Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

UK Supreme Court Rules that the Legal Definition of a Woman Is Biological

Paul Craig Roberts

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that in British Law the terms “woman” and “sex” are biological terms and do not include men who identify as “transgender.” The Court ruled that people with “transgender recognition certificates,” whatever that is, are excludable from biological single-sex spaces.

There are interesting aspects of this case that deserve comment. The case was brought by Scottish women’s rights groups against the Scottish government’s imposition of men who declare themselves to be women on biological women’s spaces. What has become of the Scottish people that they put in office a deranged, crazed government that forces biological women to accept men into their private spaces simply because the deranged man declares himself to be a woman? How did Scotland get a deranged government that in earlier times would have been hung off the nearest lamp posts, if not drawn and quartered in the public square? What has gone wrong with the Scottish people that they are unable to make intelligent and moral choices about those they empower to govern them?

We see a similar collapse of historic peoples in Ireland where the Irish people have put in power a government that forces ethnic Irish citizens who can barely put food on the table to support massive inflows of third-world immigrant invaders who are totally destroying the character and quality of Irish life. What has gone wrong with the Irish people that they put in power a government determined to destroy them?

Another interesting aspect is that the LGBT+ alliance is breaking up.  The Scottish lesbians took the side of the women’s rights groups against the alleged “transgenders.” A lesbian spokesperson said that lesbians were tired of being called “far-right bigots” for refusing to accept men into lesbian groups.

The UK Supreme Court has declared “transgender recognition certificates” to be legally meaningless. What precisely is, or was, a “transgender recognition certificate?” It was an effort to use a piece of paper to give authority and reality to a self-declared new sex that does not exist in nature, or if it does only as a freak abnormality.

What the “transgender movement” is, or was, really about is an expansion of the cultural marxist “march through the institutions.” Another normal meaning is destroyed–sex. With the destruction of male/female, chaos is introduced into hospital wards, rape crisis centers, changing rooms, sports teams.

What is extraordinary is the number of Western government officials at every level who fanatically supported the “transgender movement.”  For example, in Virginia a public school administration covered up the rape of a young girl in a school female shower/toilet area by a male allowed access because he declared himself to be a female. The corrupt school administrators were so committed to “transgenders rights” that they covered up a rape and tried to destroy the father who complained of the rape of his child.

This demonstrates how deep  the hold of evil on Western civilization has grown to be. When liberal public school administrators in America are so corrupt that they aid and abet the rape of the young girls in their schools, and cover it up, we know our society is terminably ill.

Can Trump renew such a sick and despoiled country?

Science which has long been eliminating humanity now takes a huge step forward

https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/were-all-eugenicists-now/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/gene-edited-cows-humans/5686682 

The tycoon intends to personally lead the fight against what he sees as a looming demographic “apocalypse,” the report claims

Elon Musk wants to populate the Earth with a “legion” of high-intelligence children to prevent the collapse of human civilization due to a global decline in birth rates, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

An investigation by the paper focused on what it described as a “harem drama” surrounding Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency and a close ally of US President Donald Trump. According to the report, the billionaire has had at least 14 known children with four women – although the actual number could be much higher. However, his relationships with the mothers reportedly often involve hush-money payments and heated parental disputes.

At the heart of Musk’s reproductive drive lies his “dark view” of the future in which humanity could perish as a species due to poor demographics, the WSJ claims. “He is driven to correct the historic moment by helping seed the earth with more human beings of high intelligence,” the report says, citing people familiar with the matter.

Ashley St. Clair – one of the women Musk allegedly had an affair with and who claims to be the mother of one of his children – showed the WSJ a message purportedly sent by the billionaire. In it, Musk allegedly referred to his offspring as a “legion” – invoking the ancient Roman military units known for expanding imperial reach – and insisted on making even more babies with other women. “To reach legion-level before the apocalypse,” he reportedly said. “We will need to use surrogates.”

The WSJ claims that Musk has used his platform X to recruit potential mothers, often one whom he has never met in person, but who enjoy a high-profile social status.

In 2021, Musk said that low birth rates were “one of the biggest risks to civilization.” “If people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble,” he said at the time.

However, Musk’s private life has drawn criticism. His daughter Vivian Jenna Wilson, who cut ties with him and has come out as transgender – a move Musk has criticized – has called the billionaire a “serial adulterer.” He is also involved in a custody dispute with Canadian pop star Grimes, who has alleged that he withheld one of their children from visiting family for several months.

Incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz earlier said he wants to supply Taurus missiles to Kiev, despite the outgoing government ruling out the move

The UK would support Germany if it decides to give long-range Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, The Telegraph reported on Wednesday, citing British government sources.

London has long backed arming Kiev with the German-made weapons, which have a 500km range and are capable of striking targets deep into Russian territory, the report stated. Moscow has warned that supplying long-range missiles to Kiev and allowing it to strike Russian territory will be considered an escalation of hostilities.

“We continue to work with our partners, including Germany, to equip Ukraine as best we can to defend its sovereign territory,” a British foreign policy official told the outlet, commenting on the potential Taurus deliveries.

The report follows recent remarks by incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who signaled he was willing to supply Taurus missiles to Kiev.

“I have always said that I would do it,” Merz told German state broadcaster ARD on Sunday.

“Our European partners are already supplying cruise missiles… The British are doing it, the French are doing it, and the Americans are doing it,” he added, referencing the UK’s Storm Shadow and France’s Scalp missiles respectively.

The move must be agreed upon with Berlin’s European partners, Merz said. His CDU party has said the missiles could be used to strike Russian command centers and supply routes, including the Kerch Bridge to Crimea.

Merz’s stance contrasts sharply with that of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has repeatedly refused to give Kiev Taurus missiles and warned that the move could escalate the conflict and draw Germany directly into war with Moscow.

Merz is expected to take office in May, once his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD) finalize a coalition agreement. CDU defense spokesman Roderich Kiesewetter told The Telegraph that the missile delivery issue “remains a point of contention” in coalition talks.

SPD members have expressed concern over the Taurus’ range and power, arguing it poses a greater escalation risk than British or French systems. Party leader Matthias Miersch this week suggested Merz might change course once he receives classified intelligence on the missiles.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, an SPD member, has previously stated there are “many good arguments” against the delivery, citing confidential national security concerns.

Moscow has repeatedly warned that Western arms supplies won’t stop it from achieving its goals in the Ukraine conflict and that such deliveries only drag out the conflict and hinder peace efforts.

The rooster is, for many of us, a goofy figure: the strutting male of a bird species not known for its brains or courage. And for Christians, the rooster bears the dubious distinction of being the other half of the unfortunate duo involved in denying Christ three times the night of His betrayal. And yet, it seems like chickens were very much on Jesus’ mind in the lead-up to His passion.

Source

The bloc has reportedly backtracked on the restrictions to retain leverage in trade talks with Washington

EU officials have stepped back from plans to include a ban on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports in an upcoming sanctions package against Moscow, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

The decision, one official told the agency, was driven by internal opposition, uncertainty over replacing the supply, but also concerns that a ban could weaken the EU’s negotiating power with the US.

The 17th package is part of broader efforts by the EU to pressure Russia over the Ukraine conflict. Sanctioning Russian LNG now could strip the bloc of a key bargaining chip in ongoing trade talks with Washington, an unnamed EU official told Reuters.

The European Commission is reportedly seeking to use energy imports, including LNG, as leverage to persuade the US to lift tariffs on EU goods.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly urged the EU to increase purchases of American gas. Some EU officials see this as an opportunity to negotiate the rollback of 25% tariffs on EU steel and aluminum, reinstated in February. Enforcement of the tariffs was delayed by a 90-day pause to allow time for negotiations.

Last week, EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic met with US officials in Washington for initial talks. The commission described the meeting as a “scoping exercise” and said the US must still clarify its demands.

The idea of banning Russian LNG was previously floated during talks on the EU’s 16th sanctions package, adopted in February 2025, but was dropped following discussions in January due to reported opposition from member states.

Some countries, including France, Spain, and Belgium, continue to import significant volumes of Russian LNG, accounting for 85% of Europe’s Russian LNG imports, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

While pipeline gas imports from Russia have declined since 2022, the EU’s imports of Russian LNG have increased. In 2024, Russia accounted for 17.5% of the bloc’s LNG supply, making it the second-largest source after the US, which held a 45.3% share.

The European Commission is currently drafting a roadmap to end dependence on Russian energy by 2027, with the plan expected in early May.

In February, Russia’s first deputy energy minister, Pavel Sorokin, told RT during India Energy Week in New Delhi that the country is ramping up its LNG production and exports despite international sanctions. He said Russia could boost LNG shipments to India, noting the “competitive pricing” and stressing that Moscow will continue to trade with its partners despite growing pressure from the US and its allies.

President Trump recently claimed that the country possesses weapons “nobody has any idea” about

The US possesses technology that can “manipulate” and “bend time and space,” White House innovation czar Michael Kratsios has claimed.

Kratsios delivered the remarks at the Endless Frontiers Retreat in Austin, Texas, just weeks after being confirmed as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

He emphasized President Donald Trump’s ambition to usher in a new “golden age of America,” which includes fostering scientific research and the application of cutting-edge technologies. According to Kratsios, the US can emerge as a global leader by making “smart choices” regarding public funding and deregulating innovation.

“Our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space. They leave distance annihilated, cause things to grow, and improve productivity,” he stated, without elaborating. Later in his speech, Kratsios insisted that overcoming the “sclerosis of the state” would enable Americans to achieve “scientific discoveries that will bend time and space, make more with less, and drive us further into the endless frontier.”

Trump himself has recently alluded to advanced technologies not yet revealed to the public. Last week, he claimed China would hesitate to escalate trade tensions with the US partly due to the existence of secret weapons in the American arsenal.

READ MORE: US has secret weapons – Trump

“We have weaponry that nobody has any idea what it is, and it is the most powerful weapons in the world that we have. More powerful than anybody even, not even close,” he told journalists in the Oval Office.

In March, Trump announced the development of a sixth-generation fighter jet, which he described as “the most lethal aircraft ever built.” Boeing was awarded the contract for the project, he noted.

The Jewish state reportedly intended to conduct strikes on nuclear sites next month

US President Donald Trump has rejected Israel’s proposal to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, the New York Times reported on Wednesday evening, citing White House officials and others familiar with the matter. Trump reportedly chose instead to pursue a new deal with Tehran.

According to the NYT, Israel had drafted plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in early May, aiming to delay its ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more. After considering a combination of airstrikes and commando raids, the Jewish state reportedly proposed “an extensive bombing campaign” that would have lasted more than a week. Israeli officials had hoped that the US would not only greenlight the operation but also actively support it.

Trump, however, shot down the plan earlier this month, following a “rough consensus” in the White House. Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were among the top administration officials who reportedly raised concerns that the strikes would “spark a wider conflict with Iran.”

Iran and Israel exchanged strikes in April and October of last year, marking the most dramatic escalation between the regional rivals.

Trump tore up the 2015 UN-backed agreement on Iran’s nuclear program during his first term in office. He accused Tehran of secretly violating the deal and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by rolling back its own compliance with the accord and accelerating its enrichment of uranium.

Last month, Trump threatened to bomb Iran “if they don’t make a deal,” to which the Islamic Republic vowed not to bow to pressure. Despite the belligerent rhetoric, the US and Iran held the first round of talks in Oman on Saturday. The negotiations took place in a “productive, calm and positive atmosphere,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.

Oh yes, we’ve noticed… 

Dr. Kwasniewski Reacts to Novus Ordo Watch Critique: I Don’t Engage Sedevacantists!

Earlier this month, yours truly joined Louie Verrecchio for a video podcast to respond to a recent article by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski regarding papal authority and the Sacred Liturgy. The video was released on Apr. 4 on Verrecchio’s channel and a day later on Novus Ordo Watch’s:

• The Pope and the Breviary: Response to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (Video)

On Apr. 6, Kwasniewski published a comment on Facebook and on Twitter explaining that people had asked him if he was going to respond, which he answered in the negative because “I do not engage sedevacantists.”… READ MORE

Friedrich Merz should not give Kiev long-range weapons, the leader of the Social Democrats has warned

Incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will be swayed from delivering Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine once he begins to receive classified intelligence briefings on the matter, Matthias Miersch, the leader of the Social Democrats (SPD), has said.

Berlin ruled out giving Ukraine the long-range weapon system, which has a range of 500km, while the SPD led the last German government.

Following an historic election defeat in February which saw the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) surge,  Merz's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) and Miersch's SPD began talks to form a government.

Speaking to the n-tv news channel on Wednesday, Miersch criticized Merz’s readiness to deliver the Taurus and risk open confrontation with Russia.

“We have always been against it,” Miersch said. “I assume that Friedrich Merz, once fully informed by [intelligence] agencies, will reassess the issue clearly. We will then make the decision together,” he added.

“I assume that we do not want to contribute to an escalation or become a party to the war – the very reason we chose not to deliver the Taurus [to Ukraine]. And I assume it will remain that way,” Miersch said.

Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, an SPD member, earlier said there are “many good arguments” against sending the missiles, and some of them cannot be discussed in public.

Speaking to ARD on Sunday, Merz confirmed that he would like to supply Taurus missiles to Kiev. “Yes, that was exactly what I meant – not that we would intervene in the war ourselves, but that we would be equipping the Ukrainian army with such a weapon.”

He suggested that Kiev could use it to strike the bridge connecting Crimea with mainland Russia. Roderich Kiesewetter, the CDU’s defense spokesman, argued that the Taurus would help Ukraine “destroy Russian supply lines and command bunkers.”

The missile debate is unfolding as US President Donald Trump works to broker a Russian-Ukrainian ceasefire through shuttle diplomacy.

Moscow has warned that no amount of Western arms deliveries will prevent it from achieving its goals in the conflict. The Taurus will “not bring any changes to the battlefield,” Russia’s ambassador to Germany, Sergey Nechayev, said on Wednesday.

They would, however, make Germany directly involved in the conflict, as “Ukrainian soldiers… cannot operate the long-range weapon” without Berlin’s help, Nechayev said.

Charles Taylor has said (following Max Weber) that a defining feature of our “secular age” is its “disenchantment.” In past ages of faith, religion suffused public culture, so that belief in the supernatural—an “enchanted” realm beyond everyday, sensible reality—was as easy as breathing. Roadside shrines, processions through towns and fields, and bells calling the faithful to prayer made God’s presence evident to everyone. But those days are long gone. Science has unmasked the mysteries of nature, narrowing the field of the miraculous to the vanishing point. The global economy demands more of our attention for work; consumerist marketing inclines our thoughts more to the things we can buy; and we do as we please with the material world thanks to technologies that our forebears never imagined. It is harder for us to find the space in the cosmos where God operates, and temptations to vice press more insistently. 

In this disenchanted world, faith might seem almost impossible. Rod Dreher suggests that, through “experiences of wonder,” we must “illuminate [our] religious imagination,” so that once again religious belief will become second nature. Some might conclude that they need to turn away from disenchanted contemporary society—taking up farming to get more in touch with nature, moving to a less secular country, or leaving ordinary life altogether on a quest for mystical experiences. To find where God is hiding, many people consider doing something extraordinary.

But what if we don’t need to go so far? What if God is hiding in plain sight—not in supernatural wonders, but precisely in our world’s disenchantment? That, I submit, is an important lesson of the death of Jesus, which Christians once again commemorate this week.

The Lonely Man

The Gospels might seem to depict the most enchanted moment in history, when a man walked the earth who was closer to God than anyone before or since. The lame walked, the dead came back to life, and men heard the greatest wisdom ever spoken. “God has visited his people!” many exclaimed, as they came in droves to see, hear, and touch the wonderworker of Nazareth. 

Jesus’s persona exuded a sense of the divine presence. “I know that you always hear me,” he once prayed aloud to God. In the midst of busyness, he could be seized with joy and shout, “I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” His parables revealed a mind as fascinated with the sublimest truths as with the humblest material realities; he saw God’s influence pervading every corner of the universe. His love for God overflowed into love for his fellow man. He preached and healed for hours, pouring himself out with pity for the multitudes: to him they were “like sheep without a shepherd.”

But occasionally he revealed another side of himself. After seeing countless miracles, sometimes the crowds still would not believe. Then he might complain, “Oh faithless and perverse generation! How long will I be with you? How long am I to put up with you?” At other times, when his Apostles misunderstood one of his sayings—despite knowing him so well for so long—he asked, disheartened, “Do you still not understand?” “Do you still not know me?” And despite his compassion for people, he once admitted to feeling “constrained” in the world.

He found much of humanity disappointing. He chided people for their “little faith,” because they would only believe if they saw “signs and wonders.” He admonished them for not trusting God even though they, “wicked though you be,” knew how to love their own children. He reminded them that they owed it to God to be as holy as they could; so that when they had done his will, they should say, “We are useless servants; we have done what we ought to have done.” He was reluctant to trust men because “he knew what was in man.” True, he “marveled” at the centurion for his faith, and he called Peter “blessed” for the same reason, but these were exceptions that proved the rule.

To the end he was, in the words of Alban Goodier, “a lonely Man,” torn between tender love for his creatures and disgust at their selfishness, in a way no one else fully understood. His heart, with its infinite capacity to give, sought to slake its thirst on the least show of love from others; yet he received indifference or even hatred. “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened and I will give you rest!” he pleaded, but he was ignored and cast out. Even his constant vision of God did not save his heart from breaking as he hung dying on a cross, to the point that he cried, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” 

Far from being enchanting, his death was the greatest tragedy in human history. Today, in light of the later success of Jesus’s message, we might find it hard to imagine how catastrophic his end seemed at the time. One day he arrived in Jerusalem to the acclaim of thousands; a week later he was rejected by the human race, despite the preparation of millennia of prophecies and of the moral law written on men’s hearts.

Jesus of Nazareth, despite his boundless love of God and humanity, did not walk the earth with an unalloyed enjoyment of God’s enchanting action in the world; his joy was always darkened by sorrow. 

Descent to Hell: The Path to Life

He did triumph in the end, the story goes, but not by overwhelming men with an unmistakable show of glory; he overcame the dark night of a disenchanted, godless world by entering fully into that darkness—by suffering humiliation and torture. Why did he do this? Because the true obstacle to men’s faith in God was not their lack of spiritual perception or experience, but their knowing, free choices against God and his law—their sins. 

This point is hard for us to get. As John Henry Newman said, sin is “natural” and “familiar to us.” Living for pleasure, wealth, and our egos can seem normal, because we all do it all the time (although we might use less embarrassing terms for it, like “self-respect,” “defending my rights,” “giving myself a break,” etc.). To God, however, sin, especially if it be grave and deliberate, is, as Newman says, “woe unutterable.” It “is the mortal enemy of [God’s] All-holy” being. It “is that . . . which, could the Divine Governor of the world cease to be, would be sufficient to bring it about.”

Sin just is to choose to live without God—or rather, to live as though God were absent (no one in fact can exist without God): it is precisely to choose the disenchanted attitude of our age, and we all do so continually. Because man is free, his choices mold his existence; they cannot simply be undone. Although man needs God to exist, now, after sin, he cannot stop turning away from God; he is permanently restless and disoriented. 

But Jesus, Christians believe, because of the boundless power of his love, was able to live in that disenchanted nature—feeling “as though” God were absent—and to love God anyway, beyond measure. He did this even though he was saddened by life more than any of us can be: being perfectly conformed to God, his soul was perfectly sensitive and vulnerable, able to suffer more than any of us could. He chose to suffer although, unlike us, he had no obligation to do so; he sought as much suffering as his human frame could take, unlike us who resist all pain, even that which our misdeeds have earned. He lived as we do in every way except sin, so that he could take all that was in man, even his wounds caused by sin, and direct it to God—by loving to the point of being wounded for his love. He “descended to hell,” as the Apostles’ Creed puts it, as part of the new path he forged to heaven—but without ever passing through hell’s gates by doing evil. Our nature was bent toward nothingness by our choice to hate God; by his choice to love God in that nature, Jesus made that bend a turn toward eternal life. 

By his death Jesus pioneered a new path to being God’s children—the path of suffering to which he has called his followers ever after. Before the early Christians could convert their neighbors, they had to endure centuries of persecution at their hands. Before the light of the age of St. Francis of Assisi came the darkness of the age of St. Benedict. And the darkness gave way to light because men did not curse it. Rather, through their prayers, penance, and service to others—leaving their comfortable communities to evangelize their worldly neighbors—they learned how to find God where he seemed far off. 

God-with-Us

Jesus said, echoing the Jewish scriptures, that friendship with God comes not from extraordinary experiences, but from living with a “pure heart,” as he did, doing God’s will even when one’s feelings point the other way. One must turn away from evil and order one’s life according to truth and charity, no matter the cost, trusting that God will bring our trials to an end when the time is right. If one does not experience the enchantment of God in his life, he should try doing God’s will anyway—as he knows best in conscience (aided by prayer)—and then perhaps he will find God. If the world is far from God, then if we do God’s will in the world, God will be there through us. As John of the Cross, theologian of the “dark night of the soul,” once said, “Where there is no love, put love there, and then you will find love.” 

If we wait to give ourselves to God until we experience supernatural enchantment, we risk waiting a lifetime and leaving the world—and ourselves—little better than when we entered it. If we want to leave the best legacy we can in this life, we should follow Jesus’s example by loving the truth and our fellow men, even when we don’t feel like it. That means embracing pain—something especially difficult for us in these times of material abundance, when we flee suffering and the tedium of ordinary life. Resisting excessive love of comfort is a challenge in every age, and a duty for anyone who wants to lead a good life. But we are more likely to give up the fight if we devote our attention more to religious experience than to religion’s essence: giving all our thoughts, desires, and deeds to our Creator.

Christians, as they commemorate Jesus’s death, should particularly examine their consciences on these points. Do they complain resentfully about the world, or do they embrace this disenchanted, secular age as the form in which Jesus has chosen to meet them—hidden in the painful experience of God’s absence? Rather than recoil from the bitterness of living in a godless era, do Christians strive to find God in that bitterness—mercifully coming to meet them when they feel most alone? 

God is with us—not just in mystical consolations, but in all our sufferings, even the most mundane. If we took this truth seriously, our secular age would in good time be transformed. From the wounds of its disenchantment, springs of strength, justice, and concord would flow into the world—just as from the wounds of the resurrected Jesus, new life flows into all who answer the call to come, follow him on the way of the Cross.

Image by Renáta Sedmáková and licensed via Adobe Stock.

I was pleased to attend the launch of the book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada in Toronto on April 15. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition shares the hopes of the editors of the book - that this book will change the Canadian debate.

Unravelling MAiD in Canada is a thorough 530 page book that features chapters by: Ramona Coelho, K. Sonu Gaind, Trudo Lemmens, Mary Shariff, Leonie Herx, Alexander Simpson, Roland Jones, Gabrielle Peters, Hon Graydon Nicholas, Isabel Grant, Derek Ross, Mark Sinyor, Ayal Schaffer, Catherine Ferrier.

EPC has copies of this important book available for purchase. Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

• Dr. Ramona Coelho, family physician and Senior Fellow of domestic and health policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
• Dr. K. Sonu Gaind, Professor, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto and Chief of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook
• Dr. Trudo Lemmens, Professor and Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Unravelling MAiD in Canada has chapters that focus on: general medicine, psychiatry, palliative care, Canadian law, health policy, disability rights and ethics.

With the number of (MAiD) euthanasia deaths in Canada and how the law expanded in 2021 (Bill C-7), Unravelling MAiD in Canada is an important book for Canadians and other people in countries that are debating the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. 

EPC has copies of this important book available for purchase. Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When euthanasia was first legalized it was based on providing euthanasia for competent adults who were freely capable of consenting. 

People with dementia are not competent adults who are capable of consenting. 

If euthanasia for dementia is accepted, then euthanasia for people with cognitive disabilities will be next.

There is a kind of silence that unsettles—the awkward hush of a crowded room when the music stops. And then there is the silence I encountered at Clear Creek Abbey: a silence so full it seemed to hum with the voice of God. My four-day retreat there, nestled in the hills of eastern Oklahoma, was not a retreat in the modern sense—a break from stress or a spiritual spa treatment. It was an immersion…

Source

British, French and German diplomats have reportedly been looking for ways to help Kiev restore relations with the US, the outlet claimed

French diplomats reportedly helped Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky write a conciliatory letter to US President Donald Trump in a bid to help the two leaders mend ties, Politico reported on Wednesday, citing an anonymous official.

Relations between Trump and Zelensky soured following the Ukrainian leader’s visit to Washington in late February. During a meeting at the White House, which included US Vice President J.D. Vance, Zelensky pushed back against Trump’s attempts to get Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table.

In response, Trump and Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for US support and “gambling with World War III” by refusing to engage in peace talks with Moscow. The meeting was cut short and Zelensky was told to leave and come back only when he is ready for peace. Trump also temporarily halted all US military assistance to Ukraine after the heated exchange, but later resumed support after Kiev agreed to a 30-day ceasefire proposal.

Despite resumed contacts, relations between Zelensky and Trump have remained strained, Politico noted. In the weeks after the row, diplomats in France, Germany and the UK “sweated over how to try and repair the badly damaged relationship between Trump and Zelensky,” the outlet claimed.

While British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was holding calls with both leaders and sent advisors to both Washington and Kiev, French diplomats were helping Zelensky write a letter seeking reconciliation with Trump, Politico wrote, citing a French official.

While the content of the letter has not been made public, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has stated that it contained an apology from the Ukrainian leader for the Oval Office scandal. The US president also confirmed receiving an “important” letter from Zelensky in which the latter had expressed his readiness to “come to the negotiating table as soon as possible.” 

Russia and Ukraine subsequently agreed to a 30-day partial ceasefire under which the two sides were to refrain from targeting each other’s energy infrastructure. However, Moscow has since accused Kiev of breaching the truce on an almost daily basis.

Meanwhile, following a five-hour-long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Witkoff stated on Monday that the Ukraine peace process was on “the verge” of a breakthrough. He also acknowledged that the Russian leader is pursuing a permanent resolution of the conflict, a position that Moscow has consistently articulated from the beginning.

Happiness levels have remained “surprisingly resilient” in the face of external shocks, a poll has found

Almost 80% of Russians feel happy despite the external challenges, according to a nationwide poll released on Wednesday.

The survey by state pollster VCIOM suggests that the overall sense of wellbeing among the population remains robust, with only the proportion of individuals identifying as absolutely or moderately happy fluctuating from month to month.

In its latest poll, which surveyed some 1,600 Russians over the age of 18 last month, VCIOM asked the respondents: “There are good and bad things in life, but overall, would you say you are happy?”

The pollster found that 79% of Russians described themselves as “happy in one way or another,” with more than a third (36%) saying they were “absolutely happy.” 

“As recent years have shown, happiness levels in Russia have remained surprisingly resilient in the face of external shocks,” the pollster noted.

VCIOM cited the Covid-19 pandemic, which it claims did not lead to widespread despondency, as proof of “the psychological resilience of the population.”

According to the latest World Happiness Report, meanwhile, Russia ranked 66th among the 147 countries surveyed last year. Finland was reported as the happiest and Afghanistan the least happy.

READ MORE: Many Russians oppose women as bosses – survey

Among European nations, the unhappiest was Ukraine, which also ranked 111th globally.

The World Happiness Report is an annual publication that measures global contentment based on life evaluations, social support, freedom of choice, GDP per capita, and additional indicators of wellbeing. The data is drawn from the Gallup World Poll and various supplementary sources.

The US president’s first international trip this term will be to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE – three pillars of his foreign policy

US President Donald Trump is planning a visit to Saudi Arabia in May, his first international trip since the beginning of his second term as president.

Saudi Arabia has been considered a potential venue for talks between Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Notably, delegations from both Russia and the US have already held meetings in Riyadh.

Despite these diplomatic contacts, the White House has so far refrained from officially disclosing the goals of Trump’s visit. According to Axios, the main objective of the trip is to strengthen partnerships with the countries of the Persian Gulf and to discuss ways to stabilize the situation in the Middle East.

It is worth noting that Saudi Arabia was also the destination of Trump’s first foreign visit during his initial term as president in 2017. At the time, the choice of Riyadh was seen as a symbolic gesture, underscoring the strategic importance of the region for Washington.

Sources cited by Axios indicate that the trip was originally scheduled for April 28 but was postponed to mid-May. It is reported that the Saudi side initially hoped to host the American leader after a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine had been established, which would have given the visit additional weight in the context of global peace efforts.

There is nothing surprising about the fact that Donald Trump’s first overseas visit in his second term will take place in the Middle East. Moreover, Saudi Arabia will only be the first stop on a tour – visits to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also planned. These countries today form a kind of political and economic triangle of influence in the Persian Gulf region and have become key partners for Washington amid a shifting global geopolitical landscape.

Trump’s chosen route reflects not only the current diplomatic priorities of the US but also a deeper shift in the global positioning of American foreign policy. Unlike the EU – where the attitude toward Trump remains cautious, if not openly critical – the Gulf states are demonstrating a willingness for dialogue and even close cooperation. These countries and Trump share a pragmatic outlook: an interest in regional stability, economic growth, energy cooperation, and the containment of regional rivals such as Iran.

Today, the Gulf countries are no longer simply oil monarchies; they are fully-fledged players on the international stage. Saudi Arabia is advancing a large-scale modernization program known as Vision 2030, aiming to diversify its economy and strengthen its geopolitical agency. Qatar, despite its small size, has become an influential mediator in regional conflicts and plays an active role in humanitarian and diplomatic affairs. The UAE, for its part, positions itself as a hub for technological innovation and logistics, aspiring to become the “Singapore of the Middle East.” These nations have long transcended their regional importance and now actively shape agendas not only within the Middle East but on the global stage as well.

The contrast with the EU is stark. US relations with the bloc are currently experiencing a period of strain. Washington is frustrated with the lack of a unified foreign policy stance in Brussels, internal crises in key EU member states, and a limited willingness to engage in practical matters of international security. Still reeling from energy and migration crises, Europe faces challenges in internal cohesion and declining economic competitiveness. Against this backdrop, its significance in US strategic planning is gradually giving way to more dynamic and resource-rich partners.

Thus, Trump’s focus on the Middle East is not only a logical continuation of his course toward a pragmatic alliance with politically convenient and economically significant states but also a signal of a reassessment of traditional centers of power. While Western Europe today is becoming a zone of uncertainty, the Gulf countries are islands of stability, ambition, and opportunity – assets the Trump administration seeks to convert into geopolitical dividends.

One of the key factors defining the foreign policy priorities of Donald Trump’s second term is a pronounced economic pragmatism. Trump’s team is essentially an alliance of politicians and business figures, many of whom came to the White House from the corporate world, where efficiency and profit are the main benchmarks. That’s why the interest in the Gulf states is driven not only by geopolitical considerations but also by deep economic motivations.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are not just security allies – they are among the wealthiest nations in the world, possessing vast sovereign wealth funds that diversify assets globally. For Washington, this presents an opportunity to attract significant investment into the US economy – from infrastructure and technology to real estate. Gulf-based funds are already actively involved in financing American companies, startups, and financial institutions, and Trump, with his background in real estate and finance, sees these nations as strategic investors with whom deep economic partnerships – not just political ones – must be built.

Moreover, energy will be a central focus of Trump’s visit and negotiations. Despite rising domestic oil and gas production, the US remains interested in keeping global energy prices relatively stable and, ideally, low. This is especially important amid efforts to combat inflation and promote economic growth domestically. The Gulf states – major producers of oil and gas – play a key role in setting global energy prices. Therefore, Washington is seeking to coordinate strategic approaches to energy market regulation with them.

Beyond direct control over oil supplies, these states hold significant influence within OPEC and have strengthened their positions in the global energy landscape through investments in refining, transport, and new technologies, including hydrogen and LNG (liquefied natural gas). The US interest goes beyond simply buying resources – integration of American energy and petrochemical companies into large-scale infrastructure and industrial investment projects in the region is also vital.

Strategically, closer economic ties with the Gulf allow the US not only to maintain favorable conditions for its own economy but also to compete with China, which in recent years has been actively expanding into the region through trade, investment, and technology agreements.

Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to the Middle East in May cannot be viewed solely through the lens of diplomatic protocol or the traditional strengthening of alliances – it is a trip rich with strategic, economic, and geopolitical substance. The chosen itinerary – including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – reflects not only Washington’s regional interests but also the broader architecture of Trump’s foreign policy priorities, built around power, influence, and economic gain.

Against the backdrop of growing tensions between the US and Iran, Trump is seeking to solidify America’s position in the region through an even closer alliance with the leading Arab monarchies. In recent months, Iran’s rhetoric and actions have intensified, raising serious concerns in Washington. The possibility of open – albeit limited – conflict is being openly discussed both among experts and within the US establishment. In this context, the Gulf states – long-standing opponents of Iran – are Trump’s natural allies. Joint efforts to contain Tehran, coordination on defense policy, the development of joint military initiatives, and potential participation in a regional security framework will all be important topics of discussion in Riyadh, Doha, and Abu Dhabi.

However, Trump’s regional strategy goes far beyond merely containing Iran. One of the key objectives of his trip is to advance his plan for normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world – a continuation of the so-called Abraham Accords initiated during his first term. Trump sees himself as the architect of a unique shift in Middle Eastern politics, in which countries historically hostile to Israel began moving toward rapprochement in exchange for security guarantees, investment, and US diplomatic mediation. Given the current escalation of the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, Trump is seeking the support of Arab leaders to formulate a new approach to the Palestinian issue.

Essentially, the aim is to create a new regional consensus: Washington is offering Gulf leaders not just participation in the peace process, but the opportunity to become full-fledged architects of it. Achieving this would require a delicate balance between Israel’s interests and the need to address the Palestinian position – a challenge by any measure. Nevertheless, Arab countries – particularly the UAE and Qatar – have sufficient political clout, financial resources, and channels of influence to play the role of mediators, provided their involvement aligns with their own strategic interests and international standing.

All of these diplomatic, strategic, and economic goals are interlinked. The Trump administration, heavily composed of business-minded figures, sees the strengthening of economic ties with the Gulf not only as a way to attract investment into the US but also as a tool for influencing the regional agenda. Mutual interest in stable energy markets, high-tech cooperation, and shared approaches to regional security creates a foundation for deep, long-term cooperation.

In this light, Trump is heading to the Middle East with a comprehensive agenda: countering Iran, promoting a new model of Middle East peace, forging economic partnerships, and reinforcing his own political standing both internationally and domestically. His bet on the Gulf leadership reflects a broader reassessment of US foreign policy priorities: as the EU today loses trust and strategic relevance, the countries of the Persian Gulf are not merely emerging as alternatives, but as a new center of gravity for American policy in the East.

On the economic front, the Trump administration expects tangible outcomes from the visit: the signing of new trade deals, expansion of American corporate presence in the region, and stimulation of investment flows into key sectors of the US economy – from energy to advanced technologies and the defense industry. For Trump, whose political instincts are deeply rooted in business, foreign policy is closely tied to commercial interests, and the Middle East, in this model, is viewed as a market of opportunity, a resource partner, and a source of financial liquidity.

Politically, the visit serves a dual purpose. First, it is meant to demonstrate to the international community that the US remains capable of setting the agenda in one of the world’s most volatile and strategically important regions. Second, it sends a message to the domestic electorate: Trump is positioning himself as a strong leader who knows how to negotiate, expand American influence abroad, and secure the country’s economic interests through a diplomacy of strength and strategic deals. Altogether, this trip is far more than a symbolic diplomatic gesture – it is a multilayered initiative aimed at reinforcing US influence in a new global order defined by calculation, pragmatism, and control over key resources.