciting hang Mike Pence.

Newly released footage and original testimony nullified the pathetically disingenuous remark made by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who equated the behavior of violent insurrectionists to that of a normal tourist visit.

Several capitol police officers and other witnesses provided testimony to the committee, all of whom were riveting and captivating to listen to.

Engaging commentary notwithstanding, the highlight of the evening was Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., whose performance was nothing short of a tour de force.

She put her MAGA Republican counterparts to shame, exposing them for both their cowardice and their dereliction of duty. Among her most deliberate comments (one of many) was when Cheney stated President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.

For the record, I am not a political supporter of Cheney. Her politics differ dramatically from mine.

Despite Cheneys honorable and arguably courageous stance in challenging a sizable segment of her Republican colleagues for their habitually untoward behavior, the truth is that she is a right of center conservative who overwhelmingly supported much of Trumps agenda during his presidency.

Considerable partisan allegiance aside, when it came time to stand up for the protection and preservation of democracy, Cheney disregarded so-called party loyalty and aligned herself with the virtues of truth and honesty. For this, she deserves accolades.

Among other facts, the initial night of the hearings revealed that many of those around Trump were well aware of the fact that he had lost the election to President Joe Biden.

Trumps attorney general, Bill Barr, testified that he dismissed the claim that the 2020 election was stolen as bullshit. Interestingly, Trumps daughter, Ivanka, concurred with Barrs assessment.

Notably, numerous Republican lawmakers, such as Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., frantically sought pardons from Trump for their role in attempting to overturn the election. It goes without saying that people convinced of their innocence dont seek to be pardoned, and its old news now that many Republicans in Congress who knew better perversely embraced Trumps election lies.

There are a number of historical parallels to draw from as it relates to this horrid event. One that seems most evident is the fact that a large percentage of the anarchists who journeyed to the nations capital on Jan. 6, 2021, are rabid white supremacists.

These were men and women who were inspired and motivated by a fellow white supremacist who was unable to garner the votes of most nonwhite citizens, failed to successfully win re-election and thus, sought to overthrow the government and dismantle democracy.

There has been a long history of this sort of activity in America.

Perhaps Cheneys most iconic statement made during the opening night of the hearings was the following: I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible, there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

She spoke truth to power here.

Elwood Watson Ph.D. is a professor of history, black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tennessee. He is also an author and public speaker, and his column is syndicated through Cagle Cartoons. Click here for previous columns. Follow him on Twitter: @bleachbred. The opinions expressed are his own.

Read this article:
Elwood Watson: In Liz Cheney, Liberals Find a Conservative They Can Laud - Noozhawk

Last month, David Pocock became the first Independent senatorto represent the ACT.

His victory was improbable but not entirely unexpected: the former rugby union star hasan international profileand many Canberrans volunteered to help him.

In the weeks before his election, his main opponents showed signs they were nervous about his growing support.

Labor invested significantly more effort (and money) than it usually does to rally support for its senator, Katy Gallagher.

Advance Australia, a Liberal-aligned lobby group, spent even more it told Canberrans repeatedly that Senator Pocock was an extremist who was disguising his Greens sympathies.

Look back at how the 2022 Australian federal election unfolded

Ultimately, Senator Gallagher was re-electedbut with Labor's lowest-ever vote in the ACT.

And the Liberals' Zed Seselja became Australia's first territory senator to lose their seat at an election.

The ABC has analysed every ballot cast in the ACT Senate race.There were some surprising results and not just Senator Pocock's victory.

It took three-and-a-half weeks to formally declare the ACT Senate results,but the outcome was obvious on election night.

While Senator Pocock's party had significantly fewer first-preference votes than the Liberals(21.1 per cent to 24.8 per cent), his victory was a fait accompli.

Below is a simplified view of how the votes flowed, over dozens of preference distributions, to elect two senators.

Collectively, Labor's two candidates had more votes than the quota required for election in the ACT, which isone third of all votesplus one (or about 33.3 per cent).

However, Senator Gallagher fell 313 votes short. For the first time, an ACT Labor candidate needed to rely on preferences to be elected.

Mr Seselja's vote also dropped to a record low. And, as expected, only a trickle of preferences from minor parties went to the Liberals.

Senator Pocock's first-preference haul was not unprecedented: the Greens have done better twice (Kerry Tucker in 2007 and Lin Hatfield-Dodds in 2010).

The difference this time was that otherchallengers the Greens' Tjanara Goreng Goreng and independent Kim Rubenstein also polled well.

Ultimately, Senator Pocock won easily as he was the preferred choice of minor-party voters, who were more influential this election than in any other.

Senator Pocock was always seen to be targeting Mr Seselja's seatrather than Senator Gallagher's.

So it was a surprise when ACT Labor became so spooked by Senator Pocock's campaign that it significantly ramped up efforts to secure votes.

While Labor was never close to losing, perhaps its fear was reasonable.

This chart shows that the vast majority of Senator Pocock's supporters, when pressedto choose a major party, opted for Labor or the Greens rather than the Liberals.

Only one in six preferenced Mr Seselja above Senator Gallagher and Dr Goreng Goreng.

This suggestsSenator Pocock convinced more Labor voters to switch to him than Liberal voters.

There may be other explanations for example, he might have attracted large numbers of "tactical" voters, whose loyalty is still with Labor.

Either way, Senator Pocock's supporters are generally progressive rather than conservative.

Similarly, Professor Rubenstein who, like Senator Pocock, had the support of the Climate 200 advocacy group was of almost no interest to conservative voters.

Professor Rubenstein's "Kim for Canberra" campaign attracted a not-insignificant 4.4 per cent of first preference votes.

Analysis of those ballot papers suggests only one in eightof them supported the Liberals.

The 2022 election was a clear success for left-of-centre candidates.

But while the progressive vote expanded, it also fractured.

Senator Pocock's election and the rise of minor parties more broadly poses electoral challenges for Labor and the Greens.

How? That's best explained by looking at a hypothetical election in which Senator Pocock did not stand.

This year's federal election was always going to be difficult for the Canberra Liberals.

The Morrison governmenttanked across the country (except in Tasmania), and local debate centred on Mr Seselja's unpopular opposition to territory rights.

Yet while federal Greens leader Adam Bandt called the national outcome a "greenslide", this was untrue of the ACT.

This chart maps which major parties Canberrans preferred in 2019 and 2022.

Underlying support for the ACT Greens did not budge at all, despite the "greenslide", Mr Seselja's unpopularity and a deep swing against the Coalition nationally.

In fact, Mr Seselja would likely have beaten Dr Goreng Goreng to the second Senate seat had Senator Pocock pulled out of the campaign.

How do we know? The ABC re-ran the ACT Senate election, using Canberrans' ballots as a guide but filtering out preferences for Senator Pocock's party.

Senator Gallagher coasted in, and Mr Seselja pipped Dr Goreng Goreng for the final seat (34 per cent to 30.5 per cent).

Of course, there are limits to this hypothetical exercise: Canberrans might have voted very differently in a campaign with different candidates.

But the results suggest that Mr Seselja didn't lose the election Senator Pocock won it.

If Senator Pocock fares poorly over the next three years, or decides against running for re-election, the Canberra Liberals will be very well placed to regain a senator.

The question for them now and all other Liberal branches is: what kind of Liberal do Canberra voters want?

The ACT Greens, meanwhile, face their own challenge. How do they mobilise the kind of support that Senator Pocock did?

Posted6h ago6 hours agoSun 19 Jun 2022 at 8:45pm, updated1h ago1 hours agoMon 20 Jun 2022 at 1:58am

Visit link:
Which Canberrans voted for David Pocock, and what does this mean for the Liberals' future? - ABC News